The general pulse I got from both sides of the political spectrum before last night’s speech was anything but what the American people would have expected this time last year. Democrats seemed wary and nervous, but nonetheless held a certain fixed confidence in the President, whereas Republicans eagerly awaited the media-savvy President’s first potential PR flop; that is, they expected a speech filled with hollow excuses and an attempt to brush away reality with some sort of artificial optimism. I went into the speech consciously trying to be as neutral as I could (and I admit, that is a goal I struggle with). Therefore, I’ll run down what I determined to be what struck me as the notable good, bad and ugly moments of last night’s speech. Yes, I realize that I cannot possibly cover every issue he tackled, so I’ll let my personal priorities dictate my agenda:
The Good:
I was initially a bit skeptical of Obama’s goal to double exports over the next five years (not because of my personal bias, but because of how unfeasible it seems). However, I began to follow along with him when he talked about expanding trade with Colombia, Panama and South Korea in the near future, which was essentially a promotion of freer trade in the Americas and elsewhere (If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m big on free trade, which I will write about at some other time). I also was relieved to hear him promote the construction of new, safe nuclear power plants and (finally) lend his support to exploring possibilities for offshore drilling to at last utilize the resources we know we have. In terms of energy policy, I was generally pleased with what he had to say. His call to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is long overdue and would be a huge step forward for social justice in America. Why deny anybody the opportunity to exercise patriotism in whatever way possible, especially on the basis of sexual orientation? The repeal of all capital gains tax on small businesses would create huge financial breathing room and would move us one step closer to a system of fair and just taxation in this country. I’m also a big fan of the non-defense/Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security spending freeze. Finally, I think it’s about time someone figured out the idea of fiscal responsibility in Washington. I’m just surprised it was Barack Obama.
The Bad:
The part of the speech that I found to be the most egregious violation of rational thought was how he plans to treat student loans from now on. For those who missed it, he intends to pass a law that would not allow anyone to spend more than 10% of their income on student loans and that would forgive all outstanding loans after 20 years (or 10 years, if that student enters into a career of public service). Now I’m not sure that he is aware that this plan will both bankrupt the entity distributing the loan and decrease the credit of students everywhere, but to think that this plan is anything but financially outrageous is simply delusional. His call to use $30 billion of of paid back loans from large banks to help smaller banks give out more loans to small business owners is problematic for a few reasons. That $30 billion is not coming from big banks. Don’t kid yourself into believing that. It’s coming from the big cesspool of tax dollars that every citizen pays into. And for it’s worth, TARP specifically requires all paid back loans to go directly to the national deficit anyway. Unfortunately, this issue just isn’t as simple as he would like to make it sound. He made a half-hearted and overdue final petition to pass healthcare reform, which demonstrated no willingness to compromise on the issue. I would have loved to see him address some of the things that Bob McDonnell proposed in the Republican response, namely allowing insurance providers to operate across state lines and enacting serious tort reform.
The Ugly:
The phrase “with all due respect to separation of powers” does not give the President a blank check to call out the Supreme Court for any sort of ruling. Deliberately slapping the Supreme Court in the face by expressing dissatisfaction with their ruling on campaign finance (which cannot be changed now anyway) is both irresponsible and disrespectful. To do it, literally, in front of their faces only adds insult to injury. He intentionally portrayed those who don’t necessarily agree with global warming science as ignorant and stubborn, which only furthers partisanship and tension between sides of the global warming debate. Both of these were unwarranted and low-blow comments that, frankly, didn’t help him achieve his so-called goals of greater bipartisanship in this country.
That all having been said, there was a surprising amount of the speech with which I was pleased. I think in certain policy areas, President Obama demonstrated a sincere willingness to operate across party lines, whereas he came up short in a few others. I have little to no faith in Congress’ ability to pass more than a handful of the numerous policy proposals he made, and I think he is well aware of that too. Nonetheless, if he is willing to fight for some of the more moderate proposals he made, our prospects for 2010 might just be a bit less bleak than 2009 was.
First of all, it’s been nearly two months since my last post and I apologize for that. Getting back into my routine here at school ought to be conducive to regular posting.
