Political Pragmatism

2003-10-10T18:38:00.000-04:00

Volume II - Pragmatism Renewed

Welcome to the second volume of Political Pragmatism. It has been roughly 5 months since my last edition of Volume I, which lasted from April to May of 2003. This will be my Fall volume, to be succeeded by Volume III, which will come in the Spring of 2004. So let's get back to defining the politics of pragmatism, folks.

Edition One: A Pragmatic Peace

Over the past couple decades, there have been a variety of theories regarding the important issue of peace. These have covered such topics as the conditions in which peace exists, the reasons why certain trends occur in peaceful countries and the reason why there are certain trends related to peace and political structure. One of the most important of these is the theory put forward by Emmanuel Kant appropriately named the "Democratic Peace Thesis".

The Democratic Peace Thesis states that liberal republics do not wage war upon one another and that once all nations are liberal republics, there will be enacted a "perpetual peace". In other words, once democritization is complete, we will finally have achieved world peace. There are several persuasive supports for this theory, mostly lying in the fact that defined in a certain way, no two democracies have ever warred one another. This type of comparison does not extend to tyrannies, which frequently war, or socialist states, which historically apply ideology forcefully behind strength of military. The same goes for oligarchies and basically every other form of government known in modern history. Now, naturally, this does not preclude democracies from warring other government types, which is obviously self evident, but it does imply that democracies war justly and push forward towards the eventual 'perpetual peace'.

Now, before we move on to my own case, it is prudent to note the key discrepancies. One of the attacks against the DPT is in the United States' own history. In 1812, we entered in a war with England, while at the time, both governments could theoretically be named as liberal republics. While it is true that there has always been a monarch in the English system, there was also the parliament, which was active much earlier than 1812 and quite considerable in its power. One of the popular refutations of this attack, however, is that the parliament was dominated by the nobility, hence it qualified as an oligarchy, rather than a liberal republic. I do not intend to argue whether or not this violation actually constitutes a violation or not, but it is important to note the other side of the argument.

On a modern scale, there are situations transpiring in the world that may lead to the marked violation of the DPT. Certain democracies, such as Nigeria and other African republics contain possible war in their future with other defined liberal republics. These conflicts would not be caused by ideological dissent, but rather tribal warfare, as colonial boundaries were not constructed with regards to certain nations of people. For example, the boundaries separate the Hausa-Fulani nation in the north of Nigeria and the south of Niger (along with other countries I will not discuss). Both states are liberal republics by definition, but if a certain tribal domination came over either government, ethnic war could possibly break out between the nations. Naturally, this is an extreme scenario, and hopefully will not come to fruition, but it stands to reason that there is a potential for it. The war would be caused by ethnic hatred and distrust among the various tribes of African countries.

This is important to note, because it is altogether likely that the DPT will fail because of ethnic, racial or cultural hatred and extremism. With the period of colonialism ending, neo-colonialism beginning and Global South countries becoming poorer and poorer, war is only a stepping stone away. It is sadly true that 8 wars are constantly raging every day on the African continent, with 3 alone being waged in the Democratic Republic of Congo/Zaire. It appears that Fukuyama's "End of History" will not occur, because democracies may lower themselves to war one another. And there is always the possibility of national interest provoking an unexpected war between any two states of the world.

This is a dim outlook on a previously widely-accepted theory, but it is nonetheless something worth exploring. That is why I care to add my own corrolary to the DPT. In the revised version of this theory, it will be stated that no two countries will go to war with one another, so long as each has a pragmatic government. That is to say, so long as the governments of the world are patient, rational actors, capable of compromising over their differences, peace will reign supreme.

Without an extreme faction dominating the political scene, two centrist states will always be able to work out their differences. The threat of war and its effects will weigh too heavily on their minds and they will dispense with it as being too costly and wholly unnecessary. Even if they possess divergent political beliefs, religious beliefs or social beliefs, they will duly recognize and respect these differences and default on diplomatic bargaining and negotiation to settle state differences.

Now, the major difference between this and the DPT is rather remarkable. Not all liberal republics are without extremism. With the rise of the National Front (a racist political group) in France and their electoral strength and the appeal of more authoritarian democracies in the Mediterranean countries and Russia, it is unclear how benign these regimes will be. Furthermore, the fascist tendencies of the Seoul government in South Korea, as a response to the threat of North Korea, threaten the entire fundamental concept of democracy itself.

And truth be told, there are some non-democratic countries that are less likely to war than some of the extreme democracies. Central Asian republics, some being socialist, have no extra-border ambitions. There are some Islamic republics, that while being oppressive and undemocratic, are also quite pacifistic in their region of the world. These countries, though offensive in principle to Western political tradition, are not likely to pursue militarism because it does not suit their needs. They have pragmatically focused on domestic issues, such as economy and infrastrucure in lieu of hegemony and expansionism.

And the issue of hegemony cannot be ignored in our deliberations. Democracies such as the US and Russia seek hegemonic power in both the world and their region. While these actions are not war-like, they are also not friendly and breed discontent in surrounding nations, most of which are also liberal republics. For example, even though Chechnia is not a sovereign nation in the strictest sense of the word, it had exercised considerable autonomy at the allowance of Yeltsin prior to the 1994 conflict, and it exercised this autonomy democratically. This did not preclude Russia's semi-autocratic republic from waging war on them in the name of territorial integrity. These are not the only examples of such issues, but they are the most clear and contrary to the DPT.

The Pragmatic Peace thesis would not include Russia as a pragmatic country, and in some instances, the US itself. Rather, it would look towards the political conditions that give rise to centrism and diplomacy as the central tenets of an eventual 'perpetual peace' thesis. Looking at recent history, one can determine that all major, and semi-major conflicts were initiated due to a series of nonpragmatic choices or a conflict between extreme and divergent factions. Nazi Germany initiated the greatest war in history, the Cold War was kept alive by the extreme separation of Soviet communism and US democracy. The Korean war was spurred by extreme expansionist tendencies and the Vietnam war was fought between communist and democratic forces also (although, Vietnam is harder to argue, based on the colonially-created nature of the conflict). The 20th and 21st century phenomena of intrastate war (civil war, in other words) has always been caused by ideologically, racially or ethnically irreconcilable circumstances. The same can obviously be stated for terrorism.

What I propose is that if a domestic government is executed patiently and with a pragmatic longterm goal of improvement, then it will carry over to a foreign policy of pragmatic policies. Extremism at home yields extremism abroad, as globalization changes the way the world works. In the same vein of logic, centrism and reason at home would invariably caused pragmatic internationalism or inoffensive isolationism abroad. Either way, the world stage is much cleaner and more prosperous than it was before. Massive military expenditures, the main cause of the failed state phenomena, would give way to greater allocations to infrastructre, political and social stability and economic growth.

Hence, it is under these conditions that I will declare the Pragmatic Peace thesis as being the only way we can reach the proverbial 'End of History' and attain perpetual peace, instead of engaging in a woeful 'Clash of Civilizations' (The brain child of Samual Huntington). With that, I will bring to a close Edition One of Volume II of Political Pragmatism.

