As I write I am looking out my hotel bedroom window. It's Saturday morning, March 14th. Immediately across the street is St. John's Church, often referred to as the "Church of the Presidents". By taking advantage of a recession time special offer and a complimentary upgrade through a friend of my wife's, Jean and I are ensconsed at the famous Hay Adams Hotel on Lafayette Square, literally across the street from the White House. In fact, we are so close to Mr. Obama's house that if I was even a very average golfer a reasonable shot with a five iron would land my golfball outside his front door. What makes staying at the Hay Adams even more exciting for us is that the President and his family stayed here for a couple of nights before officially moving into the White House.
Jean and arrived in to Washington's Dulles airport (I still haven't figured out if it was named after former CIA Chief Allen Dulles or his brother, former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles) on Thursday evening, March 12th. Dulles is an ugly airport and about a 30 minute drive from downtown Washington. The other major Washington airport is Reagan National, which is much, much closer to town and the one into which, our cab driver reliably informed us, the politicians fly. He also told us that flying into Reagan typically costs a few hundred bucks more than flying into Dulles. Good to know.
On the trip from the airport to our hotel, our cab driver, an Indian man who previously lived in New Jersey, pointed out the landmarks and famous buildings that could be seen in the darkness...the Kennedy Center, the Watergate Hotel and finally the White House. Friday morning, March 13th, we slept in until 10:30am. Remember, our bodies were still on west coast time so the first morning we had a little readjusting to do. Then it was on to the sightseeing.
As you walk out the front door of the Hay Adams you are surrounded by history. The Church of the Presidents is directly across the street. If you look over your right shoulder, the magical and awe inspiring sight of the White House is fully visible in all its glory. Regardless of the time of day or night there are always people to be seen congregating at the railings bordering the property; tourists snapping pictures (include us in that category), some lobby group or politicial action party protesting against something or regular Washingtonian's strolling past on their way home or to happy hour. Later in the morning, Jean and I walked around to the opposite side of the property and took some pictures of the south lawn of the White House and the place from where Marine One collects the President when he is being flown out to Andrews Air Force base to take a trip on Air Force One.
Immediately behind the south entrance to the White House, and within a few hundred yards of its railings, is the National Mall. Completely dominating the landscape is the Washington Monument. Built in honor of the country's first President, the sand colored obelisk was completed in 1884 and its stands 555 feet tall. Surrounded by a circle of huge American flags, flying from plagpoles dozens of feet high, the monument is awe inspiring both in its construction and imagery. As I turned and looked over my right shoulder, images from a dozen different movies flashed across my mind. Off in the middle distance is the unmistakable and beautiful sight of the Lincoln Memorial, a beacon of democracy and symbol of all things good about America and her ideals. The famous reflecting pool that lies between the Lincoln Memorial and the World War II memorial is today a worksite where dozens of maintenance men are sweeping gravel, sand and dust across the broad expanse of the empty pool, no doubt getting it ready for the advent of spring. As you walk the length of the pool between the WWII memorial and the Lincoln Memorial you can't but think of Dr. King's famous march on Washington in August 1963 and the famous "I Have A Dream" speech that he gave from the steps of this wonderful monument. At the top of the steps you enter the body the Memorial itself and there in front of you sits President Lincoln is all his magestic glory, a face carved in humility, the father of black emancipation and savior of the Union at the time of its greatest danger.
At this point, Jean and I couldn't take anymore in, so we prepared for an evening of exploring the nightlife of Washington. After an aperitif at a cool, trendy wine bar called "Cork" (that had an impressive collection of French and Old World wines by the glass, we had a couple of glasses of Cremant), we ate at a traditional Greek restaurant called Mouraya on Connecticut Avenue. Today, we head to Capitol Hill, the National Museum of American History, the Vietnam Memorial and a couple of pubs I am sure.
