Saturday, March 2, 2019
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Already Down To The Final Four
The Bigger Picture
Published on February 1st 2012 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
And then there were four. First Herman Cain was driven from the race for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination by a litany of adultery and sexual harassment allegations before the first votes were even cast in Iowa. Then Michelle Bachman followed suit after her dismal showing in the Iowa caucuses. But after the results from the second primary contest in New Hampshire were announced, Bachman and Cain were soon joined on the political campaign sidelines by Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman.
Huntsman was the first to go even though he finished a respectable third with almost 17% of the votes in the New Hampshire primary. But with less than 1% of the vote a week earlier in Iowa, Huntsman had been counting on a second place finish in New Hampshire to breathe some life back into his presidential campaign. So given his poor prospects with the much more conservative voters in South Carolina’s third Republican contest, Huntsman decided to call it quits rather than continue a futile campaign for the Republican nomination.
As I have noted in my previous columns, Huntsman never really had a chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2012 largely because he was also the only Republican candidate who resonated with moderate Republican and independent voters like me. But the Republican Party of today is dominated by anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-government and anti-tax social conservatives and Tea Party extremists. As a result, any Republican candidate who demonstrates willingness to compromise with Democrats or President Obama is vilified by right wing activists who also condemn the very idea of political compromise.
When he announced his withdrawal from the 2012 Republican Presidential contest, Huntsman also noted the chilling effect that the extremely negative political views of these Republican activists were having, not only on the Republican Party but also on the American people. Huntsman’s withdrawal announcement says, “At its core the Republican Party is a party of ideas, but the current toxic form of our political discourse does not help our cause and is just one of the many reasons the American people has lost trust in their leaders.”
The other big loser in New Hampshire was Texas Governor Rick Perry, who followed up his 10% of the vote and fifth place showing in Iowa with an abysmal sixth place finish and less than 1% of New Hampshire Republicans’ votes. But even though Perry’s withdrawal just two days before the South Carolina primary wasn’t a surprise, his subsequent endorsement of Newt Gingrich for President did help Gingrich win the South Carolina primary by a much larger margin over second place Mitt Romney than most political observers expected.
Gingrich has been surging in recent Republican polls so his resounding 40% to 28% victory over Mitt Romney in South Carolina now sets up what will essentially be a two horse race for the Republican Presidential nomination. The other two candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, don’t have a chance of winning the nomination because they don’t have the campaign financing or a broad enough base of support beyond their core constituencies.
But even though it only took a few weeks and the results from the first two Republican Presidential primaries to cut the Republican field of presidential candidates in half, since Mitt Romney is sinking in the polls I expect it to take at least another couple of months before we see any of the four remaining contenders withdraw from the race. Rick Santorum narrowly won the Iowa caucuses thanks to his support from social conservatives and has no compelling reason to drop out of the race so long as they continue to support him. Ron Paul has an equally supportive base of libertarian voters who have thus far shown no inclination to vote for the other candidates so there is no reason he should quit the race either.
So I will discuss why the pre-election favourite, Mitt Romney, is now in trouble, the other reasons why both Santorum and Paul are likely to remain in the race, and the results of the Florida primary as well as the Nevada and Maine caucuses in my next column.
Published on February 1st 2012 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
And then there were four. First Herman Cain was driven from the race for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination by a litany of adultery and sexual harassment allegations before the first votes were even cast in Iowa. Then Michelle Bachman followed suit after her dismal showing in the Iowa caucuses. But after the results from the second primary contest in New Hampshire were announced, Bachman and Cain were soon joined on the political campaign sidelines by Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman.
Huntsman was the first to go even though he finished a respectable third with almost 17% of the votes in the New Hampshire primary. But with less than 1% of the vote a week earlier in Iowa, Huntsman had been counting on a second place finish in New Hampshire to breathe some life back into his presidential campaign. So given his poor prospects with the much more conservative voters in South Carolina’s third Republican contest, Huntsman decided to call it quits rather than continue a futile campaign for the Republican nomination.
As I have noted in my previous columns, Huntsman never really had a chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2012 largely because he was also the only Republican candidate who resonated with moderate Republican and independent voters like me. But the Republican Party of today is dominated by anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-government and anti-tax social conservatives and Tea Party extremists. As a result, any Republican candidate who demonstrates willingness to compromise with Democrats or President Obama is vilified by right wing activists who also condemn the very idea of political compromise.
When he announced his withdrawal from the 2012 Republican Presidential contest, Huntsman also noted the chilling effect that the extremely negative political views of these Republican activists were having, not only on the Republican Party but also on the American people. Huntsman’s withdrawal announcement says, “At its core the Republican Party is a party of ideas, but the current toxic form of our political discourse does not help our cause and is just one of the many reasons the American people has lost trust in their leaders.”
The other big loser in New Hampshire was Texas Governor Rick Perry, who followed up his 10% of the vote and fifth place showing in Iowa with an abysmal sixth place finish and less than 1% of New Hampshire Republicans’ votes. But even though Perry’s withdrawal just two days before the South Carolina primary wasn’t a surprise, his subsequent endorsement of Newt Gingrich for President did help Gingrich win the South Carolina primary by a much larger margin over second place Mitt Romney than most political observers expected.
Gingrich has been surging in recent Republican polls so his resounding 40% to 28% victory over Mitt Romney in South Carolina now sets up what will essentially be a two horse race for the Republican Presidential nomination. The other two candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, don’t have a chance of winning the nomination because they don’t have the campaign financing or a broad enough base of support beyond their core constituencies.
But even though it only took a few weeks and the results from the first two Republican Presidential primaries to cut the Republican field of presidential candidates in half, since Mitt Romney is sinking in the polls I expect it to take at least another couple of months before we see any of the four remaining contenders withdraw from the race. Rick Santorum narrowly won the Iowa caucuses thanks to his support from social conservatives and has no compelling reason to drop out of the race so long as they continue to support him. Ron Paul has an equally supportive base of libertarian voters who have thus far shown no inclination to vote for the other candidates so there is no reason he should quit the race either.
So I will discuss why the pre-election favourite, Mitt Romney, is now in trouble, the other reasons why both Santorum and Paul are likely to remain in the race, and the results of the Florida primary as well as the Nevada and Maine caucuses in my next column.
The First Vote Tallies Are In & Bachman Is Out
The Bigger Picture
Published on January 15th 2012 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Now that the results of the Iowa caucuses are in, today I will discuss the results of the Iowa caucuses and their impact on the Republican field and then begin a more in depth analysis of each of the remaining candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination.
One of the first casualties of the Iowa Republican primary was actually an Iowa native Representative Michele Bachman. Ms. Bachman had spent most of her time and campaign money barnstorming the state where she grew up, hoping that the combination of her evangelical Christian and Tea Party bona fides would allow her to finish as one of the top two or three Republican candidates. Instead, her rather dismal sixth place finish with a measly 5% of the vote effectively ended her campaign for 2012 Republican Presidential nomination.
In fact the only active Republican candidate Bachman finished ahead of was former Utah Governor, Jon Huntsman, who barely spent any time or money campaigning in Iowa. However, even though Bachman has now suspended her 2012 Presidential campaign, because she is both photogenic and a favorite of Tea Party and evangelical Christians, I strongly suspect she will try to run for President again in 2016 and or 2020.
As for Governor Huntsman, even though he finished dead last with only 1% of the Republican votes, Huntsman didn’t expect to do well in Iowa and had focused his time and resources on the 10 January New Hampshire primary. Although Huntsman is far and away the best Republican candidate in the field, I simply don’t believe his more moderate positions on issues like the economy, taxes, and climate change to resonate with enough Republican voters to give him any real chance of winning in 2012. However, given Republicans general lack of enthusiasm for the rest of the field of Republican candidates, if Huntsman finishes as one of the top two vote getters in New Hampshire he may indeed still have a chance in 2012.
Besides Bachman, the other two Republican candidates who had to be most disappointed with the Iowa caucus results were former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, who finished fourth with 13% of the vote, and Texas Governor Rick Perry, who finished fifth with only 10% of the vote. Perry in particular had to very disheartened by his poor showing given all the time and money he had spent in Iowa, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see him be the next candidate to follow Bachman’s lead and head for the exits.
On the other hand, Newt Gingrich’s fourth place finish wasn’t all that bad considering the fact that he had been targeted by a series of very negative campaign ads paid for by ‘independent’ PACs aligned with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. I therefore fully expect Gingrich to continue his 2012 Presidential campaign for at least a couple of more months provided he can finish among the top three vote getters in the remaining January primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada. But if Gingrich fails to crack the top three by the end of January, then I believe his 2012 Presidential campaign will be doomed.
As for the other Republican candidates, unlike many other political pundits, I wasn’t surprised by the close finish of the top three vote getters because I understand how each of the three appeals to their particular base of voters.
Ron Paul’s third place showing with 21% of the vote is a reflection of his attractiveness to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Paul’s libertarian philosophy resonates with Republican libertarians who comprise about 20%-25% of Republican voters.
Former Senator Rick Santorum’s virtual tie for first with the best funded candidate, Mitt Romney, is likewise a reflection of his appeal to evangelical Christians and Tea Party activists. As for Romney, he appeals to more pragmatic Republicans who comprise about a quarter of Republican voters and favor the best organized and well funded candidates. I will discuss Romney as well as the New Hampshire results next month.
Published on January 15th 2012 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Now that the results of the Iowa caucuses are in, today I will discuss the results of the Iowa caucuses and their impact on the Republican field and then begin a more in depth analysis of each of the remaining candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination.
One of the first casualties of the Iowa Republican primary was actually an Iowa native Representative Michele Bachman. Ms. Bachman had spent most of her time and campaign money barnstorming the state where she grew up, hoping that the combination of her evangelical Christian and Tea Party bona fides would allow her to finish as one of the top two or three Republican candidates. Instead, her rather dismal sixth place finish with a measly 5% of the vote effectively ended her campaign for 2012 Republican Presidential nomination.
In fact the only active Republican candidate Bachman finished ahead of was former Utah Governor, Jon Huntsman, who barely spent any time or money campaigning in Iowa. However, even though Bachman has now suspended her 2012 Presidential campaign, because she is both photogenic and a favorite of Tea Party and evangelical Christians, I strongly suspect she will try to run for President again in 2016 and or 2020.
As for Governor Huntsman, even though he finished dead last with only 1% of the Republican votes, Huntsman didn’t expect to do well in Iowa and had focused his time and resources on the 10 January New Hampshire primary. Although Huntsman is far and away the best Republican candidate in the field, I simply don’t believe his more moderate positions on issues like the economy, taxes, and climate change to resonate with enough Republican voters to give him any real chance of winning in 2012. However, given Republicans general lack of enthusiasm for the rest of the field of Republican candidates, if Huntsman finishes as one of the top two vote getters in New Hampshire he may indeed still have a chance in 2012.
Besides Bachman, the other two Republican candidates who had to be most disappointed with the Iowa caucus results were former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, who finished fourth with 13% of the vote, and Texas Governor Rick Perry, who finished fifth with only 10% of the vote. Perry in particular had to very disheartened by his poor showing given all the time and money he had spent in Iowa, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see him be the next candidate to follow Bachman’s lead and head for the exits.
On the other hand, Newt Gingrich’s fourth place finish wasn’t all that bad considering the fact that he had been targeted by a series of very negative campaign ads paid for by ‘independent’ PACs aligned with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. I therefore fully expect Gingrich to continue his 2012 Presidential campaign for at least a couple of more months provided he can finish among the top three vote getters in the remaining January primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada. But if Gingrich fails to crack the top three by the end of January, then I believe his 2012 Presidential campaign will be doomed.
As for the other Republican candidates, unlike many other political pundits, I wasn’t surprised by the close finish of the top three vote getters because I understand how each of the three appeals to their particular base of voters.
Ron Paul’s third place showing with 21% of the vote is a reflection of his attractiveness to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Paul’s libertarian philosophy resonates with Republican libertarians who comprise about 20%-25% of Republican voters.
Former Senator Rick Santorum’s virtual tie for first with the best funded candidate, Mitt Romney, is likewise a reflection of his appeal to evangelical Christians and Tea Party activists. As for Romney, he appeals to more pragmatic Republicans who comprise about a quarter of Republican voters and favor the best organized and well funded candidates. I will discuss Romney as well as the New Hampshire results next month.
The Bigger Picture
Published on January 1st 2012 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I hope all of you have enjoyed the Holidays and that the New Year of 2012 will bring you good health, happiness and the realization of your hopes for the future. But back in the states voters will troop to the Iowa caucuses this week to initiate the process of choosing the Republican Party’s next presidential candidate. So in this week’s column I will provide you with a snapshot of the Republican Party’s remaining presidential candidates and will provide a more in depth analysis of each candidate and their chances of success in my future columns.
I have already discussed the first casualty, former Governor Tim Pawlenty, in a previous column. Of the remaining candidates another three are also former governors, one is a sitting governor, one is a former member of the US House of Representatives and two are sitting members, one is a former US Senator and the other one has never held elected office.
Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, was the first to announce he was running for the 2012 GOP nomination. As governor, Johnson used his veto powers more often than the other 49 American governors combined to build a strong record as a fiscal conservative. Johnson was the founder of one of New Mexico’s largest construction companies before he became governor and although he has no chance of winning, is one of the more interesting candidates because of his socially liberal libertarian positions as a strong critic of the ‘War on Drugs’ and as an advocate for the decriminalization of marijuana.
Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, was the next Republican to announce he was running for President. Gingrich is currently running fourth and has been nothing if not controversial throughout his career with his conservative fiscal and social positions. He converted to Catholicism in 2009, has a PhD in modern European history and along with Ron Paul is considered to be one of the two intellectuals in the field.
U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas declared his candidacy on May 13th and is an intellectual who has adopted controversial positions on many issues. Paul was a physician prior to running for Congress and was a strong opponent of the Iraq War. But like Gary Johnson, he is a fiscal conservative and socially liberal libertarian with no chance of winning.
Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfathers Pizza who announced he was running for President on May 21st of this year. Cain is also a former lobbyist who has a history of sexually harassing women while he was lobbying Congress and is now considering withdrawing from the race because he was exposed as an adulterer. In spite of this, Cain became one of the top four Republicans and a Tea Party favorite because of his strong anti-tax anti-government views. Although he was considered to be a fiscal and social conservative, Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan was also widely derided by economists and the other GOP candidates.
On June 2nd, the former governor of Massachusetts and 2008 Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney made his long anticipated entry into the 2012 contest and is also one of the top four candidates. Romney is popular with establishment Republicans, but has been unable to gain traction with social conservatives despite his moves to adopt their positions.