-Nick Laverty

2003-05-21T22:45:00.000-04:00

A Slight Deviation:

There are several reasons to admire and appreciate moderate Senate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich. More often than not, they are open to compromise in most Senatorial affairs, but they also know when to take a stand based on their centrist beliefs. This causes a quirk of the problem for both the ideological right and the ideological left, because it is so difficult to predict the conscience-based actions of these individuals. The right dislikes these moderates because they don't espouse the party line fervently, and the left dislikes them because they are never entirely sure if they'll have their vote or not on a progressive matter, such as tax reform.

A little while back, those three Republicans took it upon themselves to oppose George W. Bush's irresponsible and harmful 700 billion dollar tax cut, going so far as to pass a proposal that stated their intent to oppose such a measure. This was a high point for Senate politics in the past year, as finally someone had the mettle to challenge the ideological status quo, most significantly in the face of this massive cut. Both insiders of the administration and economists have predicted that such a tax cut at such a time will only result in further deficit spending, with little benefit for the economy. Nevertheless, GWB plodded onward, in a blind faith method towards this dogmatic piece of wisdom: tax cuts=good.

Well, it just so turns out that tax cuts only work in certain economic situations, and we have none of the criteria to support such a program at the present time. Those three Senators, along with others, must be commended for going with their conscience and opposing such a large piece of legislation.

It's a pity that one of them, Voinovich, forgot his conscience when it came time for the most important part of the process - voting. After having said that he would not support any cut greater than 350 billion dollars - the best compromise that could have been had - Voinovich has essentially signed on for a package that will easily come to a greater cost than 700 billion. How does our illustrious turncoat defend himself in this matter?

Essentially, he doesn't. He's issued a couple statements that attempt to mitigate his new stance, but it all comes down to the same result: George Voinovich is the worst kind of Senator there is, the kind that pretends to take a certain stance and hopes the public won't notice when he flip-flops.

Well, we noticed, Senator. From political pragmatism, I'd like to send you a big 'screw off' for forgetting your moderate roots.

2003-05-12T18:45:00.000-04:00

Notice: For the next week, Political Pragmatism will be suspended in limbo, as I trod through the ordeal of college finals and moving back home. My next update should be sometime this weekend.

2003-05-05T21:21:00.000-04:00

I. Human Nature and Politics

There are several reasons why people choose to align themselves with the political party that they do. Some of the time, it may be due to socioeconomic upbringing, something as simple as echoing the prevalent political thought of people like your parents (sometimes without even knowing it). Sometimes it is due to education, to asking the important questions at the right times and coming to some sort of personal understanding regarding what politics means to you. Other reasons are more mercurial, such as choosing a party based on the prominent personalities of that party, being pressured into certain political standpoints due to where you live and interact after you have reached maturity or even choosing based on a historical representation of a certain party, and identifying that party by certain qualities that you find important. Hell, you could even be like half of the voting age populace and be utterly indifferent to politics and its artifices.

However, there is something that arguably trumps all of those various elements, though it may incorporate some aspect of them all in its own right. That something is the idea of self-interest. Ultimately, people will choose the party or political orientation that best suits their beliefs and needs, and is best able to fulfill them. That is not to say that it is a selfish decision, for we must remember that teachings of Aristotle in our consideration. Aristotle stated that there is such a thing as enlightened self interest, that is, we all act in a manner that suits our own needs first and foremost. This type of self interest extends to every type of act, from the most base and degenerate to the most humble and altruistic. He argued that the good man will act in a good way, because it satisfies him to live in such a way. Just the same, the bad man acts in a bad way because it most suits his manner of life.

So, through these definitions, and the concept of human nature, we can essentially conclude that there will always be some enlightened self-interest acting when a person chooses the political party they wish to align with. This can lead us to several related conclusions about the nature of internalized politics, and the role that political affiliation plays in our lives.

Along with the enlightened self-interest that Aristotle spoke of, we humans have this nasty habit of always assuming that since something attunes to our own grand conception of reality, then it is ultimately the right thing to do. Depending on our level of tact and intellect, we will either apply this perception to our everyday lives bluntly or subtly. This kind of thing can take several different forms, revolving around what we choose to say things about, how we phrase our statements, and how we react to other people's statements. When two people with highly different viewpoints on the way life should be lived come into contact with one another and begin to interact verbally, several different things may happen. Depending on personality, they may humor the other person just to avoid conflict, but more often than not some sort of argument will develop, and depending on the intellectual status of the participants, it may devolve further into physical conflict. It is not a pleasant thing to think or believe, but sadly, it is usually the case. These days, we just have firearms and explosives where we used to have fists and simple weapons.

Now, in a personal retrospect, this has not been the case for a great deal of my life. I am not one that outwardly seeks conflict, so I preempt many possible fractious occasions by that preference alone. However, I have ended up violently arguing with people on several occasions, and I have always noticed a trend, that I will always seem to argue with the same people. At college, there are 2-3 people that I will argue consistently with, while I have no such interactions with other people. The reason for this, I have concluded, is due to the fact that my views and these 2-3 other persons' views are so incompatible, there is no hope for simple concession or agreement.

That is the function of human nature in politics, and the root cause of political disagreement. As a species, we incorporate self-interest and self-righteousness into our views, and whenever we come into abject disagreement in the form of the other person, we either argue or fight. My friends and I debate mildly, because we see eye-to-eye on some issues, but not all. Other acquaintances and I argue violently, with no hope of compromise. Other people and I don't even argue based simply on the innate compatibility of our belief structures or our general indifference to outward disagreement.

So, this is something we much come to accept in politics, and by no means do I expect political disagreement to cease by virtue of a pragmatic argument. Pragmatism for me, just as much as for anyone else, is an internalized belief structure that I find great validity in. What I will try to do, from this fundamental premise of disagreement, is show that while this disagreement is natural and necessary, there are certain political theories that advocate too much of the violent arguing and polarization as compared to consensus-politics. I will attempt to show, through reasoning, that these polarizing politics are counterproductive to system stability and the overall political structure, while centrist thought guarantees the greatest peace and prosperity.

Next Time: A Closer Look at the Nature of Politics and Political History.

2003-05-02T20:22:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Machine.

I wasn't expecting such a prime example of how the party machine operates in the scant amount of time between articles, but it seems as if our friends in the Senate have provided an excellent opportunity for such an example.

As many of you know, Senator Rick Santorum (R- PA) issued comments to an Associated Press reporter concerning his stances on homosexuality. I will not get into those comments specifically too much, as I feel the topic has been adequately discussed by our media anyway, so I'll simply suffice to say that they were vicious, bigoted remarks, essentially comparing homosexuals to bestiality. Needless to say, about 95% of the Senate recoiled from these inflammatory remarks, adding fuel to hardline liberals arsenal while moderates on both sides of the table cringed. This is a sad situation, especially considering the strides that moderate Republicans have taken in recent years to distance themselves from the stigma that had been attached to their party as a result of oldschool influence such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. Also needless to say, I was disappointed when House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay (R- TX) came out and commended Santorum for 'standing on principle', among other statements related to this debacle.

