Posts tagged ‘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 18, 2011

Do We Grade Presidents on the Curve?

by Steve Dana

I don’t think there is a Diplomacy 101 class that will prepare you to deal with crises like we are having in Egypt, North Africa and the Islamic countries east to Saudi Arabia so it’s understandable that President Obama’s diplomatic A-Team are not All Stars; some wouldn’t even make varsity.  I guess that since there weren’t any proven diplomats in the Clinton Administration there weren’t any Obama could bring back onto the current team except lightweights.

Like every President, Obama will be judged years later on how he and his team deal with this whole affair.  I don’t think there is a right answer and a wrong answer when you have to make decisions in the moment with the information available at your disposal in that moment until time passes and in hind sight we can judge right and wrong. (It won’t keep us from second guessing him though.)

It’s unfortunate that our states-people are having to learn on the job that what we say matters on the world stage.  If it weren’t so important in the politics of the world, it would be comical watching James Clapper and Leon Panetta fumble with their testimony before Congress. 

They want so much to say that the Muslim Brotherhood is a harmless organization with only a few bad apple terrorists on their fringe because that fits their political goals, but the truth is the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization with a few harmless peaceniks on their fringe.  How do Clapper and Panetta justify taking a paycheck for such incompetence.

If there wasn’t so much evidence that refutes their testimony we would normally accept their testimony as the gospel and that would be dangerous.  Thank God that these guys are so obviously incompetent or creatively prevaricating that they have no credibility what-so-ever.

The Obama Team is not winning any points for diplomacy after their first two years in office and this Egypt crisis does not bode well for the next two years.  I hope our country survives.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not take that diplomacy class either but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

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 16, 2011

What are American Jobs Worth?

by Steve Dana

The most important issue for Americans is getting our unemployed workers back to work.  Our consumer driven economy needs our people working to fuel the recovery.

What specific actions do we need government to enact that would cause a business to invest or to hire new workers?  At what level of government do we need these actions?

My first thought was Energy Policy in our country and I see the potential for jobs with pay and benefits that can support families, but I see over-regulation and legal challenges that prevent those jobs from ever coming to market.  The energy segment is really important to the national economy not just because of the jobs, but also because of the products they produce for our homes and our cars.

It is of national importance to get these industries back on track producing competitively priced energy for American consumers.  Failing to address the issues preventing energy companies from doing what they do will not provide those jobs and will increase the cost of energy to all of us.

So what do we need the government to do that will make it possible for private sector “for profit” companies to get to work?  I’m asking because I don’t know. 

I have ideas, but I am not an authority so I need help.

I do know it is really easy to file a lawsuit to prevent a company from drilling or mining because of environmental concerns.  The cost to file the suit is minimal and the risk to the filer is minimal.  Even lawsuits without merit can be filed as a harassment strategy.

It is really frustrating to work through the regulatory process and when you have a permit in hand find you are stopped in your tracks because of a lawsuit challenging some aspect of the permit.

I use national energy policy as an example of how government over-regulation or being overly sympathetic to litigation prevents the formation of jobs and forces higher consumer prices for energy products available to American consumers.

Here are two reasons for the Federal government to act proactively to reduce regulations and change statutes that allow frivolous or trivial lawsuits that can create the jobs and produce the energy our country needs.

Am I off base on this?  If I am not, then can we do it legislatively or does it require control of the executive branch?  If we capture an executive position, how do we implement changes that will clear the way for jobs and cheaper energy?

I can think of The Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act as two legislative initiatives that increase cost to consumers and lose jobs for American workers.  I am certain that there are dozens of federal and state laws that do as well.

We need to recommend specific changes to state and federal laws that will address these concerns so that voters can see why or how they lost their jobs or how their neighbor lost her job.  People need to see the relationship between a statute and industries impacted.  Let’s give voters a chance to choose between jobs and spotted owls.