Former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum announced he would run for the GOP nomination on June 6th. Santorum is a fiscal conservative but is much better known for his very strong pro Iraq War and anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-evolution and anti-homosexual views. I’m happy to say he also has no chance of winning the nomination.
The former governor of Utah and US Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman entered the race on June 21st and is the only Republican candidate whose views appeal to moderate and independent voters like me. He is a fiscal conservative but is the polar opposite of Tea Party favorites, Perry and Cain, on climate change, evolution, immigration and gay marriage.
Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota declared her candidacy on June 27th and is also one of the favorites of Tea Party activists. She is a fiscal and social conservative whose win in the August 13th Ames Iowa Straw Poll drove Tim Pawlenty out of the 2012 presidential race.
The sitting governor of Texas, Rick Perry, entered the race for president on August 13th and is currently in third place. He is another fiscal and social conservative, who joined the field late because of the dissatisfaction of Tea Party activists with the other candidates.
I will begin a more in depth analysis of each of these candidates and also discuss the results of the Iowa caucuses and their impact on the Republican field in my next column.
Published on January 1st 2012 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I hope all of you have enjoyed the Holidays and that the New Year of 2012 will bring you good health, happiness and the realization of your hopes for the future. But back in the states voters will troop to the Iowa caucuses this week to initiate the process of choosing the Republican Party’s next presidential candidate. So in this week’s column I will provide you with a snapshot of the Republican Party’s remaining presidential candidates and will provide a more in depth analysis of each candidate and their chances of success in my future columns.
I have already discussed the first casualty, former Governor Tim Pawlenty, in a previous column. Of the remaining candidates another three are also former governors, one is a sitting governor, one is a former member of the US House of Representatives and two are sitting members, one is a former US Senator and the other one has never held elected office.
Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, was the first to announce he was running for the 2012 GOP nomination. As governor, Johnson used his veto powers more often than the other 49 American governors combined to build a strong record as a fiscal conservative. Johnson was the founder of one of New Mexico’s largest construction companies before he became governor and although he has no chance of winning, is one of the more interesting candidates because of his socially liberal libertarian positions as a strong critic of the ‘War on Drugs’ and as an advocate for the decriminalization of marijuana.
Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, was the next Republican to announce he was running for President. Gingrich is currently running fourth and has been nothing if not controversial throughout his career with his conservative fiscal and social positions. He converted to Catholicism in 2009, has a PhD in modern European history and along with Ron Paul is considered to be one of the two intellectuals in the field.
U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas declared his candidacy on May 13th and is an intellectual who has adopted controversial positions on many issues. Paul was a physician prior to running for Congress and was a strong opponent of the Iraq War. But like Gary Johnson, he is a fiscal conservative and socially liberal libertarian with no chance of winning.
Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfathers Pizza who announced he was running for President on May 21st of this year. Cain is also a former lobbyist who has a history of sexually harassing women while he was lobbying Congress and is now considering withdrawing from the race because he was exposed as an adulterer. In spite of this, Cain became one of the top four Republicans and a Tea Party favorite because of his strong anti-tax anti-government views. Although he was considered to be a fiscal and social conservative, Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan was also widely derided by economists and the other GOP candidates.
On June 2nd, the former governor of Massachusetts and 2008 Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney made his long anticipated entry into the 2012 contest and is also one of the top four candidates. Romney is popular with establishment Republicans, but has been unable to gain traction with social conservatives despite his moves to adopt their positions.
Former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum announced he would run for the GOP nomination on June 6th. Santorum is a fiscal conservative but is much better known for his very strong pro Iraq War and anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-evolution and anti-homosexual views. I’m happy to say he also has no chance of winning the nomination.
The former governor of Utah and US Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman entered the race on June 21st and is the only Republican candidate whose views appeal to moderate and independent voters like me. He is a fiscal conservative but is the polar opposite of Tea Party favorites, Perry and Cain, on climate change, evolution, immigration and gay marriage.
Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota declared her candidacy on June 27th and is also one of the favorites of Tea Party activists. She is a fiscal and social conservative whose win in the August 13th Ames Iowa Straw Poll drove Tim Pawlenty out of the 2012 presidential race.
The sitting governor of Texas, Rick Perry, entered the race for president on August 13th and is currently in third place. He is another fiscal and social conservative, who joined the field late because of the dissatisfaction of Tea Party activists with the other candidates.
I will begin a more in depth analysis of each of these candidates and also discuss the results of the Iowa caucuses and their impact on the Republican field in my next column.
Sarah and Non-Candidate Republican Representatives
The Bigger Picture
Published on December 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Since Republicans will begin voting in their first presidential primaries in January, I will be devoting my future 2012 columns to Republican candidates who are still running for President. But in my final column of 2011 I’m going to discuss the other three Republican presidential hopefuls and their stated as well as their real reasons for declining to run in 2012.
Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana was a darling of the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage Christian right wing who also won a presidential straw poll held at the annual Values Voters Summit in September 2010. But Pence was also the number one Republican presidential choice of the former House Republican leader from Texas, Dick Armey, who is also the leader of Freedom Works one of the right wing billionaire Koch brothers’ favorite Tea Party political action committee campaign fundraising ‘charities.’
But despite the anxious prodding of Dick Armey and the Koch brothers, on January 27th Mike Pence also became the first Republican contender to announce he wouldn’t run for President in 2012. While Pence did not deny his interest in running for President at some point in the future, he said his wife and three young children as well as the state of Indiana needed him more than his country. What he didn’t say was that since Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels couldn’t run for governor again because of term limits, Pence would also have an easier road to the Indiana statehouse than he would have to the US White House.
The other Republican contender from the House of Representatives was Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the architect of the Republican plan to slash America’s budget deficit by cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits without raising taxes or cutting defense spending. But despite his credibility with fiscal conservatives Ryan was also a Catholic who never aroused the passions of Tea Party activists and Christian conservatives.
So on August 22nd I wasn’t surprised Paul Ryan dashed the hopes of many Republican fiscal conservatives by announcing he would not run for President in 2012. But I also believe that another factor neither Pence nor Ryan care to acknowledge, is the fact that no serving member of the US House of Representatives has ever been elected President.
Last, but certainly not least, was Sarah Palin’s announcement on October 5th that she would join the list of Republican governors who had decided not to run for President in 2012. Although I have always believed Sarah Palin lacked the intelligence and emotional stability one needs to be President of the United States, I have never doubted her abilities as a political campaigner. But in the aftermath of McCain’s loss to President Obama, Palin’s over the top responses to complaints by Republican campaign staffers about her actions as a vice presidential candidate showed that she also had a very thin skin. It was at this point that I began to have doubts Palin would ever run for President because a thick skin is a necessary prerequisite for a Presidential candidate due to the intense media scrutiny they endure.
Those doubts were reinforced in July of 2009 when, in the midst of a legislative investigation of her conduct as governor, Palin announced she would not run for re-election as governor and then resigned with a year and a half remaining in her first term as governor. This was followed by her eleven state bus tour promoting her bestselling book, a six figure job as an occasional contributor for Fox News and then a starring role in highly rated cable TV show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska.
But any doubts I still had about Sarah Palin’s presidential aspirations were finally put to rest when it was revealed in June of this year that Sarah Palin had purchased an 8,000 square foot luxury home in Scottsdale Arizona for a tidy $1,700,000. That was when I knew that no matter how long Palin strung out her announcement, she was never going to run for President in 2012. Palin’s brief turn as a vice presidential candidate had transformed her into a national celebrity and while Palin may not be Presidential material, she is also nobody’s fool. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out what Palin did; that a national celebrity can cash in on their fame without ever having to endure the rigors of running for President.
Published on December 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Since Republicans will begin voting in their first presidential primaries in January, I will be devoting my future 2012 columns to Republican candidates who are still running for President. But in my final column of 2011 I’m going to discuss the other three Republican presidential hopefuls and their stated as well as their real reasons for declining to run in 2012.
Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana was a darling of the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage Christian right wing who also won a presidential straw poll held at the annual Values Voters Summit in September 2010. But Pence was also the number one Republican presidential choice of the former House Republican leader from Texas, Dick Armey, who is also the leader of Freedom Works one of the right wing billionaire Koch brothers’ favorite Tea Party political action committee campaign fundraising ‘charities.’
But despite the anxious prodding of Dick Armey and the Koch brothers, on January 27th Mike Pence also became the first Republican contender to announce he wouldn’t run for President in 2012. While Pence did not deny his interest in running for President at some point in the future, he said his wife and three young children as well as the state of Indiana needed him more than his country. What he didn’t say was that since Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels couldn’t run for governor again because of term limits, Pence would also have an easier road to the Indiana statehouse than he would have to the US White House.
The other Republican contender from the House of Representatives was Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the architect of the Republican plan to slash America’s budget deficit by cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits without raising taxes or cutting defense spending. But despite his credibility with fiscal conservatives Ryan was also a Catholic who never aroused the passions of Tea Party activists and Christian conservatives.
So on August 22nd I wasn’t surprised Paul Ryan dashed the hopes of many Republican fiscal conservatives by announcing he would not run for President in 2012. But I also believe that another factor neither Pence nor Ryan care to acknowledge, is the fact that no serving member of the US House of Representatives has ever been elected President.
Last, but certainly not least, was Sarah Palin’s announcement on October 5th that she would join the list of Republican governors who had decided not to run for President in 2012. Although I have always believed Sarah Palin lacked the intelligence and emotional stability one needs to be President of the United States, I have never doubted her abilities as a political campaigner. But in the aftermath of McCain’s loss to President Obama, Palin’s over the top responses to complaints by Republican campaign staffers about her actions as a vice presidential candidate showed that she also had a very thin skin. It was at this point that I began to have doubts Palin would ever run for President because a thick skin is a necessary prerequisite for a Presidential candidate due to the intense media scrutiny they endure.
Those doubts were reinforced in July of 2009 when, in the midst of a legislative investigation of her conduct as governor, Palin announced she would not run for re-election as governor and then resigned with a year and a half remaining in her first term as governor. This was followed by her eleven state bus tour promoting her bestselling book, a six figure job as an occasional contributor for Fox News and then a starring role in highly rated cable TV show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska.
But any doubts I still had about Sarah Palin’s presidential aspirations were finally put to rest when it was revealed in June of this year that Sarah Palin had purchased an 8,000 square foot luxury home in Scottsdale Arizona for a tidy $1,700,000. That was when I knew that no matter how long Palin strung out her announcement, she was never going to run for President in 2012. Palin’s brief turn as a vice presidential candidate had transformed her into a national celebrity and while Palin may not be Presidential material, she is also nobody’s fool. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out what Palin did; that a national celebrity can cash in on their fame without ever having to endure the rigors of running for President.
More Faint of Heart Republicans
The Bigger Picture
Published on December 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed the impact Tea Party activists and Christian ‘values’ voters had on the 2012 presidential campaign aspirations of three Republican governors who were held in high regard by the GOP establishment, but who are also no longer involved in the 2012 Presidential campaign. This week I will pivot to a discussion of the markedly different reasons why two other Republican governors declined to run for President in 2012.
The current Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, surprised many Republicans when he announced he had decided not to run for the GOP nomination on April 22nd of this year. Although Barbour cited the physical strain of a 63 year old man running for president as well as the family and duties as governor concerns expressed by Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie, Republican insiders claim his real reason was a more pragmatic one. Despite his fund raising prowess and numerous political and business connections, Barbour concluded that he simply couldn’t win the General election because of his racial segregationist past.
Barbour grew up in Yazoo City Mississippi during the 50’s and 60’s. In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to overturn state laws favoring racially segregated education, a Citizens Council led by William Barbour, Haley Barbour’s father figure uncle, was formed in Yazoo City. So when 53 African-American residents signed an August 1955 petition in favor of desegregating Yazoo City’s local schools, the Citizens Council retaliated by publishing their names and asking whites to stop dealing with them. Over the next four months 51 of the petition signers asked to have their names removed from the petition due to their loss of jobs and business.
But in an August 2010 interview with the Weekly Standard Barbour ignored this fact and claimed that the Citizens Council was an organization of town leaders that facilitated integration in Mississippi because “they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the (violent white racist) Ku Klux Klan would get their ass run out of town.”
Mind you, Haley Barbour had other political liabilities as a lobbyist for business special interest groups in Washington DC and Mississippi’s ranking as the worst of fifty states in a wide range of areas including, economic development, education and healthcare. But even though Barbour had been able to develop persuasive arguments for why those things shouldn’t be held against him, the fact is he was never able to come up with a satisfying response to charges about his segregationist past.
Much more surprising to this political commentator was former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s May 14th announcement that he would also not run for President in 2012. Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister who had used his Christian ‘values’ credentials to become a favorite of the Republican Party’s anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage Christian social conservatives. Despite John McCain and Mitt Romney’s huge cash advantages, he used their support to win the first Republican primary in Iowa and then ran a surprisingly close second to the eventual winner of the 2008 Republican nomination, John McCain.
Unlike Romney and most of the other Republican presidential candidates, Huckabee, is was very personable candidate who used his quick wit and self-deprecating sense of humor to good advantage with audiences out on the campaign trail as well as on the TV tube. His affability subsequently led to his current jobs as ABC’s replacement for legendary radio commentator Paul Harvey and as the TV host of Fox News weekend show “Huckabee”.
Huckabee was a consistent leader in polls of Republican voters so I was surprised on May 14th when he announced on his TV show that he would not run for President saying “All the factors say go, but my heart says no. But after further reflection I think he was telling the truth, just not the whole truth. Huckabee’s heart wasn’t in it because he has always hated trolling for campaign funds and he preferred drawing a seven figure annual income from a few hours of TV and radio work every week to the rigors of campaigning for President.
I will discuss the real reasons why three other Republican hopefuls decided not to run, including my favorite Republican diva Sarah Palin, in my next and last column of 2011.
Published on December 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed the impact Tea Party activists and Christian ‘values’ voters had on the 2012 presidential campaign aspirations of three Republican governors who were held in high regard by the GOP establishment, but who are also no longer involved in the 2012 Presidential campaign. This week I will pivot to a discussion of the markedly different reasons why two other Republican governors declined to run for President in 2012.
The current Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, surprised many Republicans when he announced he had decided not to run for the GOP nomination on April 22nd of this year. Although Barbour cited the physical strain of a 63 year old man running for president as well as the family and duties as governor concerns expressed by Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie, Republican insiders claim his real reason was a more pragmatic one. Despite his fund raising prowess and numerous political and business connections, Barbour concluded that he simply couldn’t win the General election because of his racial segregationist past.