There is always one reason this should come as a surprise (DeLay has always been a little off, especially in his service as Majority Whip), and that is because there has been widespread calling for Santorum's resignation and still a party associate backed very shady comments. But that is where the surprise should end, because there is much more to this type of event than meets the eye, and by breaking it down, we can understand party politics a little better.

Initially, when Santorum made the comment, Senate Republicans seemed comfortable with avoiding talking of it altogether and waiting until the press firestorm died down. This is a common tactic, with some odd blacklashes, and is comparable to the situation regarding Trent Lott's racial comments that eventually led to his fall from Senate leadership. However, when certain facts came into light, that is when certain characters in Congress decided to break the silence and back their bigoted buddy.

Altogether, there were three routes that Congress Republicans could have taken in response to this event, all three of them feasible considering the highly moderate nature of most Congress Republicans. The first was to condemn their associate's comments and stand upon integrity. Doubtless, this would have been the response we as citizens would have appreciated, but there are problems associated with it. Such a response would alienate the conservative voting base of the outspoken individuals and could have paved the way for very conservative Republicans to replace them in the following election cycle. Thus, it was harmful to their political lives, so they declined. The second method, the one initially taken, was to ignore the situation to see if things improved. This is a more subtle method with its own pitfalls, namely disgusting the moderate electorate by silently ignoring such commentary and pissing off the conservative base for not supporting it. In the end, Congress Republicans decided this way was too dangerous, so they chose to consolidate their conservative base and come out and vaguely support Santorum's comments, in the person of Tom DeLay and a couple others. They alienate the moderates, which is damn dangerous, and I believe, the worst bet of the three, but it was the political decision that was made. Hence, it is not necessarily the opinion that Santorum was right in his comments, only a function of American politics to manipulate the electoral system. So it goes.

In fact, there is considerable evidence to support the concept that Santorum only said those things initially to stir up his conservative base to get ready for the next election cycle. His district is fairly conservative, so there was political capital to be gained. It's a repulsive thing to do, but sadly such is the nature of modern American politics.

Events like this should serve to open the American people's eyes to the truths of partisan politics, as created by the two party system we currently have in effect. More often than not, the things we hear our Congressmen and Congresswomen say are not actually what they think, but actually a cheap method to manipulate our hearts and minds for their ultimate gain. Hence, when they are running for a seat as a challenger, they will make a great deal of moderate statements and personality propaganda to win into the position of power, regardless of their actual beliefs. Likewise, when they are running for reelection, they will count on their incumbent advantage and take the opportunity to consolidate their most active voting segment of the population, once again, not truly indicative of their real beliefs. It is ironic, within 2 or 6 years, depending on which house, they will go from complete centrism to outright ideological spouting to yield the best results. Naturally, there are exceptions to the rule, but as they say, the exceptions are what actually validate the rule. That is why people like John McCain, Russel Feingold, John Edwards and Bill Frist seem so clean in the overall scheme of things, they can go beyond the petty partisan machinations we are used to seeing.

And just for the sake of clarification, these actions are just as prevalent in the Democratic party as they are in the Republican party, they simply aren't as visceral.

This, in effect, explains my belief that true centrism and pragmatism is not achieved in the visual political process, that we only see the ideological heartstrings pulled at every turn. The only real way to determine a Congressperson's true orientation is to examine their voting record, and even that is sketchy, as the party machines exert immense influence on the way people vote. Voting by conscience is almost a myth these days, once again with those few, diamond-in-the-rough exceptions.

This is why we need a viable third party, the two major parties have become stagnant, ideological bodies bent on the manipulation of the people they purportedly represent. Sure, one can easily cite that European democracies vote along party lines almost automatically, but few of those parties are truly extreme in nature, and the proportional, multi-party nature of their systems makes it so the people can easily kick out the party that goes against their values and interests. Sure, on the outside, it may look like our representatives vote more independently of the party, but when the party ultimately controls politics for the big issues, it doesn't matter much. We've been cajoled and persauded against our true will for so long, we really don't know which side is truly serving our needs without voluminous research into their records. A third party, no doubt, would shake up the ideological structure just enough to make those two monsters show their real faces.

Until then, we can simply pray that we don't accidentally elect another Representative for the People turned automaton or demagogue. Nick out.

Next Time: The Centrism Theory.

Note on the next couple weeks of Pragmatism: Hello readers, however many of you there happen to be, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have begun to read my regular articles and have furthered the pragmatic cause by telling others. In the next couple weeks, you may have to indulge me a little, as I will be taking an abrupt departure from my single-issue focuses for a little while. In the stead of my regular brand of pragmatic analysis, I will be laying out my Centrism Theory, that will hopefully either illuminate your own political thought, or better explain where I am coming from. I will discuss, among other things, the background of centrist theory and the application to our modern world. I would say more, but it would spoil the fun. Anyhow, I urge you to continue to read in the coming weeks, and hopefully I can reward you with a fresh new viewpoint regarding the nature of politics. -Nick Laverty.

2003-04-28T19:26:00.000-04:00

To Our Health.

Once again, an excellent example of how Washington's partisan politics have screwed us, the people, out of something good. I'll give the outsider's perspective rundown.

Historically, Democrats have been angling towards some form of socialized health care, most recently because of pressures to get up to date with the times. Britain, Canada and France already have some of the most efficient health care packages found in industrialized countries. It has only really saddled down Canada, and that is mainly due to the comprehensive state control of the health care field. The Canadian system, which is commonly called "single-payer", is what the left has been hunting as a so-called holy grail for the past decade. On several occasions, most recently at the initiative of the Clinton administration, they have tried to pass this system or a variant thereof. It has pretty much uniformly failed, though since 1940, a creeping socialization of medical care has allowed a modicum of benefits for the average person.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Republicans have sought to curtail health care reform, to allow a greater scope of private practice in the industry. Ideally, they would like the industry to be completely privatized, but have sufficed to see the funding for the social programs cut. Generally, just as the Democracts, they have failed in passing a comprehensive set of their requirements and have thus contributed to the standstill we see nowadays in terms of health care reform. The argument behind this approach is that it espouses conservative ideals and will stimulate growth and better practices countrywide, eventually bringing down the overall cost of health care per recipient.

Upon further inspection, both sides are making the situation worse and worse by their ideological warfare.

When you get down to it, none of this politicking changes the fact that 60 million Americans are without health care currently, and that is truly a horrendous figure. Especially when one considers that a little compromise would go a long way. We can generally assume that neither side wants the current system, but we can similarly assume that neither side is willing to cross their party line. Naturally, I am speaking of the parties as a whole, because eventually, you need to incorporate the entire party to pass something through a partisan Congress.