More tomorrow.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
"Bi-Partisanship, Fiscal Conservatism, Cocktails and the same old GOP"
“What we need most right now, at this moment, is a kind of patriotic grace – a grace that takes the long view, apprehends the moment we’re in, comes up with ways of dealing with it, and eschews the politically cheap and manipulative” – Peggy Noonan (b. 1950), journalist (The Wall Street Journal), former speechwriter and special assistant to Ronald Reagan and political conservative.
My brother-in-law is in his mid-‘40s and is a very smart guy. He works as a senior process engineer and beyond knowing that his company has some ongoing contracts with the Department of Defense that involves airplanes I have no clue what he does. One of the reasons I like him is that he has taken his analytical and scientific mind and applied it to making beer, a hobby for which he has won a number of awards. Occasionally my wife and I will receive a package with the latest bottle of his tasty tonic enclosed for the requisite R&D. During the lead in to the general election last November I also learned that he intended voting for John McCain. Aghast that any of my in-laws would consider voting for McCain over Obama, we entered into a healthy dialogue about the qualities of both candidates.
I quickly understood why he intended voting Republican; my brother in law is a fiscal conservative. He is originally from Ann Arbor, Michigan, a state that has voted for the Democratic nominee for President in each of the last five general elections and he now lives in San Diego, California. Whatever liberal or semi-liberal social views my brother in law has, they were roundly beaten into second place by his fiscal conservatism. I am not making him wrong because of his opinion; however it does explain his decision to vote for John McCain. Or does it?
My boss is from Utah, which means that he is Mormon, and not only fiscally but also socially conservative. Coincidentally, much of my travel for business in the last year has been to Utah so I have been given a wonderful opportunity to understand the history and culture of Mormonism. My boss and I had many a healthy political debate in the months leading up to the election in November. He reads the Drudge Report and the National Review while I read the Huffington Post and The Nation.
While he is in no way a liberal or even a semi-liberal he is open to logical argument and is happy to debate the pros and cons of a policy plank or a political decision. He is also a fiscal conservative and as such was voting John McCain in the election. However, while acknowledging Obama’s charisma and bipartisan nature in the months before the election, I understood that there was no way I could change his mind. Mitt Romney, a fiscal conservative and a Mormon, and who ran for President in 2008, is a Republican. Ironically, his father, George Romney, was a former governor of my brother in law’s state of Michigan from 1963 to 1969.
There are many urban political myths that have sprung up over the years and morphed into somewhat of a conventional wisdom in the minds of many voters. Namely that Democrats are free spending, big government liberals and Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, or, that only the Republicans can be tasked with the job of protecting America and ensuring national security while the Democrats were weak in dealing with Communists 40 or 50 years ago and are weak on terrorism today. All you need to do is take half a second to contemplate these so-called maxims of political wisdom to realize that they are entirely baseless and false.
Let me ask these two questions: What party was in power for the past 8 years and in the process of demonstrating fiscal responsibility ensured that the national debt of the United States increased from $5T to $10T? (…and yes, that’s T for Trillion) Answer: The Republicans. What party was in power when the United States shirked its national security interests and helped win World War II, bombed (needlessly in my opinion, because the Pacific War was already won) Hiroshima and Nagasaki or displayed an outstanding combination of brilliant diplomacy and implied aggression during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Answer: The Democrats. So, if anyone tells you that Republican’s are fiscal conservatives you can quote them the facts.
Fast forward to January 2009 and the now famous $800B stimulus package. President Obama demonstrates a level of bipartisanship not seen in decades in an effort to bring Republicans into the process of reviewing and providing constructive input to the details of the proposed stimulus package. House Democrats were put out by the level of bipartisanship being displayed by the President, leading some to declare publicly, though off the record, that Obama was spending more time consulting with Republicans than Democrats. The President hosted Republican and Democratic leaders at the White House for a cocktails happy hour on not one, but two occasions. He invited senior congressional leaders to watch the Super Bowl with him. He removed a number of provisions in the stimulus package that the Republicans didn’t like and inserted increased tax cuts to make them happy.