Barbour grew up in Yazoo City Mississippi during the 50’s and 60’s. In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to overturn state laws favoring racially segregated education, a Citizens Council led by William Barbour, Haley Barbour’s father figure uncle, was formed in Yazoo City. So when 53 African-American residents signed an August 1955 petition in favor of desegregating Yazoo City’s local schools, the Citizens Council retaliated by publishing their names and asking whites to stop dealing with them. Over the next four months 51 of the petition signers asked to have their names removed from the petition due to their loss of jobs and business.
But in an August 2010 interview with the Weekly Standard Barbour ignored this fact and claimed that the Citizens Council was an organization of town leaders that facilitated integration in Mississippi because “they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the (violent white racist) Ku Klux Klan would get their ass run out of town.”
Mind you, Haley Barbour had other political liabilities as a lobbyist for business special interest groups in Washington DC and Mississippi’s ranking as the worst of fifty states in a wide range of areas including, economic development, education and healthcare. But even though Barbour had been able to develop persuasive arguments for why those things shouldn’t be held against him, the fact is he was never able to come up with a satisfying response to charges about his segregationist past.
Much more surprising to this political commentator was former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s May 14th announcement that he would also not run for President in 2012. Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister who had used his Christian ‘values’ credentials to become a favorite of the Republican Party’s anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage Christian social conservatives. Despite John McCain and Mitt Romney’s huge cash advantages, he used their support to win the first Republican primary in Iowa and then ran a surprisingly close second to the eventual winner of the 2008 Republican nomination, John McCain.
Unlike Romney and most of the other Republican presidential candidates, Huckabee, is was very personable candidate who used his quick wit and self-deprecating sense of humor to good advantage with audiences out on the campaign trail as well as on the TV tube. His affability subsequently led to his current jobs as ABC’s replacement for legendary radio commentator Paul Harvey and as the TV host of Fox News weekend show “Huckabee”.
Huckabee was a consistent leader in polls of Republican voters so I was surprised on May 14th when he announced on his TV show that he would not run for President saying “All the factors say go, but my heart says no. But after further reflection I think he was telling the truth, just not the whole truth. Huckabee’s heart wasn’t in it because he has always hated trolling for campaign funds and he preferred drawing a seven figure annual income from a few hours of TV and radio work every week to the rigors of campaigning for President.
I will discuss the real reasons why three other Republican hopefuls decided not to run, including my favorite Republican diva Sarah Palin, in my next and last column of 2011.
Tea Party Christians and Republican Non-Candidates
The Bigger Picture
Published on November 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed the extraordinary influence that right wing evangelical Christians and the anti-tax Tea Party movement currently exert on the Republican Party and its political leaders. Today I will begin discussing the impact these ideologically doctrinaire groups have had and will continue to have on the field of Republican Presidential candidates.
I will begin by first discussing several Republican presidential candidates who either withdrew from the race or decided not to run. The first casualty was Tim Pawlenty, who actually began his campaign for the GOP nomination well before the end of his second term as governor of Minnesota in 2010. Pawlenty had been on John McCain’s short list as a possible vice presidential running mate in 2008, and establishment Republicans had been talking about him as a possible presidential candidate in 2005, even before he even ran for a second term as governor in 2006. So it came as no surprise when Governor Pawlenty also started showing up to speak at Republican Party functions in the early Republican primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina during 2008 and 2009.
Pawlenty continued his meticulous preparations to run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination by announcing in June 2009 that he would not run for a third term as governor and by creating a political action committee (PAC) to raise money for his campaign called Freedom First. He then hired respected Republican presidential campaigners such as Vin Weber, former Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant, and Sara Taylor, the former Director of the Office of Political Affairs for President George W. Bush.
So by the time Pawlenty formally announced he was running for President in May 2011, the only real surprise was that he had waited so long to make it official. But while Pawlenty had the necessary conservative Republican credentials, he could never become a Tea Party favorite because he wasn’t a fiery public speaker and he had a reputation for being able to strike compromises with Minnesota’s Democratic controlled state legislature.
As a result, another candidate from Minnesota was able to use her oratory skills and legislative track record of never compromising with Democrats to capture twice as many votes as Pawlenty from the Tea Party activists and evangelical Christians who dominated the voting in Iowa’s August 13th Republican caucus straw poll. Since Pawlenty had invested a great deal of his time and money in Iowa, he quickly realized that his dismal finish behind Minnesota’s Michelle Bachman also signaled the end of his Presidential campaign hopes.
Although Tim Pawlenty may have become the first formal casualty of the Republican Party’s antagonistic ideological extremists when he ended his presidential bid on August 14th, he is by no means the only one. Several other Republican governors with conservative credentials but a track record of compromising with Democrats or state legislatures controlled by the Democratic Party, wisely decided not to even bother to run for President in 2012.
Second term Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, who isn’t eligible to run for governor again in 2012, refused to yield to heavy pressure from establishment Republicans when he announced on May 22nd that he would not run for President. After Daniel’s opted not to run, his first term counterpart from New Jersey, Chris Christie, then came under heavy pressure from long time Republicans to jump into the 2012 presidential race. But with time running short, on October 4th Christie put an end to the speculation by saying “now is not my time.”
While both Daniels and Christie cited their families and duties as governor as reasons why they decided not to run in 2012, GOP insiders have also speculated that both men felt it would be difficult to win the Presidency in 2012 if they forced to stump on a GOP platform that reflected the views of Tea Party activists and Christian evangelicals. Both governors were also well aware that they owed their previous General election successes to their ability to attract more moderate independent voters, rather than just the support of the Tea Partiers and Christian conservatives that currently dominate Republican Party primary politics.
In my next column I will discuss several other Republican governors, as well as their reasons for deciding not to run for the GOP nomination for President in 2012.
Published on November 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed the extraordinary influence that right wing evangelical Christians and the anti-tax Tea Party movement currently exert on the Republican Party and its political leaders. Today I will begin discussing the impact these ideologically doctrinaire groups have had and will continue to have on the field of Republican Presidential candidates.
I will begin by first discussing several Republican presidential candidates who either withdrew from the race or decided not to run. The first casualty was Tim Pawlenty, who actually began his campaign for the GOP nomination well before the end of his second term as governor of Minnesota in 2010. Pawlenty had been on John McCain’s short list as a possible vice presidential running mate in 2008, and establishment Republicans had been talking about him as a possible presidential candidate in 2005, even before he even ran for a second term as governor in 2006. So it came as no surprise when Governor Pawlenty also started showing up to speak at Republican Party functions in the early Republican primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina during 2008 and 2009.
Pawlenty continued his meticulous preparations to run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination by announcing in June 2009 that he would not run for a third term as governor and by creating a political action committee (PAC) to raise money for his campaign called Freedom First. He then hired respected Republican presidential campaigners such as Vin Weber, former Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant, and Sara Taylor, the former Director of the Office of Political Affairs for President George W. Bush.
So by the time Pawlenty formally announced he was running for President in May 2011, the only real surprise was that he had waited so long to make it official. But while Pawlenty had the necessary conservative Republican credentials, he could never become a Tea Party favorite because he wasn’t a fiery public speaker and he had a reputation for being able to strike compromises with Minnesota’s Democratic controlled state legislature.
As a result, another candidate from Minnesota was able to use her oratory skills and legislative track record of never compromising with Democrats to capture twice as many votes as Pawlenty from the Tea Party activists and evangelical Christians who dominated the voting in Iowa’s August 13th Republican caucus straw poll. Since Pawlenty had invested a great deal of his time and money in Iowa, he quickly realized that his dismal finish behind Minnesota’s Michelle Bachman also signaled the end of his Presidential campaign hopes.
Although Tim Pawlenty may have become the first formal casualty of the Republican Party’s antagonistic ideological extremists when he ended his presidential bid on August 14th, he is by no means the only one. Several other Republican governors with conservative credentials but a track record of compromising with Democrats or state legislatures controlled by the Democratic Party, wisely decided not to even bother to run for President in 2012.
Second term Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, who isn’t eligible to run for governor again in 2012, refused to yield to heavy pressure from establishment Republicans when he announced on May 22nd that he would not run for President. After Daniel’s opted not to run, his first term counterpart from New Jersey, Chris Christie, then came under heavy pressure from long time Republicans to jump into the 2012 presidential race. But with time running short, on October 4th Christie put an end to the speculation by saying “now is not my time.”
While both Daniels and Christie cited their families and duties as governor as reasons why they decided not to run in 2012, GOP insiders have also speculated that both men felt it would be difficult to win the Presidency in 2012 if they forced to stump on a GOP platform that reflected the views of Tea Party activists and Christian evangelicals. Both governors were also well aware that they owed their previous General election successes to their ability to attract more moderate independent voters, rather than just the support of the Tea Partiers and Christian conservatives that currently dominate Republican Party primary politics.
In my next column I will discuss several other Republican governors, as well as their reasons for deciding not to run for the GOP nomination for President in 2012.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The Koch and Tea (Republican) Party
The Bigger Picture
Published on November 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
On November 6th 2012, exactly fifty three weeks from today, Americans will troop to the polls to cast their ballots in an extremely important Presidential and Congressional General election. While all elections involving the selection of America’s next president are usually considered vital for the future of the United States, in 2012 America truly stands at a crossroads because American voters will not only be choosing who the next President will be, they will also be making a decision about what they want their government to be.
After surveying the field of Republican Presidential candidates and their respective positions on a range of domestic as well as foreign policy issues, it is very apparent that regardless of who eventually emerges as the Republican nominee for President, Americans will still have a clear choice between either voting to elect a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate backed by an assortment of right wing political ideologues, or voting to re-elect a more forward looking Democratic President with a centrist legislative agenda.
But what makes the 2012 election even more significant, is what the American voters’ choices will say about what they believe our government’s role should be in stimulating the economy as well as its role in providing for and protecting the needs of American citizens. That is because the positions of the Republican presidential candidates reflect the narrow interests of Tea Party activists, evangelical Christians and other special interest groups.
The Tea Party minions claim that the solution for America’s economic ills is to eliminate the federal budget deficit by cutting government spending but they also refuse to countenance tax increases of any kind. However, most of the anti-tax Tea Partiers also don’t want to see any cuts in their Social Security and Medicare benefits, which together account for roughly 50% of government spending. Furthermore, a majority of them also don’t want to see any cuts in America’s defense spending which comprises another 25% of the budget.
The fact that no reputable economists agree with the Tea Party activists’ contention that America can eliminate its budget deficit by cutting government spending in other areas and without raising taxes is beside the point. Tea Partiers are wedded to their angry fantasy that federal government spending is the problem and cutting both spending and taxes is the solution. As a result, rather than risk the ire of these anti-tax extremists, all of the Republican presidential candidates have now adopted the Tea Party’s hard line stance and none of them will even agree to a compromise such as $1 in tax increases for every $9 in spending cuts.
But all of the Republican candidates must also appease socially conservative white evangelical Christians, many of whom were hoping Sarah Palin would run for President. Given their equally rigid anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-immigration positions, it should come as no surprise that many of these so called “Christian Values” voters are also supporters of the rigidly anti-tax, anti-government spending Tea Party movement.
However, something the Tea Party and evangelical Christian movements don’t like to acknowledge is the extent to which they both rely on support and funding from corporate special interest groups to spread their antagonistic and ideologically extreme message. Fox News supports them with in kind donations of media publicity and Rupert Murdoch then reaps profits from advertisers using Fox employees like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to hawk gold and books that are aimed at this segment of the American public.
But the ultimate symbol of right wing hypocrisy is the billionaire Koch brothers funding and sponsorship of groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works that also train Tea Party activists and provide funding for the Republican candidates they support. These organizations support the Koch brothers’ opposition to an extension of unemployment benefits and federal regulation of the oil, finance, food and drug industries, but then ignore the fact that the Koch brothers’ companies also head the list of America’s biggest corporate beneficiaries of federal tax breaks for the oil and agriculture industries. I will discuss the effect they have had on the field of Republican presidential candidates in my next column.
Published on November 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
On November 6th 2012, exactly fifty three weeks from today, Americans will troop to the polls to cast their ballots in an extremely important Presidential and Congressional General election. While all elections involving the selection of America’s next president are usually considered vital for the future of the United States, in 2012 America truly stands at a crossroads because American voters will not only be choosing who the next President will be, they will also be making a decision about what they want their government to be.
After surveying the field of Republican Presidential candidates and their respective positions on a range of domestic as well as foreign policy issues, it is very apparent that regardless of who eventually emerges as the Republican nominee for President, Americans will still have a clear choice between either voting to elect a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate backed by an assortment of right wing political ideologues, or voting to re-elect a more forward looking Democratic President with a centrist legislative agenda.
But what makes the 2012 election even more significant, is what the American voters’ choices will say about what they believe our government’s role should be in stimulating the economy as well as its role in providing for and protecting the needs of American citizens. That is because the positions of the Republican presidential candidates reflect the narrow interests of Tea Party activists, evangelical Christians and other special interest groups.
The Tea Party minions claim that the solution for America’s economic ills is to eliminate the federal budget deficit by cutting government spending but they also refuse to countenance tax increases of any kind. However, most of the anti-tax Tea Partiers also don’t want to see any cuts in their Social Security and Medicare benefits, which together account for roughly 50% of government spending. Furthermore, a majority of them also don’t want to see any cuts in America’s defense spending which comprises another 25% of the budget.
The fact that no reputable economists agree with the Tea Party activists’ contention that America can eliminate its budget deficit by cutting government spending in other areas and without raising taxes is beside the point. Tea Partiers are wedded to their angry fantasy that federal government spending is the problem and cutting both spending and taxes is the solution. As a result, rather than risk the ire of these anti-tax extremists, all of the Republican presidential candidates have now adopted the Tea Party’s hard line stance and none of them will even agree to a compromise such as $1 in tax increases for every $9 in spending cuts.
But all of the Republican candidates must also appease socially conservative white evangelical Christians, many of whom were hoping Sarah Palin would run for President. Given their equally rigid anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-immigration positions, it should come as no surprise that many of these so called “Christian Values” voters are also supporters of the rigidly anti-tax, anti-government spending Tea Party movement.
However, something the Tea Party and evangelical Christian movements don’t like to acknowledge is the extent to which they both rely on support and funding from corporate special interest groups to spread their antagonistic and ideologically extreme message. Fox News supports them with in kind donations of media publicity and Rupert Murdoch then reaps profits from advertisers using Fox employees like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to hawk gold and books that are aimed at this segment of the American public.
But the ultimate symbol of right wing hypocrisy is the billionaire Koch brothers funding and sponsorship of groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works that also train Tea Party activists and provide funding for the Republican candidates they support. These organizations support the Koch brothers’ opposition to an extension of unemployment benefits and federal regulation of the oil, finance, food and drug industries, but then ignore the fact that the Koch brothers’ companies also head the list of America’s biggest corporate beneficiaries of federal tax breaks for the oil and agriculture industries. I will discuss the effect they have had on the field of Republican presidential candidates in my next column.