So, we can work from the basis of three assumptions to come to a pragmatic solution:
1. Single-payer is an unpassable form of health care.
2. Complete privation is an unpassable form of health care.
3. The current system is undesirable.

There are several difficulties with the first two propositions, while the third is rather self-evident.

Single-payer is unrealistic for a variety of reasons. The first of which being the effect it is likely to have on a national economy. Canada, the trailblazer of this method, most notably, has been flagging economically and has thus been compromising many of their national policies to maintain the burdensome single-payer system. The reason for this difficulty lies in the nature of single-payer. Essentially, single-payer systems are characterized by state-ownership of health care, offering free health care to citizens and being run off of government subsidy. There are a few side effects to this system beyond economic matters, most notably in the realm of human initiative. The state-run, uniform facilities and salaries make Canadian health care undesirable for experts in the health care realm. As a result, these pros export their abilities to countries that have more developed private sectors and deprive the single-payer country of their ability. Furthermore, citizens eventually start looking outside their country for professional health care, once they realize the state-run facilities are marginal at best. This is what we have seen happen to Canada, and it is highly likely that they will reform their system so that it becomes more private in nature, thus offering human incentives once again. Several European countries have avoided this through their very reasonable administration of health care programs, especially Britain.

Wholly private health care is easier to explain. All of the firms are privately-owned and run, and the government control of such firms is limited to safety regulations. People working in that field have better wages and opportunities, but they are not available generally to the lowest 10% of society, in terms of cost. Theoretically, if the industry were allowed to grow as a private body, the prices would drop accordingly, but without price controls, it is hard to say that the final result would be desirable overall. Clearly, privation is not the way to go.

However, to produce a balance in the system, one must include elements of both realms to create the best, most enduring results. Therefore, the moderate, pragmatic solution would be the best way to go.

What I offer as an alternative is a concept called 'community-rating'. This would change the status quo in several very important ways. Currently, HMOs and other private firms have a policy of offering plans to the healthiest individuals, because they present the least risk in terms of profit versus payback. Clearly, from the get-go, this method is skewed based on the idea that the healthy are covered, but not those who actually need it. Similarly, for truly good health care, one needs to possess a good job, or be fairly wealthy in the first place. Once again, this makes it an odd situation, as the most well-off are given the benefits, as if they could not pay on their own accord. Community-rating would change things in the following ways.

1. The industry would remain a private industry, to ensure the best health care professionals remain in their field within this nation, rather, than exporting themselves for better opportunity. This doesn't really change much, but reaffirms the necessity of a measure of privation.
2. Health plans would no longer be given to people based on their medical history. Much like double-blind science experiments, health care companies would be required to grant care equally to every person.
3. Rather than allowing companies to dictate their employee's health care plans, the government would oversee a new system that would make sure that health care was given to those who needed it, rather than those who could already afford it. Essentially, health care within companies would be dropped, but each employee would be given a tax credit back on their income with the express purpose of being used on health care. This would require labor unions to compromise some of their mainstay policies, so it might make it undesirable to Dems, but it would guarantee that companies could no longer restrict medical plans on a whim to cut expenses. It would put the decision firmly in the worker's hands. And naturally, there would be a myriad of choice of health care firms to buy into, being further aided by the blind-need policy.

This is a very skeletal assessment of community rating, but as an important move, it makes it so everyone within a large body of people will have a fair shake at adequate health insurance, without the bureaucratic necessities of single-payer. It may not be the last solution to the problem, but it would be a true step up from what we are currently experiencing in terms of health care in these United States.

And we need pragmatic policymakers to do it.

Next Issue: Party Politics in the US.

2003-04-25T18:44:00.000-04:00

Motley Crew

Hey, how about this? Two articles in two days, I'm on a roll.

The Democratic Party is divided. If you listen really closely, you can hear the gasp of the one person who hadn't realized it yet. It has almost always been true, as factions of Dems fight within their own party lines for mutually-exclusive aims. It's almost sad, it could be such a powerful party, too.

If one hadn't realized the divisive nature of Democrat politics, one simply had to look at the historical facts of the case:

Fact: An easy majority of the country is registered as Democrat.
Fact: There have been several occasions, outside of 2004, where the ticket was split excessively (Dixiecrats, anyone?).
Fact: In the twentieth century, more often than not, a Republican has won the Presidency in spite of the Dem populace majority.
Fact: Dems such as Clinton, despite professed Liberalism, have acted while in office as Republican proxies (Once again, another issue, another time).
Fact: It ain't gonna change anytime soon.

The persistent problem that has plagued Dems since the dawning of the new parties, is that they have never succeeded in mobilizing the majority of the populace to turn out for them on election day. Fickle politics, issue-waffling and ineffective personalities (excepting Clinton) have made it difficult for them to do so. It's something we all might as well admit to ourselves now, Republicans have always been better-organized, clearer in objective and able to succeed when it counts -- Election Day. As a result, Dems have taken to a mix of politics to bring back the proverbial sheep to the fold. Some of them start acting like Republicans, and attempt to seem more cohesive on the outside. Some of them toe hard line issues and attempt to inspire excitement through controversy. And others yet completely ignore policy stances, in a substantive manner, and run on the basis of personality in their advertising (Carter, Clinton). In fact, let's look at the one time where Dems firmly routed Republicans in the past fifty years -- in '92 and '96. The presence of a third party candidate on the conservative side (Perot), drew votes away from GHWB and Bob Dole, thus making Clinton a shoe-in. The trend returned to normal in 2000 when the Dems squandered their majority again with the presence of Nader drawing votes away from Gore, without any conservative 'thirdies' to do the same to Bush.

Guess what, folks? It's the same case again this year. Let's run down our superstars for the Democratic Nomination 2004!

John Kerry: He's the big name, he's the big gun in Senate and when it gets down to it, he probably won't tell you the real deal. Kerry was by far and away considered the frontrunner for 2004 -- until he squandered that lead by waffling on a variety of key issues, including the war, while mavericks like Howard Dean went in a-blazin' and moderates like John Edwards sidestepped the issue quietly. Thus, in this race, Kerry has become the guy that says one thing and does another. At times, he has harshly opposed the war measures, conservative agendas and economic maneuvers. The thing he hasn't told you? He's voted for almost each and every one! The public hasn't really noticed too much, as of yet, but the news sources have, and have been vigorously lambasting him for his two-faced ways. I can understand that, it's dangerous to elect a man who says one thing and does another (Our current President is a case in point), because he'll look good while screwing you over vigorously (Clinton). I think the public is ready for a real leader, not another seasoned politician.

John Edwards: My boy in the North Carolinian blue, the honorable Senator John Edwards, is another story. This guy is clearly a seasoned politician, but he has this nice trend of not speaking extremely and following through with a very moderate and reasonable agenda. His rolecall votes in Senate show that, by themselves. He is by far the youngest of those running, already being termed 'the pretty boy' of the bunch, and he's the one that the White House is gearing up against in preparation. They've gone so far as to contact Richard Burr to run for Edwards' senate seat in 2004, making it very difficult for Johnny Boy to hedge his bets like he'd like to. However, I think that eventually he'll resolve upon the WH (Hell, he already outfundraised Kerry and everyone else, which was a huge surprise) and make the most unified and serious run of any of these jokers (Lightly used, you understand). And with a Clintonesque easy southern drawl, it should be easy for him to distance himself from politik and become the candidate of the people.