That having been said, I have a few brief thoughts about Pat Robertson’s recent comments regarding the devastation in Haiti this week. For those who are unaware of what was said, Robertson suggests that Haitians made a pact with Satan decades ago, agreeing to serve him in exchange for independence from French imperialism. Furthermore, he claims that chronic Haitian poverty and natural disasters are consequences of this pact.
As an American, a Christian and someone who likes to think he has a healthy conscience, I initially thought these comments to be a joke. When I realized how serious he actually was, I felt obligated to speak my mind.
First of all, there is not even the most remote evidence that Haiti banded together as a country and made a pact with Satan. None whatsoever. There is no history of the occult dominating Haitian religion, nor is there a significant Satan worshipping population in Haiti. And even if there was evidence of a deal with the devil, there is no evidence that any such attempted pact would actually have any practical value. This is the kind of hocus pocus nonsense that has led to Evangelical Christianity’s decreasing credibility and relevance in a world that is becoming more socially progressive and humanitarian.
Secondly, I ask Pat Robertson: has it ever occurred to you that Haiti’s chronic poverty, food shortages and social problems may the result of ineffective administration, rather than some nonexistent deal with the devil that you obviously made up? The 2006 Corruption Perception Index ranked Haiti as the single most politically corrupt out of 166 countries observed for its report. Perhaps Haiti’s history of economic and political dependence on France has created difficulties in establishing respected and effective administration? This is a country that has only had a constitution since 1987 and since then has experienced six years during which the constitution has been suspended and is still recovering from a coup that completely changed the face of Haitian government in 2004. Poverty stems from prohibitively high food prices. Not from Satan.
Finally, natural disasters in Haiti are the result of Hispañola’s position on the edge of the Caribbean tectonic plate. Not the will of Satan. The areas where these plates collide and move are hot spots for earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc. Very, VERY basic geology explains this crisis. The closest thing I have ever taken to a geology class was 8th grade science, and even I knew that. I really challenge Pat Robertson’s (or any televangelist’s) credentials in evaluating the source of a natural disaster.
Frankly, as a Christian, I am embarrassed and infuriated when people like Pat Robertson make these outrageous claims in the name of God. Not only that but I am offended. For those who presently feel disillusioned with Christianity because of its social teaching and the ridiculous claims of a small minority of clergymen, I can assure you that this is not the position of mainstream Christianity. On behalf of Christians everywhere who are as outraged as I am, I sincerely apologize.
And to think, this post was inspired by a commentary by Keith Olbermann, with which I agreed wholeheartedly. What is the world coming to?
Score:
Me – 1
Pat Robertson – 0
Well, not exactly...
Two days ago, I attended a lecture by former Vice President Al Gore on his latest book, presumably another prophesy of an environmental apocalypse (although in his defense, I have not read the book). I’m not an expert on global warming science and most political figures aren’t either. However, the widespread lack of definitive knowledge on this subject, in my mind, constitutes legitimate skepticism of our current energy-using habits and of the environment’s present condition. Regardless of whether you believe global warming exists or not, or whether it is man made or not, I think it is safe to say that most Americans can agree with moving away from the use of fossil fuels simply for the sake of energy independence and national security because frankly, the idea of being a slave to OPEC for the rest of my life is a bit disheartening.
With that in mind, I heard Vice President Gore speak and had a few mixed reactions about his speech. However, there was one particular series of statements that he made that were a bit concerning to me; that is, his general disapproval of nuclear energy.
The way he approached the topic was by saying that in general, he would like the idea of having a predominantly nuclear-run energy industry. Without specifically saying as much, he seemed to concede the fact that nuclear energy is the most efficient source out there. And indeed, it is. At about two cents per kilowatt-hour, nuclear energy wins the price efficiency contest, hands down:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
In spite of the economic benefits (which I frankly think should be the driving force for a new energy policy given our financial situation) and the fact that it is environment-friendly, VP Gore still had a few qualms about nuclear power.