Friday, October 7, 2011
The latest Nobel Peace Prize recipients
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Now that the Republican Party’s field of presidential candidates finally looks complete, I guess it’s about time for me to begin analyzing these presidential hopefuls’ chances of winning the Republican nomination and then discuss how I think they would fare against President Obama in the November 2012 general election if they were the Republican nominee.
But before I begin discussing the next American Presidential election, I want to use today’s column to discuss the most recent Nobel Peace Prize recipients. So fresh on the heels of my previous columns about the un-liberal democracies that I am worried might emerge in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, I want to acknowledge the Nobel Peace Prizes that were just awarded to Ms. Tawakul Karman, a democracy and human rights activist who has been at the forefront of the Arab Spring protests in Yemen, as well as to Leymah Gbowee, a peace activist who organized women to help bring an end to war in Liberia, and the President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first democratically elected woman President of an African nation.
Given the fact that prior to this year 85 men but only 12 women had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought it was more than appropriate that 3 more women were finally recognized for their courageous work on behalf of peace, democracy and women’s rights by the Nobel Peace Prize committee. While I do not dispute the worthiness of any of the 85 men previously awarded this honour, I also firmly believe that women should have won a lot more than 15% of the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded since 1901.
Although I am somewhat familiar with Ms. Gbowee’s work organizing women from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to bring an end to Liberia’s civil war and Ms. Sirleaf’s contributions to democratic governance in Liberia, as a fellow journalist I must confess that I am much more familiar with Tawakul Karman’s work. As a young mother of 3 children, Ms. Karman first began advocating for women’s rights and journalistic freedom back in 2003. Ms. Karman then founded Women Journalists Without Chains in 2005 as a part of her effort to obtain greater freedom of expression in Yemen and other countries on the Arabian peninsula.
In fact I actually had the privilege of meeting with Ms. Karman several years ago, in her capacity as the head of Women Journalists Without Chains, and discussing the aims of her organization with her. I must say that I was also extremely impressed by Ms. Karman’s willingness to risk her life in her ongoing efforts to obtain press freedom and greater civil rights for women in Yemen. Please note that long before this year’s Arab Spring uprisings began, Ms. Karman was organizing and leading demonstrations by journalists against censorship as well as protests on behalf of women’s rights and freedoms at the Girl’s College of Sana’a University.
In my previous columns I expressed my concerns about the true intentions of many Islamic political parties and my fear that if they gain power they will impose a ‘tyranny of the majority’ on minority ethnic and religious groups. A hopeful counterpoint to my concerns about these Islamic political parties is the fact that while Ms. Karman is also a member of Yemen’s Islamic Islah Party, she has never hesitated to criticize Islamic religious extremists.
Furthermore, even though Ms. Karman is a socially conservative Muslim woman, she removed her veil at a human rights conference in 2004 and no longer wears one because it was getting in the way of what she wanted to accomplish. Still, Ms. Karman does not advocate that other Muslim women should also remove their veils, only that they should do so if they want to.
So based on what I know about this Nobel Peace Prize recipient, if Islamic political parties decide to embrace the values of women like Tawakul Karman, then maybe my fears about a ‘tyranny of the majority’ taking hold in Arab democracies will prove to be unfounded.
Published on October 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Now that the Republican Party’s field of presidential candidates finally looks complete, I guess it’s about time for me to begin analyzing these presidential hopefuls’ chances of winning the Republican nomination and then discuss how I think they would fare against President Obama in the November 2012 general election if they were the Republican nominee.
But before I begin discussing the next American Presidential election, I want to use today’s column to discuss the most recent Nobel Peace Prize recipients. So fresh on the heels of my previous columns about the un-liberal democracies that I am worried might emerge in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, I want to acknowledge the Nobel Peace Prizes that were just awarded to Ms. Tawakul Karman, a democracy and human rights activist who has been at the forefront of the Arab Spring protests in Yemen, as well as to Leymah Gbowee, a peace activist who organized women to help bring an end to war in Liberia, and the President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first democratically elected woman President of an African nation.
Given the fact that prior to this year 85 men but only 12 women had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought it was more than appropriate that 3 more women were finally recognized for their courageous work on behalf of peace, democracy and women’s rights by the Nobel Peace Prize committee. While I do not dispute the worthiness of any of the 85 men previously awarded this honour, I also firmly believe that women should have won a lot more than 15% of the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded since 1901.
Although I am somewhat familiar with Ms. Gbowee’s work organizing women from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to bring an end to Liberia’s civil war and Ms. Sirleaf’s contributions to democratic governance in Liberia, as a fellow journalist I must confess that I am much more familiar with Tawakul Karman’s work. As a young mother of 3 children, Ms. Karman first began advocating for women’s rights and journalistic freedom back in 2003. Ms. Karman then founded Women Journalists Without Chains in 2005 as a part of her effort to obtain greater freedom of expression in Yemen and other countries on the Arabian peninsula.
In fact I actually had the privilege of meeting with Ms. Karman several years ago, in her capacity as the head of Women Journalists Without Chains, and discussing the aims of her organization with her. I must say that I was also extremely impressed by Ms. Karman’s willingness to risk her life in her ongoing efforts to obtain press freedom and greater civil rights for women in Yemen. Please note that long before this year’s Arab Spring uprisings began, Ms. Karman was organizing and leading demonstrations by journalists against censorship as well as protests on behalf of women’s rights and freedoms at the Girl’s College of Sana’a University.
In my previous columns I expressed my concerns about the true intentions of many Islamic political parties and my fear that if they gain power they will impose a ‘tyranny of the majority’ on minority ethnic and religious groups. A hopeful counterpoint to my concerns about these Islamic political parties is the fact that while Ms. Karman is also a member of Yemen’s Islamic Islah Party, she has never hesitated to criticize Islamic religious extremists.
Furthermore, even though Ms. Karman is a socially conservative Muslim woman, she removed her veil at a human rights conference in 2004 and no longer wears one because it was getting in the way of what she wanted to accomplish. Still, Ms. Karman does not advocate that other Muslim women should also remove their veils, only that they should do so if they want to.
So based on what I know about this Nobel Peace Prize recipient, if Islamic political parties decide to embrace the values of women like Tawakul Karman, then maybe my fears about a ‘tyranny of the majority’ taking hold in Arab democracies will prove to be unfounded.
The Tyranny of the Majority
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by expressing my concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that have bloomed in countries like Egypt and Tunisia during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’. But I am also concerned that many of us in the Western news media who have grown up in liberal democratic societies do not fully appreciate the important role that strong electoral and judicial institutions play in protecting the rights of minorities from the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
So today I will discuss some of the more specific concerns that both I and many other citizens living in the nations of North Africa and Middle East have about what might happen in their countries if and or when protesters succeed in toppling their authoritarian regimes. But I want to begin by first noting that India is the only nation with a significant Muslim population that also has a long history of liberal democracy experience. Furthermore, according to Freedom Watch, Indonesia and Mali (I would also include Malaysia) are the only majority Muslim countries that currently enjoy the political freedoms we associate with liberal democracies.
However, even though liberal democratic political governance is a rarity in majority Muslim nations, I disagree with those Islamosceptics who argue that Islam is somehow incompatible with the citizen equality principles of liberal democracy. The arguments I hear most often in America and Europe are that most Muslims either harbor a desire to live in a society based on the Sharīʿah religious law of Islam or wish to be governed by a religious political authority al-Qaeda refers to as the ‘grand caliphate’ that will enforce Sharīʿah.
I have no doubt that the pseudo-religious political extremists in al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), as well as many of the less extreme Muslims who support the Muslim Brotherhood, have a desire to be governed according to Islamic law. But I also know there are Jewish extremists who wish their societies were governed by the Halakha laws of the Torah and Christian extremists who believe Biblical laws should hold sway. In other words every religion has at least some adherents who believe their holy texts should be taken literally rather than interpreted within the context of the time when they were originally written.
No. I argue that the majority of modern Muslims are actually no different than the majority of modern Christians and Jews in that they believe their democratic societies’ civil and criminal laws should be drafted by their elected officials in accord with their national constitutions instead of the ancient texts of their respective religious faiths. In fact, if our modern laws were actually based on these ancient religious texts, then those of us who curse God or any children who curse their parents would all be condemned to death for these criminal ‘offences’.
This is why, in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ upheavals that have already toppled the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and threaten to do so in Syria, I believe most middle class Muslims in these nations share my concerns about the ethnic, political and societal instability that will result from attempting to establish liberal democracies in nations that do not have the institutional foundations or experience needed for effective democratic governance.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they know Islamist groups will probably win the first democratic elections since they are better organized than the secular young activists who led and promoted the ‘Arab Spring’ protests. But despite assurances from Islamist groups that they will draft constitutions that promote an open-minded and peaceful version of Islam that does not discriminate against ethnic and religious minority groups, many Muslims seriously doubt this.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they have seen the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after Hussein was toppled and the burning of Coptic Churches after Mubarak was driven from power in Egypt by Salafists who espouse the intolerant Wahhabist version of Islam. I hope I’m wrong, but based on what has happened thus far, I simply don’t believe that the kind of democracies that will emerge in the Arab world in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ will bear much resemblance to the liberal democracy that the ‘Arab Spring’ protesters were hoping for.
Published on October 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by expressing my concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that have bloomed in countries like Egypt and Tunisia during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’. But I am also concerned that many of us in the Western news media who have grown up in liberal democratic societies do not fully appreciate the important role that strong electoral and judicial institutions play in protecting the rights of minorities from the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
So today I will discuss some of the more specific concerns that both I and many other citizens living in the nations of North Africa and Middle East have about what might happen in their countries if and or when protesters succeed in toppling their authoritarian regimes. But I want to begin by first noting that India is the only nation with a significant Muslim population that also has a long history of liberal democracy experience. Furthermore, according to Freedom Watch, Indonesia and Mali (I would also include Malaysia) are the only majority Muslim countries that currently enjoy the political freedoms we associate with liberal democracies.
However, even though liberal democratic political governance is a rarity in majority Muslim nations, I disagree with those Islamosceptics who argue that Islam is somehow incompatible with the citizen equality principles of liberal democracy. The arguments I hear most often in America and Europe are that most Muslims either harbor a desire to live in a society based on the Sharīʿah religious law of Islam or wish to be governed by a religious political authority al-Qaeda refers to as the ‘grand caliphate’ that will enforce Sharīʿah.
I have no doubt that the pseudo-religious political extremists in al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), as well as many of the less extreme Muslims who support the Muslim Brotherhood, have a desire to be governed according to Islamic law. But I also know there are Jewish extremists who wish their societies were governed by the Halakha laws of the Torah and Christian extremists who believe Biblical laws should hold sway. In other words every religion has at least some adherents who believe their holy texts should be taken literally rather than interpreted within the context of the time when they were originally written.
No. I argue that the majority of modern Muslims are actually no different than the majority of modern Christians and Jews in that they believe their democratic societies’ civil and criminal laws should be drafted by their elected officials in accord with their national constitutions instead of the ancient texts of their respective religious faiths. In fact, if our modern laws were actually based on these ancient religious texts, then those of us who curse God or any children who curse their parents would all be condemned to death for these criminal ‘offences’.
This is why, in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ upheavals that have already toppled the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and threaten to do so in Syria, I believe most middle class Muslims in these nations share my concerns about the ethnic, political and societal instability that will result from attempting to establish liberal democracies in nations that do not have the institutional foundations or experience needed for effective democratic governance.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they know Islamist groups will probably win the first democratic elections since they are better organized than the secular young activists who led and promoted the ‘Arab Spring’ protests. But despite assurances from Islamist groups that they will draft constitutions that promote an open-minded and peaceful version of Islam that does not discriminate against ethnic and religious minority groups, many Muslims seriously doubt this.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they have seen the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after Hussein was toppled and the burning of Coptic Churches after Mubarak was driven from power in Egypt by Salafists who espouse the intolerant Wahhabist version of Islam. I hope I’m wrong, but based on what has happened thus far, I simply don’t believe that the kind of democracies that will emerge in the Arab world in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ will bear much resemblance to the liberal democracy that the ‘Arab Spring’ protesters were hoping for.
Are the Arab Spring nations ready for democracy
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
While I was watching the first nationally televised Republican Presidential debate involving all of the major Republican contenders (except for Sarah Palin?), I couldn’t help but wonder how this quadrennial American election ritual would play out if it was also conducted in all other nations around the world. But while I could envision similar exercises of democracy occurring in Europe, I had much more difficulty imagining civil democratic debates like this happening in the so called ‘Arab Spring’ nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
The nations mentioned as part of the ‘Arab Spring’ come to mind because most of the activists involved in protests that toppled the authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and most recently (with the help of NATO) the Gaddafi regime in Libya, seem to believe that democracy will solve their nations’ problems. So since I have also been discussing America’s partisan democratic political paralysis in my most recent columns, I thought it would be appropriate to spend some time discussing both the promise and the pitfalls of democratic political governance.
Make no mistake, I have been and always will be a staunch advocate of liberal political democracy, a political governance system where all citizens not only have the right to vote in free and fair elections, but also have equal rights in all other areas of daily life. I also count myself as fortunate to have been born and raised in a nation that was the world’s pioneer in developing the concept of liberal democracy and promoting the use of it in other countries.
But having said that, I must also say that I believe liberal democracy really only works in nations that have also established the strong judicial and electoral institutions that are required for liberal democracy to be an effective political governance system for all of those nations’ citizens. These institutions ensure that decisions made by the majority in liberal democracy political systems do not place the interests of the majority of citizens above the interests of dissenting individuals, thus effectively oppressing citizens who happen to be in the minority.
The renowned French historian and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville discussed this very scenario in his book, On Democracy in America. In a chapter entitled, “The Tyranny of the Majority”, Tocqueville observed that the separation of powers defined in the American Constitution was designed to limit the power of the majority within America’s government while the individual citizen rights cited in the American Bill of Rights placed legal limits on the decisions made by citizen majorities in order to prevent them from oppressing minorities.
While the democratically elected American Congress operates under the same democratic principle of ‘majority rule’ that parliamentary democracies do, thanks to the separation of powers the separately elected American President still has the power to prevent legislation approved by a majority of members of Congress from becoming law. As a result, the political party with a majority in Congress cannot pass new laws or change existing ones without the consent of the President. The majority political party can more easily pass laws when the President is a member of the same party, but in practice the President is quite often a member of the minority party.
However, there have also been times in America’s history when both Congress and the President have approved of laws or refused to change laws that infringed on the rights of individuals or groups that were a part of the electoral minority. In these instances, laws that had the support of the majority of citizens were challenged by those in the minority and subsequently rejected by judges who were members of America’s independently appointed judicial system.