Howard Dean: If Edwards didn't get the ticket, I would want to see this fellow get it. One of the few non-Senators in this race, Dean has the old adage, 'good governors make good Presidents' on his side. His administration in Vermont was nothing short of brilliant, he's a bright and engaging man with an infectious personality, and he knows a little about politics. I would support him more than Edwards due to his excellent fiscal record alone, but I have my reservations. You see, Dean has become infected with ideological fever, a malady that usually inflicts itself upon a normally-coherent person during an election cycle and renders them into a mass of axiom-shouting extremism. It makes even less sense for it to infect Dean, as he had a very moderate, and one might even say, quasi-conservative, record at Vermont. His fiscal policies smacked of true conservatism and his social policies were the ideal devices of liberals -- a perfect mix. I think that he is hindering himself by stumping as vigorously as he has been, and in the end, the resolved state of the war will undo him. Add in the limited financial situation (I hate this aspect of politics, money should have no place in deciding our leaders), and I don't think that Howard Dean can survive in the postwar political field.

Richard Gephardt: I would be afraid if Richard Gephardt were President. His substanceless proposals for national health care and other sprawling reforms are without adequate thought and could do more damage than good. He should take a page out of Dean's list and actually put more effort into such reforms. Being the Speaker of the House does not qualify you to run the country, and the citizens of this great nation have asserted that again and again by electing governors and the occasional senator. He has no chance, if only due to deficient funding and popularity, and grealty guaranteed by his blind collection of policy stances.

Joe Lieberman: Joe Lieberman is like John Kerry without the public stupidity. He is a moderate and sometimes conservative Dem, in the Senate, but comes from a very progressive state (Connecticut). He has the foundation for money, a plan leftover from the Gore campaign in 2000 (hopefully rectifying the many flaws) and has name recognition. Sadly, he just doesn't have the ability to be as popular as the telegenic Kerry and Edwards or the fiery Dean. Plus, as much as I hate to say it, his being Jewish will probably affect his chances more than people would like to think. To put it the way that Jon Stewart did, on the Daily Show, "Let's have Lieberman and Sharpton run on the same ticket, the No Chance in Hell ticket."

Al Sharpton: If he got the nomination, I would move to Canada or Europe. This man would not have the slightest idea how to administer a country at home or abroad.

Bob Graham: Another Senator, but with a major difference from the rest. He lacks the personality, money, skills, name recognition and interest group connections to even be considered without laughing.

Carol Moseley Braun: Who? No, seriously, while I think it would be great for this ex-Ambassador to New Zealand to have a chance, I think we can all agree that Kiwis do not equate to political capital in the US. (I have some friends from NZ who would get a kick out of this, actually.)

Dennis Kucinich: I honestly know nothing about this man beyond the fact that he's a House Rep. And I think researching someone who raised only 100k in the first quarter would be a waste of my limited journalistic skills.

So, in closing, let's hope that one of the good Democrats is able to win the nomination and unify the party enough to dethrone Bush. I'm putting my money on Edwards, personally, though I wouldn't mind seeing a more pragmatic Dean at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Until next time.

Next Issue: Health Care Reform.

2003-04-24T20:37:00.000-04:00

-Bushwhacked-

There are a few things that I expect out of life. I expect to be happy most of the time, and if the situation isn't that great, to find something to be vaguely content about. I expect to learn quite a bit and put it to good use, enjoying it in due course. I expect to continue being socially deficient, while not really caring too much about it. Last of all, and arguably most of all, I expect our most successful political leaders, in both present and retrospect, to be pragmatic and reasonable.

The reason for the last is simply this: the pragmatic person is always the one who contributes the most to society, because the pragmatic person is willing to let their personal agenda subside in the face of gradually-betterment of conditions. It is more often than not the ideologically-extreme individuals who are at odds with the national legislature, both in the US and abroad (in countries with comparable systems) and thus create a standstill through lack of willingness to compromise. The same defect can be found in our legislators, but the executive head in the US is the linchpin of brokering such compromises.

It is for this violation of principle that I term George W. Bush as an undesirable President.

It is not because of the war, because it is too difficult to singularly place blame for an entire war, and to do so smacks of that same kind of extremism I previously derided. The truth is, it is a grey area, and what most people do not understand is that our current state of affairs is infinitely better than our past state of affairs. I may not agree totally with the war and its execution, but I concede that it is an inevitability, and with prudent reconstruction, can be made into something positive in the long run. Besides that, I will decline to comment on the state of war. I'll close with the words of a friend whom Kurt Vonnegut wrote of: "To be anti-war is a lot like being anti-glacier, you really can't affect things."

Rather, I will speak of Bush's policy, mostly on the homefront. The thing which most of us have forgotten in the face of international crises (Today's CNN headline: Bush warns Iran. You get what I mean?) is the thing which really matters the most when you get down to it. For you cannot participate with full-support on the global scale until you get your affairs at home in order. Before I continue, I would make the caveat that when I say 'Bush', I refer to his administration, it is a little extreme to place all the blame on one man who does not even direct the majority of the policy that is enacted.

My first quarrel is with the environmental aspect of his policy. This may cause more conservative readers of this site to think smugly, "Oh great, another bleeding heart environmentalist". To those who think that, and I'm sure some of you do, I think this link will help you --> Fox News, they'll be more privy to your views, including the charming idea that global warming is not an issue. This may also cause some of my more liberal readers to shout, "Power to the trees, brother! Greenpeace! Greenpeace!" I can assure you, no Greenpeace, and I can reinforce that fact with four simple words: I support nuclear power. Now that I've offended a good deal of my readership, let's continue triumphantly.

Bush's relaxing of emission controls nationwide will only lead to increases anew in the realms of acid rain and global warming. The pretty thought that voluntary controls will work is both naive and manipulative; it can allow him to appear that he cares without actually doing so. The scuttling of Kyoto, greatly Clinton's fault (another issue, another day, folks), could have been repaired under a progressive administration, but was not. That makes us one of the few modernized countries not involved in this sweeping, historic piece of international law. That's bad for us. The allowance of drilling in ANWR, I can accept. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil and the doomsday scenarios of activists are more fiction than fact. However, I don't understand some of his other measures, including allowing snowmobiles in national parks. It just seems irresponsible. It would be wise to note at this point in time that this type of neglect isn't a strictly conservative trait, since Clinton was nearly as bad. We must remember that the Clean Air Act was passed under a Republican (1990).