First, he cited the price as being an issue (as if building tens of thousands of windmills and enough solar panels to cover an area the size of Texas isn’t expensive). While building several new nuclear reactors presents a harsh initial cost, the efficiency will produce exponential savings over time. And building these reactors is a one-time fee. If we establish a sensible and responsible payment plan now, this is absolutely feasible.
Nuclear waste is always an issue that concerns people. But the fact of the matter is that 95% of nuclear waste can be recycled and after this process, it becomes significantly less radioactive. Things like gloves, labcoats and papers that come into contact with radioactive material have to be burned for safety reasons, but approximately 10% of the ashes that come from burning these materials is usable enriched particles like uranium or plutonium. Yes, recycling waste is very expensive. But like all technology, if we devote the R&D necessary to develop it over time, it will absolutely become price-friendly and efficient. And it will even be environmentally friendly.
Then there’s the argument that nuclear reactors would be hotspots for attempted terrorism and threats to national security. With 104 existing nuclear reactors in the United States whose locations are publicly available, the threat of terrorism is as viable today as it will ever be. If it isn’t a problem now, I don’t see why it would be in the future. Plus, all facilities are reinforced with six-foot thick concrete walls and extensive security. Safety is and will remain a priority at these facilities, as it should.
Gore went on to condemn the idea of giving nuclear technology to developing rogue nations or failed states whom the United States would not trust with nuclear technology. I agree with this principle – but why should we have to give the technology to them? Earlier, he had spoken of creating a trans-continental electrical grid so that power could be accessible worldwide (and yet nuclear energy is still too expensive). If we go ahead and create this new grid, why can’t we let the countries who are already nuclear develop the energy and invest it in the grid for other nations to share without actually giving them the technology to supply it themselves? For years, OPEC has had a monopoly on the development and sales of the most widely used energy source in the world. If we take on this role by producing more electricity through nuclear power than any other country, it could be a huge industry that puts us in a lucrative position on the global scene and provides much needed revenue to our economy. And most importantly, it will create usable energy for countries seeking nuclear technology to develop their own energy. If we provide the energy for them, they will have far less need to develop nuclear technology. That would be a fantastic approach to nuclear non-proliferation.
So will nuclear energy lead to heightened terrorism, the spread of nuclear arms, giant radioactive deposits and unbearable expenses? Absolutely not. Countries like France (who is 75% nuclear already) are gradually beginning to get the right idea. Nuclear energy is the best way to go about solving these potential future issues and the United States, for its own good, ought to take the lead in developing nuclear energy and the associated technology to achieve economic stability and to remain the most technologically innovative nation in world history.
In light of a few spirited (and frustrating) discussions I’ve had in the last week or two, I’d like to explain my reasoning for why healthcare is a privilege and not a right, since entitlement seems to be the foremost justification for the left-leaning approach to healthcare reform.
First, let’s look at rights that all humans enjoy today: free speech, free religion, free peaceful assembly, etc. These are all things that humans are born with. We are not granted these rights; we simply have them. Corrupt governments can take these rights away, but nobody can just “give out” rights. What I’m trying to say is that rights are inherent within individuals. They do not involve the goods or services of other people. I cannot stress that enough. If you take nothing else away from this post, remember that goods and services are never rights. Frankly, the American public is spoiled and needs to start recognizing “privileges” and “favors” when they see them. This whole mindset of entitlement and deserving every benefit in the world for free has already led to enormous financial stupidity on the part of the government. At what point are we going to choose to learn from our mistakes and re-espouse the classical American ideal of appreciation for what we do have and patriotism based on all of the freedoms we already enjoy?
So why exactly can’t goods and services be called rights? This would be totally inconsistent with historical basic ideals of human rights. What other goods or services are considered rights? Entitlement programs (i.e. welfare, medicare, etc.) and legal services are probably as close as we come to goods or services being considered rights. And we all know how cost-efficient and successful those programs are. If that’s the precedent we have for treating goods and services as rights, then that should be reason enough to strongly oppose this kind of healthcare reform. But in general, the idea of human rights has pertained to inherent freedoms, not the service of other people.