How many votes did the President’s bipartisanship garner him for the all important vote in the House? The answer is zero. The Republicans claimed afterwards that they couldn’t support the bill because it didn’t include enough tax cuts for the wealthy and that there was nothing in the bill that would “stimulate” the economy. Then the President got mad.
Rightfully pointing out that he wasn’t going to be bullied into amending the bill to suit Republicans, the same Republicans who helped double the national debt under George W. Bush and essentially deregulated the entire financial services and banking sector that has precipitated the depression that is now engulfing the country, Obama has learned a tough lesson. The Republicans are publicly delighting in the fact that they displayed a tough response to the President’s request to leave the old political dogma to one side and step up, accept responsibility and do the people’s business.
What they continue to fail to remember is that the American people voted for change in November, to the tune of a 2-1 margin of victory in the presidential election and increased majorities for the Democrats in the House and Senate. In the aftermath of the stimulus bill finally passing both Houses of Congress (where no House Republicans and only three Senate Republicans supported the bill) Obama has said that “I am an eternal optimistic but that doesn’t mean I am a sap”. He has learned his first harsh Washington lesson.
As for the Republicans, they need to wake up and smell the coffee, and quickly. This is no longer 1958, 1988 or even 2008.
My brother-in-law is in his mid-‘40s and is a very smart guy. He works as a senior process engineer and beyond knowing that his company has some ongoing contracts with the Department of Defense that involves airplanes I have no clue what he does. One of the reasons I like him is that he has taken his analytical and scientific mind and applied it to making beer, a hobby for which he has won a number of awards. Occasionally my wife and I will receive a package with the latest bottle of his tasty tonic enclosed for the requisite R&D. During the lead in to the general election last November I also learned that he intended voting for John McCain. Aghast that any of my in-laws would consider voting for McCain over Obama, we entered into a healthy dialogue about the qualities of both candidates.
I quickly understood why he intended voting Republican; my brother in law is a fiscal conservative. He is originally from Ann Arbor, Michigan, a state that has voted for the Democratic nominee for President in each of the last five general elections and he now lives in San Diego, California. Whatever liberal or semi-liberal social views my brother in law has, they were roundly beaten into second place by his fiscal conservatism. I am not making him wrong because of his opinion; however it does explain his decision to vote for John McCain. Or does it?
My boss is from Utah, which means that he is Mormon, and not only fiscally but also socially conservative. Coincidentally, much of my travel for business in the last year has been to Utah so I have been given a wonderful opportunity to understand the history and culture of Mormonism. My boss and I had many a healthy political debate in the months leading up to the election in November. He reads the Drudge Report and the National Review while I read the Huffington Post and The Nation.
While he is in no way a liberal or even a semi-liberal he is open to logical argument and is happy to debate the pros and cons of a policy plank or a political decision. He is also a fiscal conservative and as such was voting John McCain in the election. However, while acknowledging Obama’s charisma and bipartisan nature in the months before the election, I understood that there was no way I could change his mind. Mitt Romney, a fiscal conservative and a Mormon, and who ran for President in 2008, is a Republican. Ironically, his father, George Romney, was a former governor of my brother in law’s state of Michigan from 1963 to 1969.
There are many urban political myths that have sprung up over the years and morphed into somewhat of a conventional wisdom in the minds of many voters. Namely that Democrats are free spending, big government liberals and Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, or, that only the Republicans can be tasked with the job of protecting America and ensuring national security while the Democrats were weak in dealing with Communists 40 or 50 years ago and are weak on terrorism today. All you need to do is take half a second to contemplate these so-called maxims of political wisdom to realize that they are entirely baseless and false.