His economic policies, including his now chopped-down taxcut, have been implemented at a poor time, and because of that timing, will only cause further job loss among the American people. Many have already lost their jobs due to his economic policies, and that is a shame. The mantra of fiscal conservatism, which is that of measured and prudent spending, seems lost on an administration content to pound through the old taxcut axiom. Tax cuts are not always the answer, and at this point, it only means a vast reduction in education and social services. Worse yet, he has stooped to running ads against the Republicans (Snowe, Voinovich) who oppose his taxcut, opening up ideological rifts between moderate Republicans and the Republicans giving the rest of us bad names. It is wise to note that Bush fired his first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill simply for opposing the cut lukewarmly, and replaced him with someone more amenable to such a measure (John Snow). This smacks of turning key cabinet officials, who should be used for their knowledge in the area, into salesmen supporting blind measures. Bad form and execution on the administration's behalf.

Homeland Security. Simply put, is a joke. Tom Ridge is a bright fellow, but he is not a man fit for an empty presidential cabinet position. If the office did stuff that was necessary that was not already changed by the sweeping legislation following 9/11, then I would see some validity in it. But it is not, it only contributes pretty color-coding to our paranoid fears of the week. It is a bureaucratic money sink, and were Bush and his compatriots true Conservatives, they would reduce, not increase, the scope of bureaucratic affairs. Such initiatives could include streamlinining social security, without reducing benefits, to remove the pointless bureaucratic tripe separating the executive and the people. Such a waste of money is not offset by the fact that a few hundred more people are employed by the civil service. Such savings could truly stimulate our economy and actually lead to the creation of more jobs, not less, as is the current case. But then again, my motto is "Bureaucracy is the root of all evil", so I may be biased. At least I can admit it.

Our Justice System. I cannot begin to enumerate the current, ideological flaws in it. Having John Ashcroft lead it is bad enough, but continuing Clinton's ludicrous "War on Drugs" (which targetted users with insanely stiff punitive measures, rather than dealers) alongside the equally ludicrous "War on Terror" (more dollars gone to waste, out of our pockets) is utter inanity. All it has really lead to is a reduction in civil liberties and a new form of McCarthyism. We're all thrilled, guys, really. But the administration shouldn't take all the credit, the legislative branches followed like subdued sheep in passing the Patriot Act without any truly protective amendments (I should know, I had to read the whole damn thing, it ain't pretty). Cutting off financial aid to college students with any drug-related offenses on their record only guarantees a further sprawl of the welfare state (a bad thing to real conservatives, and to our economy) without any tangible gain. Furthermore, for the love of god, leave Affirmative Action alone. Sure, there are cases of reverse discrimination that should be stemmed, but do not chop up the system as a whole simply because of the rare exceptions. We need a more diverse, equally-opportuned society.

I would continue, but I would have to dip back into the Clinton years (surprisingly conservative and equally pointless, as some of you blind zealots of Clinton might, or might not, want to know), so I will end here with a simple reminder of my general thesis of political leadership. Pragmatism is the path to success and favorable historical memory, extremism will only get overturned by following administrations. Political leaders should spend their time trying to find lasting solutions to pressing problems, and it is for that reason that GWB has failed in my honest, centrist opinion. Regardless, this does not mean he should be tried by international courts as a dictator. ;) That's all from me for today, folks.

Next Issue: Assessment of Democratic Candidates for 2004 Presidency.

2003-04-20T00:38:00.000-04:00

Israel and Palestine

Today's topic is not an easy one for most people, as it seems to be an informal understanding in this country that we should support Israel, thus symbolically supporting the Jewish nation. However, since most people do not understand the objective history of the region, I believe that it would be most beneficial to outline the course of events that have led to the situation we now have between the Israelis and Palestinians. I'll start with 1948, the creation of the indepedent Jewish state of Israel, and move forward. But before doing so, I'd like to preface with one statement.

The American people have been had.

______________
The current conflict began on May 14th, 1948, when the Jews proclaimed the independent state of Israel. The planning for such a state had been in the works since the immediate postwar period of 1945, and had been brought before the UN in various forms. The last structure before the declaration of the Jewish state, taking into consideration the Palestinian people of the region, had granted Israel 55% of the land and Palestine 45%. Furthermore, the locale of Jerusalem was to be internationalized, as it was the body's reasoning in GA Resolution 181 that such a landmark should belong to no single nation. In response to the declaration of the Jewish state, Israel's Arab neighbors attacked, though Jordan did not impede into the designated Jewish territory. Due to technical and informational superiority, plus several arms shipments from Western Powers, Israel was quickly triumphant in the war. As a result of the war, they occupied 20% more land than they had been initially allowed to, knocking down the Palestinian cut to 25%. The internationalization of Jerusalem never occurred, as Israel refused to abide by it, and the UN did not enforce it, as unstable a body that it was at the time. This signalled the first expulsion of Arab refugees from conflict territory in Israel's history.

In 1956, Ben Gurion (PM of Israel), French and British forces decided to take the initiative in a war strike, and assaulted the Sinai peninsula, previously controlled by Egypt. The combined forces easily conquered the land and took up occupation of the land, marking the second act creating refugees in the region. The US condemned the acts, and with the UN, imposed strict demands for the forces to withdraw. Israel was the last to withdraw and was most reluctant to do so, but they eventually did under US pressure. Egypt regained all its prestrike land acreage.

The PLO was formed in 1964, in response to these events.

In 1967, Israel successfully waged a preemptive strike on an Arab coalition staging for war against the small nation. Later termed the "Six-day war", Israel quickly established superiority and recaptured the Sinai, and newly captured Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights. Israel now possessed 100% of the land initially apportioned and much, much more than that. In fact, it took international pressure for a cessation of hostilities, including Resolution 242, demanding all parties come to a permanent peace. Egypt violated the ceasefire and fighting continued until 1969, a year later, Egypt finally agreed to Resolution 242. Israel ignored the stipulation to return land gained, and began settling in the land. This caused the third wave of refugees.

In 1973, Egypt and Syria began yet another war on Israel, which caught them wholly by surprise despite Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's public statements. After bloody months of fighting, the war ended in a stalemate, with Israel retaining all of the previous land, excluding a minor Egyptian contingent in Sinai.

In 1978, tempered by the US, Sadat and Israeli PM Menahem Begin, signed the historic Camp David Accord, ceding Sinai back to Egypt and establishing permanent peace.

In the late 70's and early 80's, the PLO turned Lebanon into their base of operations, after being expelled from Jordan. With Syria heading in to back them up, they continued their actions until 1982. In 1982, Israel, at the behest of Begin and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, invaded Lebanon to smash the PLO. They quickly exceeded their war aims and essentially oversaw the massacre of thousands of people, bringing international condemnations down around them. After Begin took, and subsequently destroyed, Beirut, Israel slowly withdrew from Lebanon. Their departure saw the fall of the Lebanese government and the birth of the terrorist faction, the Hizbolla.

In 1987, the PLO began their intifada, or holy war, against Israel.

Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Declaration of Principles in 1993, giving back Gaza and West Bank to the Palestinians. This was further reaffirmed by the second such agreement in 1995.