But America isn’t unique in having a politically independent judiciary that protects the rights of minorities since this is a defining characteristic of many parliamentary democracies. My concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that bloomed during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
Published on September 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
While I was watching the first nationally televised Republican Presidential debate involving all of the major Republican contenders (except for Sarah Palin?), I couldn’t help but wonder how this quadrennial American election ritual would play out if it was also conducted in all other nations around the world. But while I could envision similar exercises of democracy occurring in Europe, I had much more difficulty imagining civil democratic debates like this happening in the so called ‘Arab Spring’ nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
The nations mentioned as part of the ‘Arab Spring’ come to mind because most of the activists involved in protests that toppled the authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and most recently (with the help of NATO) the Gaddafi regime in Libya, seem to believe that democracy will solve their nations’ problems. So since I have also been discussing America’s partisan democratic political paralysis in my most recent columns, I thought it would be appropriate to spend some time discussing both the promise and the pitfalls of democratic political governance.
Make no mistake, I have been and always will be a staunch advocate of liberal political democracy, a political governance system where all citizens not only have the right to vote in free and fair elections, but also have equal rights in all other areas of daily life. I also count myself as fortunate to have been born and raised in a nation that was the world’s pioneer in developing the concept of liberal democracy and promoting the use of it in other countries.
But having said that, I must also say that I believe liberal democracy really only works in nations that have also established the strong judicial and electoral institutions that are required for liberal democracy to be an effective political governance system for all of those nations’ citizens. These institutions ensure that decisions made by the majority in liberal democracy political systems do not place the interests of the majority of citizens above the interests of dissenting individuals, thus effectively oppressing citizens who happen to be in the minority.
The renowned French historian and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville discussed this very scenario in his book, On Democracy in America. In a chapter entitled, “The Tyranny of the Majority”, Tocqueville observed that the separation of powers defined in the American Constitution was designed to limit the power of the majority within America’s government while the individual citizen rights cited in the American Bill of Rights placed legal limits on the decisions made by citizen majorities in order to prevent them from oppressing minorities.
While the democratically elected American Congress operates under the same democratic principle of ‘majority rule’ that parliamentary democracies do, thanks to the separation of powers the separately elected American President still has the power to prevent legislation approved by a majority of members of Congress from becoming law. As a result, the political party with a majority in Congress cannot pass new laws or change existing ones without the consent of the President. The majority political party can more easily pass laws when the President is a member of the same party, but in practice the President is quite often a member of the minority party.
However, there have also been times in America’s history when both Congress and the President have approved of laws or refused to change laws that infringed on the rights of individuals or groups that were a part of the electoral minority. In these instances, laws that had the support of the majority of citizens were challenged by those in the minority and subsequently rejected by judges who were members of America’s independently appointed judicial system.
But America isn’t unique in having a politically independent judiciary that protects the rights of minorities since this is a defining characteristic of many parliamentary democracies. My concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that bloomed during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
What do Americans want their government to do
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by observing that Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected. However, Republicans in Congress are not the only ones pandering to narrow minded, right wing interest groups in a bid to win elections. Almost all of the Republican Presidential candidates are also tripping over each other in an effort to appease Tea Party members as well as Christian fundamentalists. So what does this mean going forward?
In the more distant future, the impact is positive because it means the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate will in all likelihood endorse public policies and ideological positions that appeal to the extremist elements that currently control the Republican Party. However, as a consequence, American voters will also have a clear choice between either voting for a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate with a right wing political agenda or voting to re-elect a Democratic President with a much more forward looking and centrist legislative program.
Unfortunately the near term effect is decidedly negative because it means the partisan political paralysis in Washington DC, which almost lead to a historic default on America’s debt, will continue for at least another 18 months. With a national election looming, Republican candidates, whether they are running for Congress or for President, will be loathe to compromise with their Democratic counterparts on legislation that will address America’s anemic economic recovery and stubbornly high unemployment or the country’s bloated federal budget deficit.
Furthermore, even after the 2012 elections, any real action on these issues will still be contingent on the results of those elections. I believe Standard & Poor’s cut America’s AAA debt rating because its analysts agree with me that Republicans will not be able to win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012. Given the fact that Republicans are unlikely to compromise regardless of the 2012 election results, a political solution for America’s debt problems also appears to be unlikely for at least one or two more election cycles.
Granted, as a part of the ‘deal’ Congressional Republicans and Democrats made with President Obama in order to avoid a bond default, a Congressional ‘Supercommittee’ will be created this month to decide by November 23 how America will cut more than $1.2 trillion of its debt. But given the Republican Party’s unwillingness to compromise, I seriously doubt that the 6 Republican and 6 Democratic members of this ‘Supercommittee’ will ever be able to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts. Furthermore, even if they do reach an agreement by 23 November, both the Democratic controlled Senate and the Republican led House of Representatives will debate the ‘Supercommittee’s recommendations until Christmas or well into the New Year.
But the ‘Supercommittee’s’ budget cuts really only address the federal budget deficit over the next decade. In the meantime, Congress still has to approve the budget for the upcoming 2012 fiscal year which begins in October. Since Congress didn’t approve the 2011 budget until April of this year due to Republican intransigence, it is likely we will see more partisan political wrangling and the possibility of another government shutdown just in time for Christmas.
If the ‘Supercommittee’ is unable to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts or if Congress does not approve the cuts it recommends, this will trigger automatic budget cuts for all US domestic programs as well as for the Defense Department. But as Standard & Poor’s noted, they downgraded America’s AAA debt rating because these cuts don’t demonstrate any significant progress by America’s dysfunctional Republican Party towards balancing America’s books.
So it will be up to America’s voters to decide what our government’s role in stimulating the economy and protecting the needs of its citizens should be when the cast their votes in 2012. I remain cautiously optimistic that they will choose more wisely than they did in 2010.
Published on September 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by observing that Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected. However, Republicans in Congress are not the only ones pandering to narrow minded, right wing interest groups in a bid to win elections. Almost all of the Republican Presidential candidates are also tripping over each other in an effort to appease Tea Party members as well as Christian fundamentalists. So what does this mean going forward?
In the more distant future, the impact is positive because it means the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate will in all likelihood endorse public policies and ideological positions that appeal to the extremist elements that currently control the Republican Party. However, as a consequence, American voters will also have a clear choice between either voting for a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate with a right wing political agenda or voting to re-elect a Democratic President with a much more forward looking and centrist legislative program.
Unfortunately the near term effect is decidedly negative because it means the partisan political paralysis in Washington DC, which almost lead to a historic default on America’s debt, will continue for at least another 18 months. With a national election looming, Republican candidates, whether they are running for Congress or for President, will be loathe to compromise with their Democratic counterparts on legislation that will address America’s anemic economic recovery and stubbornly high unemployment or the country’s bloated federal budget deficit.
Furthermore, even after the 2012 elections, any real action on these issues will still be contingent on the results of those elections. I believe Standard & Poor’s cut America’s AAA debt rating because its analysts agree with me that Republicans will not be able to win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012. Given the fact that Republicans are unlikely to compromise regardless of the 2012 election results, a political solution for America’s debt problems also appears to be unlikely for at least one or two more election cycles.
Granted, as a part of the ‘deal’ Congressional Republicans and Democrats made with President Obama in order to avoid a bond default, a Congressional ‘Supercommittee’ will be created this month to decide by November 23 how America will cut more than $1.2 trillion of its debt. But given the Republican Party’s unwillingness to compromise, I seriously doubt that the 6 Republican and 6 Democratic members of this ‘Supercommittee’ will ever be able to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts. Furthermore, even if they do reach an agreement by 23 November, both the Democratic controlled Senate and the Republican led House of Representatives will debate the ‘Supercommittee’s recommendations until Christmas or well into the New Year.
But the ‘Supercommittee’s’ budget cuts really only address the federal budget deficit over the next decade. In the meantime, Congress still has to approve the budget for the upcoming 2012 fiscal year which begins in October. Since Congress didn’t approve the 2011 budget until April of this year due to Republican intransigence, it is likely we will see more partisan political wrangling and the possibility of another government shutdown just in time for Christmas.
If the ‘Supercommittee’ is unable to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts or if Congress does not approve the cuts it recommends, this will trigger automatic budget cuts for all US domestic programs as well as for the Defense Department. But as Standard & Poor’s noted, they downgraded America’s AAA debt rating because these cuts don’t demonstrate any significant progress by America’s dysfunctional Republican Party towards balancing America’s books.
So it will be up to America’s voters to decide what our government’s role in stimulating the economy and protecting the needs of its citizens should be when the cast their votes in 2012. I remain cautiously optimistic that they will choose more wisely than they did in 2010.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Republicans Put Re-election Ahead of Their Country
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I accused Republicans of ‘kicking the can down the road’ by using a bit of legislative sleight of hand to allow an increase in America’s debt ceiling without agreeing to a plan to address the deficit.
While I applaud the fact that cooler heads within the Republican ranks were able to come up with a way to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a bond default, I nonetheless condemn Republicans for their failure to embrace a plan to take action on the ballooning federal budget deficit in conjunction with raising America’s debt ceiling. By failing to act responsibly to address the budget deficit Republicans in the US House of Representatives have shown that their real priority is getting re-elected rather than doing what is best for their country.
On the other hand, in the US Senate a coalition of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats put partisan politics aside and drafted a very pragmatic agreement which used a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to cut the current 14 trillion dollar deficit by more than 4 trillion dollars over the next decade. The Senators used the recommendations of President Obama’s bi-partisan deficit reduction panel as a blueprint for developing their own plan to address the nation’s budget deficit while protecting America’s social welfare programs.
In contrast to the uncompromising ‘no tax increases’ stance of House Republicans, Republican Senators agreed with their Democratic Party counterparts that an increase in taxes was an essential part of any practical plan to cut the nation’s deficit. However, the Senate Republicans did not endorse President Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans making over $250,000 per year expire in 2013. Instead they proposed to raise over one trillion dollars in new tax revenues by drastically changing the US tax code.
The US Senate plan proposes to raise tax revenues by eliminating almost all of the current tax deductions and subsidies and then lowering tax rates for all levels of household income. In turn, middle class and lower income households would see their taxes reduced or remain the same while wealthier Americans would see their taxes rise even though their tax rate was lowered because they are the primary beneficiaries of the current tax deductions.
The Senate plan also addresses the deficiencies in the America’s entitlement programs which are the biggest contributor to the budget deficit. The Senators would shore up America’s retiree healthcare program by using means tests and other cost saving measures to cut Medicare costs and would change the way cost of living increases are computed, increase contributions and raise the retirement age in order to ensure that the Social Security program remains self supporting for the next 75 years. The plan would also cut spending by eliminating agricultural and ethanol subsidies and by trimming the budgets of all federal agencies including the budget of the Republican Party’s most sacred cow; the US Defense Department.
Both the Senate and President Obama’s proposals to reduce America’s budget deficit rightly spread the pain of spending cuts and tax increases across all segments of American society. But both plans also lean heavily on spending cuts rather than tax increases to close the budget gap with roughly 85% of the measures reducing expenditures and only 15% raising taxes. As such one would think Republicans would be happy to accept such a tax friendly compromise.
So why do House Republicans refuse to compromise and accept some small tax increases as part of a deal to cut the budget deficit and raise the debt ceiling? Do they really think Republicans will win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012? No. Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected.
Published on August 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I accused Republicans of ‘kicking the can down the road’ by using a bit of legislative sleight of hand to allow an increase in America’s debt ceiling without agreeing to a plan to address the deficit.
While I applaud the fact that cooler heads within the Republican ranks were able to come up with a way to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a bond default, I nonetheless condemn Republicans for their failure to embrace a plan to take action on the ballooning federal budget deficit in conjunction with raising America’s debt ceiling. By failing to act responsibly to address the budget deficit Republicans in the US House of Representatives have shown that their real priority is getting re-elected rather than doing what is best for their country.
On the other hand, in the US Senate a coalition of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats put partisan politics aside and drafted a very pragmatic agreement which used a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to cut the current 14 trillion dollar deficit by more than 4 trillion dollars over the next decade. The Senators used the recommendations of President Obama’s bi-partisan deficit reduction panel as a blueprint for developing their own plan to address the nation’s budget deficit while protecting America’s social welfare programs.
In contrast to the uncompromising ‘no tax increases’ stance of House Republicans, Republican Senators agreed with their Democratic Party counterparts that an increase in taxes was an essential part of any practical plan to cut the nation’s deficit. However, the Senate Republicans did not endorse President Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans making over $250,000 per year expire in 2013. Instead they proposed to raise over one trillion dollars in new tax revenues by drastically changing the US tax code.
The US Senate plan proposes to raise tax revenues by eliminating almost all of the current tax deductions and subsidies and then lowering tax rates for all levels of household income. In turn, middle class and lower income households would see their taxes reduced or remain the same while wealthier Americans would see their taxes rise even though their tax rate was lowered because they are the primary beneficiaries of the current tax deductions.
The Senate plan also addresses the deficiencies in the America’s entitlement programs which are the biggest contributor to the budget deficit. The Senators would shore up America’s retiree healthcare program by using means tests and other cost saving measures to cut Medicare costs and would change the way cost of living increases are computed, increase contributions and raise the retirement age in order to ensure that the Social Security program remains self supporting for the next 75 years. The plan would also cut spending by eliminating agricultural and ethanol subsidies and by trimming the budgets of all federal agencies including the budget of the Republican Party’s most sacred cow; the US Defense Department.
Both the Senate and President Obama’s proposals to reduce America’s budget deficit rightly spread the pain of spending cuts and tax increases across all segments of American society. But both plans also lean heavily on spending cuts rather than tax increases to close the budget gap with roughly 85% of the measures reducing expenditures and only 15% raising taxes. As such one would think Republicans would be happy to accept such a tax friendly compromise.
So why do House Republicans refuse to compromise and accept some small tax increases as part of a deal to cut the budget deficit and raise the debt ceiling? Do they really think Republicans will win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012? No. Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected.
Legislative Sleight of Hand
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed some of the misconceptions Tea Party activists and the ‘debtors’ have regarding raising America’s debt ceiling. But what dismays me even more is the fact that the Republican Majority leader, Eric Cantor, and the Republicans in Congress who are catering to these anti-tax right wing voters, refuse to challenge the ‘debtors’ utterly false notions.
The US Chamber of Commerce, a frequent foe of many of President Obama’s legislative proposals, as well as many American CEOs have spent much of the past year holding numerous educational meetings with members of Congress who are opposed to raising the debt ceiling. In these meetings they have repeatedly warned lawmakers of the adverse impact a US Treasury bond ‘default’ will have on America’s deficit as well as both the American and global economy.