Let me ask these two questions: What party was in power for the past 8 years and in the process of demonstrating fiscal responsibility ensured that the national debt of the United States increased from $5T to $10T? (…and yes, that’s T for Trillion) Answer: The Republicans. What party was in power when the United States shirked its national security interests and helped win World War II, bombed (needlessly in my opinion, because the Pacific War was already won) Hiroshima and Nagasaki or displayed an outstanding combination of brilliant diplomacy and implied aggression during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Answer: The Democrats. So, if anyone tells you that Republican’s are fiscal conservatives you can quote them the facts.
Fast forward to January 2009 and the now famous $800B stimulus package. President Obama demonstrates a level of bipartisanship not seen in decades in an effort to bring Republicans into the process of reviewing and providing constructive input to the details of the proposed stimulus package. House Democrats were put out by the level of bipartisanship being displayed by the President, leading some to declare publicly, though off the record, that Obama was spending more time consulting with Republicans than Democrats. The President hosted Republican and Democratic leaders at the White House for a cocktails happy hour on not one, but two occasions. He invited senior congressional leaders to watch the Super Bowl with him. He removed a number of provisions in the stimulus package that the Republicans didn’t like and inserted increased tax cuts to make them happy.
How many votes did the President’s bipartisanship garner him for the all important vote in the House? The answer is zero. The Republicans claimed afterwards that they couldn’t support the bill because it didn’t include enough tax cuts for the wealthy and that there was nothing in the bill that would “stimulate” the economy. Then the President got mad.
Rightfully pointing out that he wasn’t going to be bullied into amending the bill to suit Republicans, the same Republicans who helped double the national debt under George W. Bush and essentially deregulated the entire financial services and banking sector that has precipitated the depression that is now engulfing the country, Obama has learned a tough lesson. The Republicans are publicly delighting in the fact that they displayed a tough response to the President’s request to leave the old political dogma to one side and step up, accept responsibility and do the people’s business.
What they continue to fail to remember is that the American people voted for change in November, to the tune of a 2-1 margin of victory in the presidential election and increased majorities for the Democrats in the House and Senate. In the aftermath of the stimulus bill finally passing both Houses of Congress (where no House Republicans and only three Senate Republicans supported the bill) Obama has said that “I am an eternal optimistic but that doesn’t mean I am a sap”. He has learned his first harsh Washington lesson.
As for the Republicans, they need to wake up and smell the coffee, and quickly. This is no longer 1958, 1988 or even 2008.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Pro-Israeli Lobby
“We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon – no alternative” – Golda Meir (1898-1978), one of the founders of the State of Israel and the fourth Prime Minister of Israel from 1969-1974
In the annals of US foreign policy no country has benefitted more from Washington’s largesse than Israel. Since the 1960’s the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East has been almost exclusively influenced by its relationship with the state of Israel. Economic assistance to the tune of $140B since the country’s formation in 1948 dwarfs that of any other nation. Today, Israel still receives an annual “gift” of approximately $3B, despite the fact that it is considered a reasonably affluent country in its own right. The United States has continually ignored Israel’s proliferation of nuclear weapons while sanctimoniously condemning other nations in the region from developing their own nuclear capability. Israel has continually cited its national security and virtual existence as its reasons for building a nuclear arsenal and waging a series of regional wars over the past forty years.
Why has Israel benefitted from such preferential treatment from the United States? One hypothesis often floated is that Israel and the United States share the same enemies; terrorist organizations and rogue states in the Middle East that are bent on the destruction of Israel and the creation of a regional Arab hegemony. While it is true that many of the Arab nations in the region view Israel as an illegitimate state, created on lands that Arabs believe belong to the Palestinian people and are therefore hostile to Israel, it is also equally true to say that Arab resentment and hostility towards the United States is largely as a result of America’s unilateral support for Israel and her policies. What is the reasoning behind this unprecedented level of US support for Israel and why does America, in my opinion, continually turn a blind eye to the blatant and disproportionate aggression meted out by Israel on the Palestinian people?