Israel and Jordan signed a permanent peace agreement in 1994.

Things have quickly regressed in the past few years, as Ariel Sharon became the new PM and enacted vicious stances towards the Palestinians. Reoccupying and settling the Gaza and West Bank, he violated the Geneva Convention (You cannot settle land seized by force), despite international condemnation. Suicide bombings have multiplied, despite Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, calling for cessation. The issue is now on the backburner, as current US foreign policy quietly supports Sharon's overt measures.
_______________

It is wise to mention that when I say "Israel", I mean the Israeli Government, as the people themselves are clearly guiltless in such power struggle. Likewise, we cannot blame the Palestinians as a whole, rather it is the suicide bomber extremists that cast a bleak shadow on the rest. There are, however, several conclusions we can draw from this chain of events.

1. Israel consistently violates UN resolutions and international humanitarian treaties in their treatment of Palestinians.
2. Israel is killing Palestinians at a rate that far exceeds the death toll for Israelis.
3. Israel and Palestine are, by no means, forces equal in power. Israel is a modernized nation with nuclear weapons and Palestine is a nation of refugees with small arms and munitions.
4, It is the actions of Israel that have led to the current extremism of Palestinian methods.
5. The history of Israel, in the modern world, is most definitely a history of violence.

I initially said that the American people have been had because we are never told about these real circumstances by our mass media. Everything is always slanted to Israel's side, to make it seem like "Israel can do no wrong", so to speak. What we need to understand is that Israel is equally, if not more, responsible for the current situation than Palestine is. They are the ones that have violated international accords, including the UN resolutions, Geneva and Oslo. Granted, the actions of the extreme intifada fighters cannot be condoned, but we see them outside the context of these real circumstances.

Why are we told a story different than reality?

Easy. It's in our interest to have a powerful ally in the Middle East, no matter how much excess baggage they have. Israel is the largest recipient of foreign aid in the world, and they get a massive $5 billion from the US alone. Initially, we had something to gain from this relationship, but now it is only Israel that gains. They do just enough, in terms of propaganda, to convince the American government, and thus, the American public, that we must continue our silent assent to these violations.

And what happens if we disagree? We're anti-semitic. How is one supposed to respond to that sort of accusation without apology? It is quite difficult. The American people have been had, and it has been accomplished through artful stroking of the US ego by the Israeli government. We eventually need to realize the truth of the situation, and do something about it.

What should we do?

1. Reinstitute the original 55/45 separation, thus forcing Israel to withdraw from the illegal occupied territory.
2. Create a free Palestinian state.
3. Cut the 5 billion we give to Israel in half and give the other half to Palestine as compensation for their plight. It's the least we can do.

What needs to occur for this to happen?

1. Palestine needs to stop breeding suicide bombers and take a page out of Gandhi's book, in other words, peaceful civil disobedience. Huge sit-downs in places of business, since Israelis are currently employing Palestinians at slave wages. Alert the global media and watch the change occur.

2. Israel needs to get its act together. The rabbis and majority of the citizens are compassionate people, and they should boot Sharon out of office in favor of a compassionate leader who will act for the good of his people. Acting for the good of his people is to end the military state currently existing and stop the state of terror that the suicide bombings create.

3. Everyone needs to realize that US blind faith in Israel will only hurt the reputation of Jews in the long run. Call it anti-semitic, call it whatever you want, but if as a nation, you do not prefer to be symbolically-attached to a violent regime, then start voicing what the difference is. This is an issue for Jewish people everywhere, and it will eventually affect everyone.

At least that's my view, I still think it sounds better than the status quo.

Next Time: Assessment of Bush, through a moderate lens.

2003-04-15T21:27:00.000-04:00

War Update:

It appears as if all the major fighting is done in Iraq, as allied forces now control a large majority (if not all) of Baghdad. There was no 'street-to-street' fighting as originally forecast and the war is for the most part over, barring an insane turn of events, in less time than Gulf War I and with less casualties on both sides.

For a war of this magnitude, literally nothing could have gone better. To date, around 140 allied troops have been killed or are MIA, there have been few incidences with aircraft or missiles, and there were no chemical weapons used against either the allied forces or regional allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc). When all is said and done, only 1200 Iraqi citizens have lost their lives (a tragic number nonetheless, but recompense from the allied governments will doubtlessly demonstrate that they do care, unlike the hateful regimes in the region's past) and around 5-6,000 have been wounded. Total numbers, including Iraqi military, are seemingly unknown at this point, but I'm sure the sociopath media conglomerates will change that with their usual insane speculation in the near future.

Despite the alarmist methods of the media, it seems like the myriad 'worst nightmares' will not come to pass as a result of this conflict. The Iraqi citizens have begun to openly support allied troops, once assured that Saddam's reign was in fact over, North Korea has seemed to quiet down, realizing that aggressive posturing will not really get much from anyone and the rest of the region has not been destabilized. The United States Government, if it has the least sense among its top brass and executives, will not procede with anything but finger-shaking at the increasingly belligerent governments of Iran and Syria. When all is said and done, this should go down as one of the fastest, most cautious invasions ever waged in modern human history. When people say that it took too long, I can only wonder how deluded they are, since it literally took us 3-4 weeks to overrun a country the size of California.

I think this would be a fine time to bring the troops home, but that would be forgetting that we now have an obligation to assist in the establishment of a free Iraqi government, and that kind of reconstruction is not an overnight endeavor. Perhaps, for the first time in US-Middle East foreign policy, the US will finally do the right thing in the end, rather than withdrawing early and throwing the entire region into chaos once again. I can only cringe when I think of Afghanistan in the 1980's.

I won't get into any sort of developed argument either for or against the effects of the war domestically, as that kind of thing can only lead to anger and discontent. I will simply say that both sides, in their own equally-right points of view, are accurate regarding the situation. There are both salient points for and against this, and any other, sort of armed conflict. But anyone who says that the actions of the other side are incontravertibly wrong, are completely biased boneheads. People should have the right to protest the war, so long as the do so according to US legal statutes, and they should be commended, not marginalized, for expressing their viewpoints. In the same vein, people for the war should be allowed to continue their viewpoint without the malice and hate that has accompanied recent events. Both sides have been guilty of vicious slanders, intended to attack the other side rather than building up their own case. That kind of action is counter-productive in the end, as it only produces further partisan disdain and polarization within the country. Remember, everyone regardless of being a Republican or Democrat, is a person with their own unique set of values and views. None of that should be marginalized with brainless, overriding labels.

That's pragmatism for today, folks.

Next Time: Israel and Palestine.

2003-04-14T19:41:00.000-04:00

And now, I shall get to my response regarding the Conference speakers.

There is something intrinsically flawed with seeking such extreme action in this type of situation, even more so when it involves the world's solitary super power. When it gets to that point, it is no longer a question of individual aims and procedures, but more an action involving the integrated world stage. You see, whether or not you agree with George Bush's actions as a President (for the most part, I do not, because they represent a mode of extremism that is dangerous for such a large nation to harbor), or if you agree with the war (in principle, I do. I like to think that we are allowed to correct past mistakes, though I question the motives of current actions), it is more a matter of realizing what this type of change would do to the world structure.