More specifically, they have warned Congress that failing to raise America’s debt ceiling will not only lead to an increase in the interest America pays on its future bonds, but that these increased interest payments will also add to America’s budget deficit rather than reduce it. They have also warned legislators that an increase in the interest rate for US Treasury bonds, also known as ‘T-bills’, will do serious damage to America’s still fragile economic recovery.
This is due to the fact that the interest rates consumers pay for auto and home loans as well as their credit cards is tied to the interest rate paid on T-bills. Furthermore, the ripple effect of an increase in T-bill interest rates also extends to the interest rates businesses pay on the bank loans they use to finance their businesses as well as the corporate bonds they issue to finance expansions of their business operations. These higher interest rates have a chilling effect on the American economy because they leave consumers and businesses with less money to spend.
Economists from across the political spectrum have warned that a Treasury bond default will probably push the American and global economy back into a recession since the resulting higher interest rates act like a tax increase. Higher interest charges amount to a tax increase for American consumers and businesses with outstanding loans because they reduce the amount of money available to purchase goods and services as well as the money available to pay wages.
While the rise of developing economies in China and India has reduced the world’s reliance on the American economy as the sole engine of global economic growth, the fact remains that the American economy is still the world’s largest economy. America is not only China and India’s largest trading partner; it is also the largest or second largest destination for exports from the EU and Japan as well as many other developed and developing countries. As such, when America sneezes (economically), the rest of the world still catches a nasty cold.
Despite the pleas of economists and business executives to Republicans in the House of Representatives that they stop playing Russian Roulette with the American and global economy by refusing to raise America’s debt ceiling, lawmakers like Eric Cantor persist in doing so. They also know full well that more than 60% of America’s current debt bill is due to budget deficits Republicans ran up during better economic times to finance things like tax cuts for wealthier Americans, a prescription drug benefit for American retirees and the Iraq war.
Fortunately for holders of American bonds, less ideological Republicans have crafted a compromise measure to avoid a bond ‘default’. Thanks to a bit of legislative sleight of hand, Republicans in Congress will appease their Tea Party activists by voting against an increase in the debt ceiling. This will make President Obama solely responsible for increasing America’s debt ceiling when he vetoes their bill. Unfortunately, this bit of legislative trickery also means Republicans have decided to kick the can down the road when it comes to dealing with America’s budget deficit.
Published on August 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed some of the misconceptions Tea Party activists and the ‘debtors’ have regarding raising America’s debt ceiling. But what dismays me even more is the fact that the Republican Majority leader, Eric Cantor, and the Republicans in Congress who are catering to these anti-tax right wing voters, refuse to challenge the ‘debtors’ utterly false notions.
The US Chamber of Commerce, a frequent foe of many of President Obama’s legislative proposals, as well as many American CEOs have spent much of the past year holding numerous educational meetings with members of Congress who are opposed to raising the debt ceiling. In these meetings they have repeatedly warned lawmakers of the adverse impact a US Treasury bond ‘default’ will have on America’s deficit as well as both the American and global economy.
More specifically, they have warned Congress that failing to raise America’s debt ceiling will not only lead to an increase in the interest America pays on its future bonds, but that these increased interest payments will also add to America’s budget deficit rather than reduce it. They have also warned legislators that an increase in the interest rate for US Treasury bonds, also known as ‘T-bills’, will do serious damage to America’s still fragile economic recovery.
This is due to the fact that the interest rates consumers pay for auto and home loans as well as their credit cards is tied to the interest rate paid on T-bills. Furthermore, the ripple effect of an increase in T-bill interest rates also extends to the interest rates businesses pay on the bank loans they use to finance their businesses as well as the corporate bonds they issue to finance expansions of their business operations. These higher interest rates have a chilling effect on the American economy because they leave consumers and businesses with less money to spend.
Economists from across the political spectrum have warned that a Treasury bond default will probably push the American and global economy back into a recession since the resulting higher interest rates act like a tax increase. Higher interest charges amount to a tax increase for American consumers and businesses with outstanding loans because they reduce the amount of money available to purchase goods and services as well as the money available to pay wages.
While the rise of developing economies in China and India has reduced the world’s reliance on the American economy as the sole engine of global economic growth, the fact remains that the American economy is still the world’s largest economy. America is not only China and India’s largest trading partner; it is also the largest or second largest destination for exports from the EU and Japan as well as many other developed and developing countries. As such, when America sneezes (economically), the rest of the world still catches a nasty cold.
Despite the pleas of economists and business executives to Republicans in the House of Representatives that they stop playing Russian Roulette with the American and global economy by refusing to raise America’s debt ceiling, lawmakers like Eric Cantor persist in doing so. They also know full well that more than 60% of America’s current debt bill is due to budget deficits Republicans ran up during better economic times to finance things like tax cuts for wealthier Americans, a prescription drug benefit for American retirees and the Iraq war.
Fortunately for holders of American bonds, less ideological Republicans have crafted a compromise measure to avoid a bond ‘default’. Thanks to a bit of legislative sleight of hand, Republicans in Congress will appease their Tea Party activists by voting against an increase in the debt ceiling. This will make President Obama solely responsible for increasing America’s debt ceiling when he vetoes their bill. Unfortunately, this bit of legislative trickery also means Republicans have decided to kick the can down the road when it comes to dealing with America’s budget deficit.
The Debt Ceiling "Debate"?
The Bigger Picture
Published on July 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
The big debate currently underway here in the states is over raising the United States debt ceiling. Unfortunately, many Americans including some members of Congress don’t really understand what raising the debt ceiling is all about. So today I will attempt to explain what it really means and the ramifications for the American and global economy if Congress doesn’t take action to raise it by August 2nd.
Many Tea Party activists and Republican conservatives in Congress are under the mistaken belief that raising the US debt ceiling is like getting an increase of your credit card’s credit limit. Since the American federal government is already deeply in debt, they don’t want an increase in the debt ceiling because they are under the mistaken belief that they can hold the line at America’s current 14 trillion dollar level of debt. But these right wing ‘debtors’ have in fact replaced ‘birthers’ as the latest wave of conservative demagoguery that has no basis in fact.
What many Americans don’t understand is that the US Treasury sells American bonds worldwide and that these bonds mature at intervals ranging from one to twenty years. When the bonds do eventually mature the US government pays off the bondholders, many of whom are American citizens, and issues new bonds to sell to investors. By refusing to raise the debt ceiling Congress would in effect say the US Treasury department can no longer issue and sell new bonds to pay off the bonds issued 10 years ago when Republicans also controlled the White House. In other words the Republican Congress would be repudiating the debts it ran up in 2001
The ‘debtors’ are also under the mistaken belief that if America doesn’t pay off bondholders when their bonds mature that this won’t have any impact on them or the American economy. Since America has never defaulted on any of its sovereign debt during its two hundred plus years history, the ‘debtors’ say President Obama’s predictions of severe consequences for America’s economic recovery are wrong even though they can’t find a single economist or business CEO who agrees with them. In other words, the ‘debtors’ and their supporters in Congress are just like their ‘birther’ cousins in that they don’t like to be confused with facts.
Although the ‘debtors’ and their allies in Congress are correct in their belief that America has never defaulted on its debts, there was an incident back in 1979 that gives us some idea of what will happen if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling and we do default on August 2nd.
Back in 1979 America actually went into what was called a ‘technical default’ when the government simply failed to pay off about 120 million dollars worth of US Treasury Bonds. This brief ‘technical default’ wasn’t because the debt ceiling needed to be raised or because of disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over the federal budget. It happened because of some computer system failures at the US Treasury Department that resulted in thousands of bondholders not receiving their checks until a few days after the computer snafu was discovered.
But even though this was a ‘technical default’ due to computer system failures rather than political discord, America still paid a heavy price for this default. For the next six months following this brief 120 million dollar ‘technical default’, the interest rate America was obligated to pay on new bonds it issued was a full ½ percent higher than the interest rate it paid on bonds issued in the six months before the default.
Now ½ percent additional interest may not seem like a lot, but when your debt is at 14 trillion dollars, that works out to about 4 billion dollars more per day in interest. In other words, if the ‘debtors’ get their way, America will only get deeper into debt.
Published on July 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
The big debate currently underway here in the states is over raising the United States debt ceiling. Unfortunately, many Americans including some members of Congress don’t really understand what raising the debt ceiling is all about. So today I will attempt to explain what it really means and the ramifications for the American and global economy if Congress doesn’t take action to raise it by August 2nd.
Many Tea Party activists and Republican conservatives in Congress are under the mistaken belief that raising the US debt ceiling is like getting an increase of your credit card’s credit limit. Since the American federal government is already deeply in debt, they don’t want an increase in the debt ceiling because they are under the mistaken belief that they can hold the line at America’s current 14 trillion dollar level of debt. But these right wing ‘debtors’ have in fact replaced ‘birthers’ as the latest wave of conservative demagoguery that has no basis in fact.
What many Americans don’t understand is that the US Treasury sells American bonds worldwide and that these bonds mature at intervals ranging from one to twenty years. When the bonds do eventually mature the US government pays off the bondholders, many of whom are American citizens, and issues new bonds to sell to investors. By refusing to raise the debt ceiling Congress would in effect say the US Treasury department can no longer issue and sell new bonds to pay off the bonds issued 10 years ago when Republicans also controlled the White House. In other words the Republican Congress would be repudiating the debts it ran up in 2001
The ‘debtors’ are also under the mistaken belief that if America doesn’t pay off bondholders when their bonds mature that this won’t have any impact on them or the American economy. Since America has never defaulted on any of its sovereign debt during its two hundred plus years history, the ‘debtors’ say President Obama’s predictions of severe consequences for America’s economic recovery are wrong even though they can’t find a single economist or business CEO who agrees with them. In other words, the ‘debtors’ and their supporters in Congress are just like their ‘birther’ cousins in that they don’t like to be confused with facts.
Although the ‘debtors’ and their allies in Congress are correct in their belief that America has never defaulted on its debts, there was an incident back in 1979 that gives us some idea of what will happen if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling and we do default on August 2nd.
Back in 1979 America actually went into what was called a ‘technical default’ when the government simply failed to pay off about 120 million dollars worth of US Treasury Bonds. This brief ‘technical default’ wasn’t because the debt ceiling needed to be raised or because of disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over the federal budget. It happened because of some computer system failures at the US Treasury Department that resulted in thousands of bondholders not receiving their checks until a few days after the computer snafu was discovered.
But even though this was a ‘technical default’ due to computer system failures rather than political discord, America still paid a heavy price for this default. For the next six months following this brief 120 million dollar ‘technical default’, the interest rate America was obligated to pay on new bonds it issued was a full ½ percent higher than the interest rate it paid on bonds issued in the six months before the default.
Now ½ percent additional interest may not seem like a lot, but when your debt is at 14 trillion dollars, that works out to about 4 billion dollars more per day in interest. In other words, if the ‘debtors’ get their way, America will only get deeper into debt.
What does the future hold for Israel and Palestine
The Bigger Picture
Published on July 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to turn my focus away from President O’Bama and his recent trip to Europe and discuss the world’s longest running conflict, the ongoing disagreement between Israelis and Palestinians over the future of Israel and Palestine.
Middle East adviser, Aaron Miller says that “In an existential conflict driven by memory, identity, religion and national trauma, the Israeli and Palestinian capacities to absorb and inflict pain are limitless.” The Islamic world has become a breeding ground for terrorists because Muslim sympathies for the plight of Palestinians, fuels the popular anti-American sentiments which drives recruits to al-Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist organizations.
On one side you have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who represents a brand of Zionism that portrays Jews as eternal victims and uses this as an excuse to brook no sympathy for Palestinians who lived in parts of present day Israel for centuries.
So when President O’Bama publicly stated his support for using the pre-1967 Arab-Israeli War boundaries as the starting point for negotiations over the boundaries for a Palestinian homeland, Netanyahu quickly jumped on his high horse and proceeded to lecture President O’Bama about why Israel needed more defensible borders than it had prior to 1967. Although many political observers thought Netanyahu’s lecturing was both unseemly and uncalled for, many Republican and Democratic politicians in Congress also chided President O’Bama for his remarks and gave Netanyahu a score of standing ovations when he gave a speech in Congress.
Politicians in Congress responded in this way because the lobbying influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is still very strong on Capitol Hill. But I think they are sadly mistaken if they believe kowtowing to AIPAC will win them any votes. While AIPAC has lurched to the right in defense of whatever Netanyahu proposes, American Jews under the age of 55 do not cast their votes based on America’s support for Israel. More than 75% of them vote Democratic and will continue to do so because they don’t agree with the Tea Party conservatives who currently dominate Republican Party politics.
On the other hand, representing the right wing of Palestinian politics we have a Hamas regime ostensibly concerned with establishing a homeland for Palestinians, when in fact what they really want is to establish an authoritarian regime along the lines of the one that currently rules Iran. The evidence of Hamas’ true intentions is already on display in Gaza where its internal security forces have been given free rein to bend dissident Palestinians to its will. For example when Palestinians protested that the taxes imposed by Hamas were adding to the burden of citizens most affected by the Israeli blockade they were rounded up and hauled off to jail.
So it is clear to this observer that Netanyahu and his right wing Israeli supporters as well as Hamas and its right wing Palestinian supporters actually have vested political interests in prolonging the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than settling it. Why? Because the ongoing Middle East conflict is used by both sides as a way to maintain their political power. While there is a middle ground here, both sides have shown that they will do whatever they can to crush anyone who advocates peaceful coexistence.
Juliano Mer-Khamis is a case in point. He was the Jewish son of Arna Mer-Khamis, a Zionist pioneer who later became a Palestinian rights activist. Juliano had rebuilt his mother’s performing arts workshop for Palestinian children in the West Bank town of Jenin, which the Israeli government bulldozed because they were using acting classes to teach Palestinian teens how to become more confident. Since Hamas also had no use for self confident Palestinians, a Hamas gunman permanently silenced Juliano by shooting him five times, thus ridding both sides of a mutual irritant. So much for the middle ground. If the Israeli government can’t silence you, Hamas will do the job for them.
Published on July 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to turn my focus away from President O’Bama and his recent trip to Europe and discuss the world’s longest running conflict, the ongoing disagreement between Israelis and Palestinians over the future of Israel and Palestine.
Middle East adviser, Aaron Miller says that “In an existential conflict driven by memory, identity, religion and national trauma, the Israeli and Palestinian capacities to absorb and inflict pain are limitless.” The Islamic world has become a breeding ground for terrorists because Muslim sympathies for the plight of Palestinians, fuels the popular anti-American sentiments which drives recruits to al-Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist organizations.