Whenever you receive the service of other people, you have to pay for it. And yet, what other rights do we pay for? I suppose the rights outlined in the Constitution have been indirectly paid for through human sacrifices in war but we do not literally exchange capital for freedom. If you want to really stretch things, you could argue that we pay taxes for a police force that protects our rights. But even that is too much of a stretch. If someone is threatening to cause you harm because of something you say, your religion or because of any other exercise of basic rights, you call the police to try to prevent civil violence, not to “give you” your rights. Rights are too vague and immaterial to put a price on. Therefore, paying for a right would be entirely unjust. If healthcare is a “right,” nobody should have to pay for it.
Having to pay for one’s rights is unjust as it is. But now consider the proposed public option which would be largely financed by tax dollars. If having to pay for one’s own rights is unjust, consider making somebody else pay for your rights. Anything that is a financial burden on the general populace is wrong as it is, but calling it a “right” is completely absurd. Nobody has the “right” to my tax dollars. I think of an old saying I heard that goes something to the effect of “my right to punch ends at your face.” In other words, human rights are inherent. They do not command the service of others. They do not require the financing or general burden of any other people. How anyone can call healthcare a “right” based on these generally understood principles of human rights is totally beyond me. Therefore, we need to stop the moral crusade for healthcare based on the principle that it is a “right.” If conservatives are spreading lies and “fearmongering,” then liberals are spreading false and selfish ideals.
As far as I’m concerned, both sides of the aisle are approaching the issue in a counterproductive and, frankly, stupid way.
As promised, here is the op ed piece that my roommate (who, whether on accident or intentionally, managed to piss off Jeb Bush), a Libertarian Republican, wrote about his experience at the Jeb Bush speaking engagement:
At a College Republicans event I recently attended, I posed a question to Jeb Bush (the speaker that evening) regarding the future of the Republican Party. I questioned the heedfulness of his view that the Republican Party needed to move from the nostalgia of it’s past glory days towards a purely forward thinking approach. I ended up striking a nerve with the former Florida Governor. His outlooks regarding the future of the Republican Party in my opinion are both perplexing and troublesome.
The particular way I phrased my question to Mr. Bush was that if he believed Republicans should move past Reagan and the Republican Revolution that the former President inspired, would Bush then expect the same principle to be applied to the American Founding and the Founding Fathers themselves? Phrasing the question this way of course made him quite defensive, and he stated his perception that Republicans have essentially been in a state of bewilderment, politically vacant under the haze of ‘the good ol’ days. ‘
However, the power of the Reagan Revolution can still be seen even in the age of Obama. The public’s widespread fears regarding massive federal spending, the takeover of businesses in the private sector, the looming deficit, as well as our position of appeasement abroad represent Reagan’s own expounded distrust of big government, still alive and kicking. In fact, a recent Rasmussen poll found that “being like Reagan is still the most positive thing you can say about a candidate,” over any other political label. Many Americans like myself find inspiration in the successes of the Reagan Revolution and the strength of its ideals. Such motivation fuels future generations of conservatives in the hopes that the radical direction Washington has taken can be reversed.
Furthermore, Bush’s insistence of avoiding the nostalgia of the past (or in my own interpretation, forgetting it) is itself reminiscent of the Progressive ideology. The early Progressives of the nineteenth and twentieth century insisted on the nation leaving behind Classical Liberalism and minimal government for an expansive role for the state. Their insistence, past and present, for a departure from the Enlightenment values of our founding have harmfully altered the relationship between the citizen and the state, and these gradual encroachments, as James Madison would call them, continue to grow and fester today upon the liberties Americans cherish.
By going forward with Bush’s beliefs towards putting aside the Republican Revolution does he disband some of its most vital elements: The Reagan presidency’s persisting legacy and the Republican Contract with America. These events fundamentally strengthened the position of the Republican Party publically, allowing for principles like Supply Side Economics, peace through strength, deficit reduction, and minimal government to become political norms. These past episodes should not be forgotten or ignored in the troubles we face today. They should be amplified further in the form of public policy and espoused to the public so a Republican return to power can occur. As Reagan himself noted on the history and Exceptionalism of America, “If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are.” Let that be a lesson for Republicans if they truly wish to rise to strength again in the future under the ideals and successes of their past.
