Archive for ‘Political commentary’

February 23, 2011

Freedom or Security?

by Steve Dana

So much in the news that warrants comment.

For those of us who are paying attention, we are witnessing a world changing series of events in North Africa and the Middle East.  Long standing governments are being destabilized and their very existence threatened by citizens from within.  Governments that haven’t necessarily been of a style we might prefer, but in control of their countries never-the-less.

The concepts of diplomacy and statesmanship have led our country into partnerships with other countries that are in no way similar to our own, but where we do share an interest beneficial to both parties.  If we limited our treaty commitments to only countries sharing our personal views, we would have few partners so it has been and will be in the future necessary for us negotiate with kings and dictators who rule countries that do not grant their citizens even basic freedoms we cherish.

So now when those citizens challenge their unelected leaders to taste the freedom we take for granted, what should our government’s role be in the process?

Should we take sides and actively support one side or the other or should we silently watch and let the chips fall where they may and resume diplomatic relations with whoever is standing after the smoke clears?  This is a dilemma we are struggling with in steadily increasing numbers.

Having said that, how would we feel if foreign governments that embrace a system different from our own decided to destabilize our own country and promote change to America consistent with their system?

I am no student of the History of Western Civilization, but I can remember times when people with strong feelings about their own beliefs felt compelled to “share” their beliefs with others in spite of the fact that those others had beliefs of their own already.  The “sharing” of religious beliefs has been the source of much bloodshed for thousands of years.  So should we be forcing our beliefs on others?

This is an important issue because it causes us to question our motives in dealing with every foreign country in the world.

The United States of America was founded by citizens who left their home lands to find a place where they could worship as they chose; citizens who demonstrated an independence that could not tolerate undue “taxation without representation.”

For more than two hundred years, Americans have embodied the freedom we gained from our own revolution.

In spite of the fact that our country represented the ideal form of government for people who cherished their individual freedoms, our form of government has not been successfully adopted by any other country in the world.  The delicate balance of interests required for our government to survive this long has been guaranteed by our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

But that took hard work and a firm belief in the individual freedoms that are the founding principles of our country.

So as time passed, many Americans came to the conclusion that our government’s job was to spread “our freedom” to everyone else in the world.

As painful as it might be, our country needs to step back and stop interfering with struggles taking place in other countries.  We can root for freedom, but we cannot play a role in manipulating the evolution of change.

Mubarak was a despicable dictator for thirty years because it was in the best interest of Israel for him to stay in power.  So should we support principles of freedom or support despots?  We need to decide our role so we can be consistent.  If we choose freedom over security then we need to know that.

If we determine that is it our job to “share” our view of freedom and Free the world from Kings and Dictators we better beef up our armies.

February 17, 2011

How can CPAC Pick Ron Paul?

by Steve Dana

How is it that Ron Paul who runs as a Republican, but is thought of as a Libertarian could win the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second year in a row last week?

What does that say about the attendees of the conference?  Even though I agree with some of what Ron Paul says, I wouldn’t want him to be our President.  I suspect that all the individuals who were contemplating a run said some things I might agree with but most probably wouldn’t get my vote either.  The candidates who are thought to have a chance in the real world finished up the track in the straw poll.  The talking heads in the Republican Party give some chance to Mitt Romney but I doubt many would bet any money on him.  The problem with the straw poll is that the viable candidates fared so poorly.

I guess my concern about CPAC is the fact that there is clearly a disconnect between the attendees and the mainstream conservative voters so why should we care what happens there?  If I were a serious candidate, I might pass on an event that didn’t reflect what is happening in the real world.

If the American Conservative Union expects to be relevant to Conservatives they need to clarify the mission of the conference.  If Ron Paul supporters can skew the straw poll two years in a row, the conference is either not drawing real conservative attendees or Ron Paul is an authentic conservative and those other guys are pretenders.

I am not a member of the American Conservative Union, but I agree 100% with their stated Principles and the supplementary Sharon Statement.  So I am a little disappointed that a renowned event like CPAC even bothers with a straw poll.  Maybe a better idea would be to let the speakers have their say and just leave it at that.

February 13, 2011

Bombs in the Hands of Street Gangs

by Steve Dana

So what have we learned from the shake-up in Egypt?

I think the most stunning lesson we learned was the power of social networking.  If what we now think happened in Egypt is true, it will be revolutionary, literally revolutionary around the world.  Wherever there is internet capability there will be the power to organize for a desired purpose; even take down a government.

We have known for a long time the younger generation had tapped into an instantaneous method of sharing information on a world-wide basis.  We weren’t concerned about whether it would improve the human condition or not.  It was a fun way for kids to stay in touch with one another.

On the surface it has been a little annoying to some of us older folks.  We see our young people with a device in their hands seemingly 24-7.  What in the world are they doing so much of their time?

Now we know that some of them weren’t just talking about girl friends and boy friends.  The implications of this “network” thing are huge when you see the creative ways the technology is being applied.  That creativity may spark debate about a need to regulate.

I suspect that governments around the world have been a little nervous about the possible outcomes in their own countries.  The ones that now move toward clamping down on internet accessibility and restrict social networking are the ones we should watch because they know they have something to fear.

Where the outcome in Egypt worked out so far on the positive side, the potential could just as easily benefit a disruptive movement in any country for any purpose.

I am not sure how the government will be able to offset the power of social networking to link individuals with ideas from communicating them to others when the desired outcome is harm to our country as we know it today. 

This tool is like a nuclear bomb in the hands of a street gang.

February 11, 2011

What’s Next for Egypt?

by Steve Dana

I’m leaving for work this morning, watching the television news when the screen changes to Egypt and the word that something big is happening in Cairo.  Momentarily the reporter on the scene turns to the camera and said something like “I have never seen anything like this, something really big is happening right now.”  Then after watching a little more, he comes back and tentatively reports that President Mubarak had resigned.

Folks, this is one of those good news/bad news situations.  It is good because the protesters got what they wanted.  It’s bad because nobody knows what comes next.  In my view, there are more unanswered questions now than before.

So I check my email at work and I am scanning the news on the internet this morning and a video comes up about expatriate Egyptians in New York City.  It gets me thinking about all the Egyptians that have left their homeland because Mubarak denied them the freedom they could get in America.  How many of them came to our country to experience all the benefits of a free society and now have an opportunity to go home and help shape the political process in Egypt?

Leadership in our country should be gathering as many of those expatriate Egyptians as they can to help them create a framework for a government they can share with their friends and relatives back in Egypt.  To set up resources for Egyptians to use that will enable them to make informed decisions about their options.

If Social Media gets the credit for starting the revolution, Social Media can have the same impact in stabilizing the country after the fact.

Americans will not determine the future for Egypt, Egyptians will.  We need to make sure that those who value what Western Style government can offer have every opportunity to share their views and have a seat at the table.

There have been “Opposition” leaders in Egypt in the past that have been imprisoned for their political views.  Do any of them have tendencies supportive of both democratic style of government and “pro-western” interests that appeal to Egyptians in the square?  Let’s get the bloggers and twitterers working to get it started.

Our government’s job should be to help Egyptians explore their options.  Our job should be to empower Egyptians in our country and other Western countries to have a voice in their homeland.

The final outcome of this whole process will have repercussions around the world.  The “butterfly effect” of events taking place in Egypt will be earth shaking.  We need to watch carefully.