On one side you have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who represents a brand of Zionism that portrays Jews as eternal victims and uses this as an excuse to brook no sympathy for Palestinians who lived in parts of present day Israel for centuries.
So when President O’Bama publicly stated his support for using the pre-1967 Arab-Israeli War boundaries as the starting point for negotiations over the boundaries for a Palestinian homeland, Netanyahu quickly jumped on his high horse and proceeded to lecture President O’Bama about why Israel needed more defensible borders than it had prior to 1967. Although many political observers thought Netanyahu’s lecturing was both unseemly and uncalled for, many Republican and Democratic politicians in Congress also chided President O’Bama for his remarks and gave Netanyahu a score of standing ovations when he gave a speech in Congress.
Politicians in Congress responded in this way because the lobbying influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is still very strong on Capitol Hill. But I think they are sadly mistaken if they believe kowtowing to AIPAC will win them any votes. While AIPAC has lurched to the right in defense of whatever Netanyahu proposes, American Jews under the age of 55 do not cast their votes based on America’s support for Israel. More than 75% of them vote Democratic and will continue to do so because they don’t agree with the Tea Party conservatives who currently dominate Republican Party politics.
On the other hand, representing the right wing of Palestinian politics we have a Hamas regime ostensibly concerned with establishing a homeland for Palestinians, when in fact what they really want is to establish an authoritarian regime along the lines of the one that currently rules Iran. The evidence of Hamas’ true intentions is already on display in Gaza where its internal security forces have been given free rein to bend dissident Palestinians to its will. For example when Palestinians protested that the taxes imposed by Hamas were adding to the burden of citizens most affected by the Israeli blockade they were rounded up and hauled off to jail.
So it is clear to this observer that Netanyahu and his right wing Israeli supporters as well as Hamas and its right wing Palestinian supporters actually have vested political interests in prolonging the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than settling it. Why? Because the ongoing Middle East conflict is used by both sides as a way to maintain their political power. While there is a middle ground here, both sides have shown that they will do whatever they can to crush anyone who advocates peaceful coexistence.
Juliano Mer-Khamis is a case in point. He was the Jewish son of Arna Mer-Khamis, a Zionist pioneer who later became a Palestinian rights activist. Juliano had rebuilt his mother’s performing arts workshop for Palestinian children in the West Bank town of Jenin, which the Israeli government bulldozed because they were using acting classes to teach Palestinian teens how to become more confident. Since Hamas also had no use for self confident Palestinians, a Hamas gunman permanently silenced Juliano by shooting him five times, thus ridding both sides of a mutual irritant. So much for the middle ground. If the Israeli government can’t silence you, Hamas will do the job for them.
Monday, June 13, 2011
America's 'free riding' European NATO allies
The Bigger Picture
Published on June 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my previous column about President O’Bama’s visit to Ireland, I mentioned that the primary purpose of President Obama’s other stops in the UK, France and Poland during his trip to Europe, was to reassure his European neighbours that America’s longstanding alliance with Europe was still very important to him. So today I’m going to discuss why America is also questioning Europe’s commitment to that same longstanding alliance.
Since Defense Secretary Robert Gates is retiring at the end of this month, he used his final trip to meet with his NATO counterparts in Brussels to take some of America’s European NATO allies to the proverbial ‘woodshed.’ Secretary Gates made his public remarks following two days of intense and even more critical private meetings with NATO representatives.
Secretary Gates used the recent NATO airstrikes on Libya to drive home his point that America’s European allies are not doing their fair share by noting that less half the NATO allies are engaged in Libya and less than a third are involved in the airstrikes. This is in spite of the fact that NATO ministers voted unanimously to launch air strikes to protect Libyan civilians from Khadafi. As a result, Gates said “The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country; yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.”
Make no mistake, Secretary Gates remarks were not just another airing of private grievances by a soon to be retired American government official. His comments were a very accurate reflection of President O’Bama’s feelings as well as those of members of Congress from both parties and American voters, because President O’Bama and Congress are under increasing pressure to cut defense spending as part of a larger plan to rein in America’s budget deficits.
Secretary Gates noted that while America’s defense spending had doubled during the past decade, European defense spending had fallen by 15%. Secretary Gates then warned NATO that the American people and US Congress have a “dwindling appetite and patience for continuing to spend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”
Since the purpose of his final trip was to discuss America’s plans to begin withdrawing American troops as well as NATO forces from Afghanistan, Secretary Gates also complimented Germany, France, Canada and the UK for increasing their troop commitments in line with America’s increase of military forces as part President O’Bama’s 2009 troop ‘surge.’ But Gates also noted that many NATO members rely on the US to provide helicopters to evacuate their wounded, yet place restrictions on where their forces can be deployed and if they can be used in combat despite pleas from America and other NATO allies for them to become more involved.
Nor is America alone in its thinking that many NATO allies are not carrying their own weight. NATO ministers from Canada, France and the UK also expressed their support for Secretary Gates critiques of NATO allies for not doing their part as members of the alliance during the two days of private consultations that preceded Secretary Gates public remarks. Many NATO allies like having the security blanket that being a member of NATO provides, but they are simply ‘free riders’ because they are unwilling to pay their share of the costs of membership.
Unfortunately for America, I don’t think the Secretary Gates blunt assessments will have much effect. Too many of our NATO allies have become complacent about defense issues ever since the ‘Iron Curtain’ was lifted. So as long as they do not feel any eminent security threats, I think they will continue to enjoy their ‘free ride’ at the expense of nations like France, Canada, the UK and America.
Published on June 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my previous column about President O’Bama’s visit to Ireland, I mentioned that the primary purpose of President Obama’s other stops in the UK, France and Poland during his trip to Europe, was to reassure his European neighbours that America’s longstanding alliance with Europe was still very important to him. So today I’m going to discuss why America is also questioning Europe’s commitment to that same longstanding alliance.
Since Defense Secretary Robert Gates is retiring at the end of this month, he used his final trip to meet with his NATO counterparts in Brussels to take some of America’s European NATO allies to the proverbial ‘woodshed.’ Secretary Gates made his public remarks following two days of intense and even more critical private meetings with NATO representatives.
Secretary Gates used the recent NATO airstrikes on Libya to drive home his point that America’s European allies are not doing their fair share by noting that less half the NATO allies are engaged in Libya and less than a third are involved in the airstrikes. This is in spite of the fact that NATO ministers voted unanimously to launch air strikes to protect Libyan civilians from Khadafi. As a result, Gates said “The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country; yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.”
Make no mistake, Secretary Gates remarks were not just another airing of private grievances by a soon to be retired American government official. His comments were a very accurate reflection of President O’Bama’s feelings as well as those of members of Congress from both parties and American voters, because President O’Bama and Congress are under increasing pressure to cut defense spending as part of a larger plan to rein in America’s budget deficits.
Secretary Gates noted that while America’s defense spending had doubled during the past decade, European defense spending had fallen by 15%. Secretary Gates then warned NATO that the American people and US Congress have a “dwindling appetite and patience for continuing to spend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”
Since the purpose of his final trip was to discuss America’s plans to begin withdrawing American troops as well as NATO forces from Afghanistan, Secretary Gates also complimented Germany, France, Canada and the UK for increasing their troop commitments in line with America’s increase of military forces as part President O’Bama’s 2009 troop ‘surge.’ But Gates also noted that many NATO members rely on the US to provide helicopters to evacuate their wounded, yet place restrictions on where their forces can be deployed and if they can be used in combat despite pleas from America and other NATO allies for them to become more involved.
Nor is America alone in its thinking that many NATO allies are not carrying their own weight. NATO ministers from Canada, France and the UK also expressed their support for Secretary Gates critiques of NATO allies for not doing their part as members of the alliance during the two days of private consultations that preceded Secretary Gates public remarks. Many NATO allies like having the security blanket that being a member of NATO provides, but they are simply ‘free riders’ because they are unwilling to pay their share of the costs of membership.
Unfortunately for America, I don’t think the Secretary Gates blunt assessments will have much effect. Too many of our NATO allies have become complacent about defense issues ever since the ‘Iron Curtain’ was lifted. So as long as they do not feel any eminent security threats, I think they will continue to enjoy their ‘free ride’ at the expense of nations like France, Canada, the UK and America.
President O'Bama visits his ancestral home-Ireland
The Bigger Picture
Published on June 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Having already explained why I believe President Obama will win re-election in 2012 in my previous column, today I will discuss my impressions about his visit to Ireland last Monday.
To begin with I want to note that President Obama’s only public appearances on his weeklong European visit were the two he made in Ireland; his visit to his ancestral home in Moneygall and his public speech later that day at College Green in Dublin. Furthermore, the primary purpose of President Obama’s other stops in the UK, France and Poland, was to reassure his European neighbours that America’s longstanding alliance with Europe was still very important to him. But in the case of Ireland, President Obama and other Americans’ obvious affection for the ‘old sod’ made such reassurances totally unnecessary.
No, instead of seeking to reassure Ireland that it was still important to America, the real purpose of President Obama’s visit to the ‘Emerald Isle’ was to remind the Irish people of how important they are, not just to America, but to the rest of the world as well. He duly noted the fact that he is one of the more than forty million Americans with “blood links” to Ireland, thanks to over 150 years of Irish emigration to America, by joking to his audience that, “I’ve come home to find the apostrophe we lost somewhere along the way.”
But then President O’Bama (the Irish spelling of his name) went on to acknowledge Ireland’s broader contributions in the areas of food security, human rights and UN peacekeeping missions, by reminding everyone just how much Ireland also “punches above its weight” in the much larger global arena. I thought this was an excellent remark, because I think some Irish citizens may have forgotten this during the last three years of mind numbing economic recession.
President O’Bama’s speech on College Green included a message of hope for the future and solidarity with America. Just like you or I might tell an old friend going through tough times that we’re confident things will get better, President O’Bama told the Dublin crowd that “Ireland is a little country that inspires the biggest things. Your best days are still ahead.”
Then in an acknowledgement of America’s solidarity with Ireland and the Irish people, President O’Bama told the audience “Our greatest triumphs, in America and Ireland alike, are still to come.” He then closed his speech with a refrain that included the Irish translation of his Presidential campaign’s famous slogan, “Is féidir linn, yes we can! Is féidir linn, yes we can!”
Frankly, I was not at all surprised by President O’Bama’s rousing and inspiring speech to the assembled multitude on College Green. The President’s oratorical and rhetorical talents are both well known and well documented. I have also been fortunate enough to have been present for a few of his best speeches, some of which were very inspirational, while others, such as his 2009 Presidential Inaugural Address, were much more sobering.
But as an American who has also been a keen observer of President O’Bama’s demeanor and behavior in a variety of triumphant as well trying moments, I was struck by how relaxed and at home the President seemed to be throughout his entire visit. I observed some of this in person at College Green and witnessed the other moments courtesy of the wall to wall television coverage the President’s day long visit received.
Maybe I’m totally wrong about this and I was only seeing a great acting performance in front of the ever present TV cameras by President O’Bama. Regardless, I still had a very palpable sense that the President was in fact very relaxed and at ease while he was here in Ireland, more so in fact, than at any other time I have seen him since he became President.
Even before he was elected President, I never saw President O’Bama wade into a crowd of onlookers shaking hands and hoisting babies with the same kind of sheer joy and abandonment that I saw him display on the streets of Moneygall. Furthermore, although I have seen President O’Bama order and drink a beer before, I have never seen the President order another round and make a point of paying for it. Was that simply a reflection of the taste of a Guinness or of a man who felt at home even though he was among strangers?
But President O’Bama also appeared to be just as relaxed and among ‘old friends’ when I observed his behavior following his speech at College Green. He didn’t just spend the obligatory time shaking hands and posing for pictures with the guests on the stage behind him. He then went down to the crowd and shook hands with as many people as he could there as well. Indeed, time seems to stand still when you are truly at home and with your friends.
Published on June 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Having already explained why I believe President Obama will win re-election in 2012 in my previous column, today I will discuss my impressions about his visit to Ireland last Monday.
To begin with I want to note that President Obama’s only public appearances on his weeklong European visit were the two he made in Ireland; his visit to his ancestral home in Moneygall and his public speech later that day at College Green in Dublin. Furthermore, the primary purpose of President Obama’s other stops in the UK, France and Poland, was to reassure his European neighbours that America’s longstanding alliance with Europe was still very important to him. But in the case of Ireland, President Obama and other Americans’ obvious affection for the ‘old sod’ made such reassurances totally unnecessary.
No, instead of seeking to reassure Ireland that it was still important to America, the real purpose of President Obama’s visit to the ‘Emerald Isle’ was to remind the Irish people of how important they are, not just to America, but to the rest of the world as well. He duly noted the fact that he is one of the more than forty million Americans with “blood links” to Ireland, thanks to over 150 years of Irish emigration to America, by joking to his audience that, “I’ve come home to find the apostrophe we lost somewhere along the way.”
But then President O’Bama (the Irish spelling of his name) went on to acknowledge Ireland’s broader contributions in the areas of food security, human rights and UN peacekeeping missions, by reminding everyone just how much Ireland also “punches above its weight” in the much larger global arena. I thought this was an excellent remark, because I think some Irish citizens may have forgotten this during the last three years of mind numbing economic recession.
President O’Bama’s speech on College Green included a message of hope for the future and solidarity with America. Just like you or I might tell an old friend going through tough times that we’re confident things will get better, President O’Bama told the Dublin crowd that “Ireland is a little country that inspires the biggest things. Your best days are still ahead.”
Then in an acknowledgement of America’s solidarity with Ireland and the Irish people, President O’Bama told the audience “Our greatest triumphs, in America and Ireland alike, are still to come.” He then closed his speech with a refrain that included the Irish translation of his Presidential campaign’s famous slogan, “Is féidir linn, yes we can! Is féidir linn, yes we can!”
Frankly, I was not at all surprised by President O’Bama’s rousing and inspiring speech to the assembled multitude on College Green. The President’s oratorical and rhetorical talents are both well known and well documented. I have also been fortunate enough to have been present for a few of his best speeches, some of which were very inspirational, while others, such as his 2009 Presidential Inaugural Address, were much more sobering.
But as an American who has also been a keen observer of President O’Bama’s demeanor and behavior in a variety of triumphant as well trying moments, I was struck by how relaxed and at home the President seemed to be throughout his entire visit. I observed some of this in person at College Green and witnessed the other moments courtesy of the wall to wall television coverage the President’s day long visit received.
Maybe I’m totally wrong about this and I was only seeing a great acting performance in front of the ever present TV cameras by President O’Bama. Regardless, I still had a very palpable sense that the President was in fact very relaxed and at ease while he was here in Ireland, more so in fact, than at any other time I have seen him since he became President.