Alright, so I admittedly stole the title of this post from the program I attended last night here on campus. The program was hosted by Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) and was a program focusing on ways the Republican party needs to strengthen its base in order to see a resurgence in the coming years. He outlined what he called his “six point plan” for success (he sounds like a motivational speaker, yes, but at this point the Republican party needs some of that). I didn’t get a chance to write down any notes on the speech last night but here are a few of the big ones that stuck out in my mind.
First, the party needs to proudly label itself the party that espouses American exceptionalism. This is something that I am a huge fan of, and I was pleased to hear him say it. He then expanded on that point to suggest that America needs to exercise a “muscular” foreign policy to protect its interests abroad and to help those who can’t help themselves. This was an interesting point to hear. He essentially labeled interventionism as a subcategory of exceptionalism; basically, the idea that American exceptionalism should be largely founded on the fact that we are the only nation that can and will “police the world,” as people like to call it today. I generally consider myself to be a non-interventionist (with some exceptions, of course), but I also consider myself to be an exceptionalist, so this point of his has me thinking now about whether or not those two principles need to be directly related. I guess the jury’s still out on that one.
He then said that the party needs to be the “forward-thinking” party, something I agree wholeheartedly with. Personally, though, I think he went a bit far when he began to reject Republican nostalgia for the past (I would give my opinions on that, but I’m reserving that for a separate piece).
He said the party needs to be more inclusive, without necessarily becoming more moderate. Rather, the Republicans need to drop the label of the “old white guy” party.
Republicans need to form the party that makes a balanced budget and a very limited government “cool” things to have. He emphasized the importance of being the party of small government, especially since the recent emergence of the idea of “big government Republicans.” In terms of fiscal responsibility, he outrightly rejected the “liberal” idea of spending more to balance the budget by quoting Vice President Biden (who Gov. Bush referred to as “the gift that keeps on giving”) as saying, “we need to spend more to avoid going bankrupt.” I think that kind of logic speaks for itself.
All in all, it was an interesting event (although by no means incredible or amazing) that I am glad I attended. After his speech, I was one a few people at the event who received a VIP pass to attend a reception with the Governor afterwards and to meet and take pictures with him, etc. My roommate and I were in line together to meet and talk to him, and when it was my roommate’s turn, he challenged the idea that Republicans should reject the nostalgia of the past and the principles and sentiments that still derive from all of American history, from the Founders all the way to the Reagan Revolution. I asked him to write me an op ed piece on his take on that issue, so check back tomorrow to read that. Also, check out my photos page for the shots I got with Gov. Bush.
As many of you may or may not be aware, last week, President Obama decided to scrap the plans left over from the Bush administration to construct a ballistic missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, and replace it with one that would not arise such intense Russian suspicions and that would have a greater focus on Iran, as a means of bringing Russia into a more serious dialogue about bilateral nuclear deterrence efforts towards Iran.
I am very strongly opposed to the White House’s decision to scrap this plan. Do they not still perceive Russia as a potential threat in the future? We just witnessed Russian hostility towards Georgia and we are all very aware of their stark opposition to the membership of former Soviet states in NATO. So why, then, offer these terms of appeasement towards them? We cannot be uncompromising in our Russia policy, I realize that. But we can’t be soft towards them either. They are becoming increasingly more paranoid about Western influence abroad and, in the opinion of many, have developed a higher propensity to act out based on this newfound paranoia.
Why do we need to compromise our own security and that of Eastern Europe in order to bring Russia closer to us on policy towards Iran? In spite of our differences, Russia should be able to put that personal animosity aside in order to realize the imminent threat posed by Iran and they shouldn’t have to require our submission in order to work alongside us on our Iran policy. The proposed missile defense shield would have the ability to fend off an attack from Iran anyway. We have got to be steadfast in maintaining our commitment to preventing Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. If we don’t, the east could be looking a whole lot redder pretty soon.
Any thoughts? Leave them here. I’m no expert on this issue, but this is my preliminary impression of what I’ve read.