Uniformly opposing the US and seeking extradition of its President and its forces from around the world is a surefire way to destabilize everything. Not only will the western world be in utter disarray, but the eastern worlds will be just as acutely affected. If you take the principle of isolationism to its logical conclusion, you would have the US be removed from South Korea, the South China Sea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and many key Eastern European countries. If such a policy manuever were to happen, the danger of the possible effects would easily override the danger of the existing system. North Korea could move on South Korea, China could crush Taiwan, Afghanistan would crumble (again), India and Pakistan...god knows what would happen, and the support of developing polities would literally be excised. So, like it or not, the United States is needed, and even has a responsibility, to remain in the current world structure in almost all locations.

Furthermore, I would think that no matter how much we dislike Bush, he is no Hitler or Milosevic. He is not mindlessly massacring thousands and millions for little to no reason, beyond their cultural orientation. In fact, the current Gulf War is far and away one of the most cautious and precise wars ever fought in history, with such lengths taken to protect the people and minimize to the extreme civilian casualties. This does not sanction war crime. Differing ideological viewpoints on UN procedures do not merit the status of war crimes. This idea was never even floated with Clinton, and his actions in Sudan, the Balkans, Somalia, Iraq and Kosovo greatly exceed anything the Bush administration has done to date. Hell, we could have remained out of ground invasion and just bombed Baghdad until it was a moot point, but we didn't. The proper way to deal with an unpopular or ineffective President of a Democracy is not to treat him as a vicious, genocidal criminal, but simply to vote him out of office at the conclusion of all events.

These extreme proposals are not only dangerous, but they are counterproductive in the sense that they would never be achieved. It must be remembered that gradual reform administered reasonably takes more effect than a radical reform that is shunned by all but those who harbor the feelings. It is a paradox, but nonetheless true.

I would elaborate further and more conclusively, but other work beckons and I do not have appropriate time to give to such an endeavor at this moment. Until later.

2003-04-12T17:35:00.000-04:00

2003-04-12T17:29:00.000-04:00

I just returned from a day-trip to the University of Southern Maine for the purpose of an Honors Conference. There were several speakers, including student contributors, that had a host of things to state about the contemporary issue of peace and war. It was an interesting conference, to say the least, and I'm glad I went, but it has opened my eyes to some odd facts about the nature of political participation these days.

Of all the speakers, my favorite was a Nigerian man, Dr. Oshita, whom spoke about the state of affairs in Africa, and how that region is affected by the rest of the world and affects the rest of the world. He was a very reasonable man, answered questions more than fully, and respectfully and extenuated his arguments to clarify various points. I was very impressed by him. Even more so when I found out that he had been elected to the Nigerian National Assembly in the early 90's before the military dissolved it for the fourth time since Nigeria's independence. He used the word 'pragmatic' several times, and his views were the essence of pragmatism in world politics.

However, for most of the rest of the speakers, the affair was less than even-minded or objective.

I'll summarize the points quickly, as I have some work to get to, so I won't expand any arguments regarding these thoughts till sometime in the near future. But it bears stating them now so they can sink in adequately by the time I try to analyze them, and their effects were they enacted.

The goals of the speakers and their respective organizations:

1. To have Kofi Annan (Sec'y General of the UN) create a coalition in the UN to condemn the United States and their actions in the Persian Gulf region. If this is not done, then Annan and all Security Council reps should resign.

2. To have the US liquidate all their bases in the middle eastern region and remove all their troops. (With further possible implications of removing troops from all theaters of the world)

3. Lastly, the try George W. Bush in an international court for war crimes.

There was some very frightening rhetoric in the last day of my life, and even though I'm a centrist, it made me feel like a vicious, dogmatic ultra-conservative, that's how extreme it was. However, those last three points take the cake.

More later.

2003-04-10T19:52:00.000-04:00

What is pragmatism?

The dictionary defines pragmatism as: "2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.", and this is an apt definition for my purposes. More specifically, political pragmatism is the method assumed by government leaders to obviate society's problems through sensible, gradual change, based on an objective analysis of real conditions. It is a method intended to avoid any sort of radical upheaval and is generally sought after as the best way to mediate a problem of particularly vexing proportions, that is to say, compromise. It seems that in the present day, our political leaders and even our political participants have lost sight of the tenets of pragmatism, opting instead for watered-down, deceptive centrist policies. What happens more often than not, is a political leader will campaign on the basis of moderate policies, and then assume an entirely different stance once in office. This holds especially true for most recent US Presidents, who have toed the moderate line and then come off with entirely polarized methods of dealing with the country's and the world's problems.

What I offer, at least in theory, is an alternative. The lost aim of centrism, so to speak. It is not so irresponsible to say that a great deal of our unresolvable problems stem from the inability of political extremists to moderate their views in terms of compromise. In the sphere of world politics, this is exactly what we see happening in Israeli-Palestinian relations, US-Middle East relations and various other hotbeds of conflict and distress. Even the so-called sophistication of European politics is rife with polarized politics, as most recently the racist and inflammatory National Front (FN) of France garnered more than 10% of votes in French National elections for the first time in history. Even the highly stable German system, it's renowned hybrid system, is fraught with flaws in certain realms. It must be noted that the most recently elected President, Gerhard Schroeder, was elected by a thin margin mostly by virtue of his anti-American stances. The same can be said for the most recent South Korean elections. This type of trend is disheartening, and is perpetuated greatly by the inability of each side of the conflict to mediate their interests in favor of a more stable system.

Lastly, this site will go along the direction of third way politics, and this term tends to confuse most people. An apt definition can be found at the following site: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/FAQs.htm#Third%20way%20politics , but I will not fully rely on the writing of others to define my stance. For me, third way politics are politics distinguished by the fact they are neither conservative nor liberal, in fact, the concept tends to reject both camps of thought. Third way politics are politics designed to respond to today's problems, in today's contexts, accepting certain realities and seeking to change those which most definitely require progressive reform. For me, third way politics is the political body of pragmatic centrism, and the sensibility of compromise that comes attached to that terminology.

I will be discussing a great deal of world situations in the near future, analyzing them in terms of pragmatic, third way politics, if only to make the current system aware that the spreading extremism of political thought engendered by the quasi-crisis atmosphere of the global situation will only harm our chances at changing that system.

Before I begin, some time in the next week or so, I would like to acknowledge my premier influences that led to this viewpoint. The New Republic (www.tnr.com) is an excellent periodical that mixes opinions fairly and equally criticizes the policies of both sides of the political spectrum, thus avoiding the tawdry bias that mass media has attached to itself. I would also like to acknowledge The Atlantic Monthly (www.theatlantic.com) for granting me greater insight into many of the social policy problems facing the current generation of people.

Welcome to Political Pragmatism.