Even before he was elected President, I never saw President O’Bama wade into a crowd of onlookers shaking hands and hoisting babies with the same kind of sheer joy and abandonment that I saw him display on the streets of Moneygall. Furthermore, although I have seen President O’Bama order and drink a beer before, I have never seen the President order another round and make a point of paying for it. Was that simply a reflection of the taste of a Guinness or of a man who felt at home even though he was among strangers?
But President O’Bama also appeared to be just as relaxed and among ‘old friends’ when I observed his behavior following his speech at College Green. He didn’t just spend the obligatory time shaking hands and posing for pictures with the guests on the stage behind him. He then went down to the crowd and shook hands with as many people as he could there as well. Indeed, time seems to stand still when you are truly at home and with your friends.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Why President Obama will win re-election in 2012
The Bigger Picture
Published on May 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Even though the 2012 US Presidential and Congressional elections are still 18 months away, Republicans actually began their 2012 political campaigns just after the 112th Congress was sworn into office on January 3rd of this year.
First, on the heels of their November mid-term election victories, the leader of Republicans in the US Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell said “that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office.” Congressional Republicans then proceeded to propose and pass a series of bills to cut spending and enact their social conservative agenda instead of measures designed to reduce unemployment and spur the American economy.
Even though none of their spending bills had any hope of being passed by the US Senate, Republicans continued to reject attempts by President Obama to enact a federal budget for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year that would eliminate a smaller amount of federal spending. The end result was a series of small spending cut measures that did nothing to reduce unemployment, but instead threatened to shut down the federal government and damage America’s fragile economic recovery in the process.
Although President Obama truly desired to work with Republicans in crafting bi-partisan solutions to America’s economic and budget deficit problems, he is also a realist when it comes to politics. So after Republicans spent the first three months of their term rejecting attempts at bi-partisan compromise, President Obama decided that since Republicans only cared about defeating him in 2012, he would announce he was seeking re-election 19 months before Election Day.
But despite his many attempts to strike a compromise with Republicans, many Americans nonetheless blame President Obama, at least in part, for the gridlock that currently envelops Washington DC, instead of just the Republicans who refuse to compromise with the President. This is a reflection of the fact that many Americans don’t really understand the constraints our Constitution places on their President’s power. The President can veto laws that he doesn’t support, but is also powerless to force Congress to pass the laws America needs to address its problems.
So if President Obama is to succeed in his quest to win re-election in 2012, one of the most important tasks for the President and his campaign team is to educate American voters about the difficulty of running a country when his opponents’ top priority is preventing him from doing so. Many Americans, including myself, have long believed that a divided government leads to more bi-partisan and effective laws and policies. But this belief is also based on our assumption that politicians on both sides will be willing to strike a compromise.
However one of the main disadvantages of a divided government is the inability of the government to function effectively if politicians on one side determine they have more to gain politically by not compromising with their political opponents. Since the Tea Party movement doesn’t believe in making compromises, Republicans, who were elected to Congress in 2010 thanks to their support, believe they have more to gain by opposing President Obama than they do by compromising with him for the sake of our country.
But in addition to painting his Republican opponents in Congress as obstructionists more interested in advancing their Tea Party supporters right wing political agenda, the President’s other task is to compare and contrast his more ‘compassionate’ vision of America with the Republican and Tea Party movement’s more selfish and self serving vision of America. The President wisely began painting this picture of his vision versus that of his Republican opponents soon after he announced he was running for re-election last month.
Since the winner of American Presidential elections is decided by the votes of moderate, independent or swing voters rather than the more liberal and conservative voters who form the core of the Democratic and Republican parties, it is important that the President spend as much time as he can between now and the 2012 election painting the Republican Party as one that is dominated by hard line conservatives. By doing this it is more likely than not that the swing voters President Obama will need to win re-election will view whoever the Republicans nominate to run against him as an extension of the party’s right wing base.
Because the President will not have any viable Democratic opponents to run against in the 2012 Democratic primaries, he will also be able to conserve his campaign funds for the General Election. On the other hand President Obama’s Republican opponent will not only have to spend a lot of money waging a campaign to win the Republican Party’s nomination, but will also have to go on the record in favour of political positions that appeal to the Tea Party movement, but are a turnoff to many of America’s more moderate independent voters.
If President Obama succeeds in portraying Republicans in Congress as obstructionists and their candidate for President as beholden to the right wing views of the Republican base, then it won’t matter who his Republican Presidential opponent is because President Obama will win the independent voters as well as the national popular vote.
But the more important electoral calculus is winning at least 270 electoral votes. If President Obama succeeds in winning the same 28 states he won in 2008, then he will finish with 359 electoral votes. 17 of these are solidly Democratic states that guarantee him 229 votes and President Obama won another 7 states with 53 electoral votes by large margins ranging from 6% to 14%. Since these states are unlikely to swing back to a Republican, even if his Republican opponent is able to win all the big swing states like Florida, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina that Obama carried in 2008, President Obama still wins the electoral vote by a margin of 282 to 256.
So although a lot can change in 18 months, this is why I predict President Obama will win re-election in 2012.
Published on May 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Even though the 2012 US Presidential and Congressional elections are still 18 months away, Republicans actually began their 2012 political campaigns just after the 112th Congress was sworn into office on January 3rd of this year.
First, on the heels of their November mid-term election victories, the leader of Republicans in the US Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell said “that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office.” Congressional Republicans then proceeded to propose and pass a series of bills to cut spending and enact their social conservative agenda instead of measures designed to reduce unemployment and spur the American economy.
Even though none of their spending bills had any hope of being passed by the US Senate, Republicans continued to reject attempts by President Obama to enact a federal budget for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year that would eliminate a smaller amount of federal spending. The end result was a series of small spending cut measures that did nothing to reduce unemployment, but instead threatened to shut down the federal government and damage America’s fragile economic recovery in the process.
Although President Obama truly desired to work with Republicans in crafting bi-partisan solutions to America’s economic and budget deficit problems, he is also a realist when it comes to politics. So after Republicans spent the first three months of their term rejecting attempts at bi-partisan compromise, President Obama decided that since Republicans only cared about defeating him in 2012, he would announce he was seeking re-election 19 months before Election Day.
But despite his many attempts to strike a compromise with Republicans, many Americans nonetheless blame President Obama, at least in part, for the gridlock that currently envelops Washington DC, instead of just the Republicans who refuse to compromise with the President. This is a reflection of the fact that many Americans don’t really understand the constraints our Constitution places on their President’s power. The President can veto laws that he doesn’t support, but is also powerless to force Congress to pass the laws America needs to address its problems.
So if President Obama is to succeed in his quest to win re-election in 2012, one of the most important tasks for the President and his campaign team is to educate American voters about the difficulty of running a country when his opponents’ top priority is preventing him from doing so. Many Americans, including myself, have long believed that a divided government leads to more bi-partisan and effective laws and policies. But this belief is also based on our assumption that politicians on both sides will be willing to strike a compromise.
However one of the main disadvantages of a divided government is the inability of the government to function effectively if politicians on one side determine they have more to gain politically by not compromising with their political opponents. Since the Tea Party movement doesn’t believe in making compromises, Republicans, who were elected to Congress in 2010 thanks to their support, believe they have more to gain by opposing President Obama than they do by compromising with him for the sake of our country.
But in addition to painting his Republican opponents in Congress as obstructionists more interested in advancing their Tea Party supporters right wing political agenda, the President’s other task is to compare and contrast his more ‘compassionate’ vision of America with the Republican and Tea Party movement’s more selfish and self serving vision of America. The President wisely began painting this picture of his vision versus that of his Republican opponents soon after he announced he was running for re-election last month.
Since the winner of American Presidential elections is decided by the votes of moderate, independent or swing voters rather than the more liberal and conservative voters who form the core of the Democratic and Republican parties, it is important that the President spend as much time as he can between now and the 2012 election painting the Republican Party as one that is dominated by hard line conservatives. By doing this it is more likely than not that the swing voters President Obama will need to win re-election will view whoever the Republicans nominate to run against him as an extension of the party’s right wing base.
Because the President will not have any viable Democratic opponents to run against in the 2012 Democratic primaries, he will also be able to conserve his campaign funds for the General Election. On the other hand President Obama’s Republican opponent will not only have to spend a lot of money waging a campaign to win the Republican Party’s nomination, but will also have to go on the record in favour of political positions that appeal to the Tea Party movement, but are a turnoff to many of America’s more moderate independent voters.
If President Obama succeeds in portraying Republicans in Congress as obstructionists and their candidate for President as beholden to the right wing views of the Republican base, then it won’t matter who his Republican Presidential opponent is because President Obama will win the independent voters as well as the national popular vote.
But the more important electoral calculus is winning at least 270 electoral votes. If President Obama succeeds in winning the same 28 states he won in 2008, then he will finish with 359 electoral votes. 17 of these are solidly Democratic states that guarantee him 229 votes and President Obama won another 7 states with 53 electoral votes by large margins ranging from 6% to 14%. Since these states are unlikely to swing back to a Republican, even if his Republican opponent is able to win all the big swing states like Florida, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina that Obama carried in 2008, President Obama still wins the electoral vote by a margin of 282 to 256.
So although a lot can change in 18 months, this is why I predict President Obama will win re-election in 2012.
Why won't these 'children' just compromise?
The Bigger Picture
Published on May 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In order to understand why the US Congress and President Obama are finding it so difficult to reach a bi-partisan consensus on how to address America’s budget deficit problems, one first needs to understand the political parties’ respective voter constituencies.
Because most Republicans in Congress represent districts and states that are in predominately suburban or rural areas of the United States, a majority of their constituents also tend to be older members of America’s white ethnic majority. Many of these citizens are also retired and rely on government funded entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as supplemental income from private employer pensions and healthcare plans, to provide for their pension and healthcare needs. So for these voters, America’s current high level of unemployment isn’t the problem; maintaining their current lifestyles is.
Although unemployment also tends to be lower than the national average in these suburban or rural districts and states, this is not the case in all areas of the country. In a number of Midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio and Indiana the loss of higher paying manufacturing jobs has led to higher levels of unemployment. These job losses have in turn had ripple effects on the retail, restaurant and service businesses that once catered to the needs of these workers, leading to even more job losses in these local economic sectors.
But most of the jobs that have been lost in the manufacturing and service sectors of the economies in these districts and states also did not require a college education. As a result, many of the unemployed people living there lack the education needed to acquire better paying jobs in America’s more service oriented economy. Many of them are also either unwilling to move to other areas of the country for a job or unable to do so because they can’t sell their homes in America’s still depressed housing market. So confronted with either going back to school to get a university degree or accepting a lower paying job in the service sector, these workers react by becoming angry and frustrated with America’s political leaders.
Although white Americans still make up a majority of American voters and hold a diminished but still privileged position in American society when they are compared as a group with other ethnic minorities, their grasp on electoral and economic power has been eroding for quite some time. But rather than accept this as an inevitable consequence of life in a vibrant multicultural society, many older and less educated whites are looking for someone and or something to blame. Seeking to take advantage of their discontent, Republicans in turn blame Democrats since younger, better educated whites and members of America’s minority ethnic groups also tend to vote for Democrats like President Obama.
But even though the balance of power in Congress, as well as the US Presidency, has been shifting between the Democratic and Republican political parties for years, members of both parties have historically compromised with their political opponents in order to pass important legislation. So why can’t the current Congress muster the bi-partisan support that has always been used in past to pass important legislation like our nation’s annual budgets?
The answer lies in the way most state’s Congressional districts have been gerrymandered every ten years by the Republican or Democratic parties that are in power in those states. When US Congressional districts are redesigned, the new districts are designed to favor the incumbent legislators of their party. Since the conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats elected from these districts no longer have to worry about swing voters, they are also less inclined to compromise and pass the bi-partisan legislation that America needs.
But the gridlock in Congress also makes President Obama look like an ineffective leader. So next week I will discuss how President Obama can overcome the legislative gridlock induced by Congressional Republicans and win re-election in 2012.
Published on May 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In order to understand why the US Congress and President Obama are finding it so difficult to reach a bi-partisan consensus on how to address America’s budget deficit problems, one first needs to understand the political parties’ respective voter constituencies.
Because most Republicans in Congress represent districts and states that are in predominately suburban or rural areas of the United States, a majority of their constituents also tend to be older members of America’s white ethnic majority. Many of these citizens are also retired and rely on government funded entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as supplemental income from private employer pensions and healthcare plans, to provide for their pension and healthcare needs. So for these voters, America’s current high level of unemployment isn’t the problem; maintaining their current lifestyles is.
Although unemployment also tends to be lower than the national average in these suburban or rural districts and states, this is not the case in all areas of the country. In a number of Midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio and Indiana the loss of higher paying manufacturing jobs has led to higher levels of unemployment. These job losses have in turn had ripple effects on the retail, restaurant and service businesses that once catered to the needs of these workers, leading to even more job losses in these local economic sectors.
But most of the jobs that have been lost in the manufacturing and service sectors of the economies in these districts and states also did not require a college education. As a result, many of the unemployed people living there lack the education needed to acquire better paying jobs in America’s more service oriented economy. Many of them are also either unwilling to move to other areas of the country for a job or unable to do so because they can’t sell their homes in America’s still depressed housing market. So confronted with either going back to school to get a university degree or accepting a lower paying job in the service sector, these workers react by becoming angry and frustrated with America’s political leaders.
Although white Americans still make up a majority of American voters and hold a diminished but still privileged position in American society when they are compared as a group with other ethnic minorities, their grasp on electoral and economic power has been eroding for quite some time. But rather than accept this as an inevitable consequence of life in a vibrant multicultural society, many older and less educated whites are looking for someone and or something to blame. Seeking to take advantage of their discontent, Republicans in turn blame Democrats since younger, better educated whites and members of America’s minority ethnic groups also tend to vote for Democrats like President Obama.
But even though the balance of power in Congress, as well as the US Presidency, has been shifting between the Democratic and Republican political parties for years, members of both parties have historically compromised with their political opponents in order to pass important legislation. So why can’t the current Congress muster the bi-partisan support that has always been used in past to pass important legislation like our nation’s annual budgets?
The answer lies in the way most state’s Congressional districts have been gerrymandered every ten years by the Republican or Democratic parties that are in power in those states. When US Congressional districts are redesigned, the new districts are designed to favor the incumbent legislators of their party. Since the conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats elected from these districts no longer have to worry about swing voters, they are also less inclined to compromise and pass the bi-partisan legislation that America needs.
But the gridlock in Congress also makes President Obama look like an ineffective leader. So next week I will discuss how President Obama can overcome the legislative gridlock induced by Congressional Republicans and win re-election in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