After Israel launched yet another massive land invasion and aerial assault on the Gaza Strip in December, I asked my wife if I was the only person in America that was angered at yet another example of Israel’s belligerence. Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself but why must its aggression be totally disproportionate – as I write, in excess of one thousand Palestinians have been killed in this latest round of violence. Even ultra conservative commentators here in the United States have been openly critical of Israel’s action. Former Nixon speechwriter and apologist and two time presidential candidate himself, Pat Buchanan, referred to Israel’s most recent incursion in to Gaza as a “blitzkrieg”, in the process creating a “concentration camp” where Israel are “controlling the food, electricity and fuel”.
The pro-Israeli lobby here in the United States is a powerful one. Criticism of Israel in either the House of Representatives (Dennis Kucinich excluded) or the Senate is practically non-existent. There are many prominent Jewish politicians who make sure that Israel’s interests are well served along the corridors of power in Washington and in the White House. Money of course is the fuel that drives every political campaign and pro-Israeli organizations across the country have for decades helped politicians at a local and national level. On the whole however, America’s history of ongoing, unilateral support for Israel has to be seen as having negatively impacted its standing in the Middle East and the world at large. The Arab world’s hostility to the United States is at an all time high and has made America susceptible to Arab backlash, whether it be in the form of a terrorist attack, control over the flow and price of oil or broader support for America’s regional policies.
While I don’t expect huge changes in U.S. foreign policy towards Israel with the inauguration of President Obama and the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as the country’s top diplomat, I will be interested to see if the United States will adopt a more nuanced approach towards its relationship with Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict in general.
"President Obama”
On January 20th, Barack Hussein Obama will have been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Forty years after his death and the day after the holiday that commemorates his memory, Dr. King’s dream has come to pass with the inauguration of America’s first black president. As we leave the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush in the rear view mirror, Americans are looking forward with hope, optimism and excitement at the dawning of a new era in national politics. I for one feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be an interested onlooker while the remarkable story of Barack Obama’s election to the office of President has been written. In the words of Byron, “the great art of life is sensation, to feel that we exist, even in pain”. Indeed.
In the annals of US foreign policy no country has benefitted more from Washington’s largesse than Israel. Since the 1960’s the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East has been almost exclusively influenced by its relationship with the state of Israel. Economic assistance to the tune of $140B since the country’s formation in 1948 dwarfs that of any other nation. Today, Israel still receives an annual “gift” of approximately $3B, despite the fact that it is considered a reasonably affluent country in its own right. The United States has continually ignored Israel’s proliferation of nuclear weapons while sanctimoniously condemning other nations in the region from developing their own nuclear capability. Israel has continually cited its national security and virtual existence as its reasons for building a nuclear arsenal and waging a series of regional wars over the past forty years.
Why has Israel benefitted from such preferential treatment from the United States? One hypothesis often floated is that Israel and the United States share the same enemies; terrorist organizations and rogue states in the Middle East that are bent on the destruction of Israel and the creation of a regional Arab hegemony. While it is true that many of the Arab nations in the region view Israel as an illegitimate state, created on lands that Arabs believe belong to the Palestinian people and are therefore hostile to Israel, it is also equally true to say that Arab resentment and hostility towards the United States is largely as a result of America’s unilateral support for Israel and her policies. What is the reasoning behind this unprecedented level of US support for Israel and why does America, in my opinion, continually turn a blind eye to the blatant and disproportionate aggression meted out by Israel on the Palestinian people?
After Israel launched yet another massive land invasion and aerial assault on the Gaza Strip in December, I asked my wife if I was the only person in America that was angered at yet another example of Israel’s belligerence. Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself but why must its aggression be totally disproportionate – as I write, in excess of one thousand Palestinians have been killed in this latest round of violence. Even ultra conservative commentators here in the United States have been openly critical of Israel’s action. Former Nixon speechwriter and apologist and two time presidential candidate himself, Pat Buchanan, referred to Israel’s most recent incursion in to Gaza as a “blitzkrieg”, in the process creating a “concentration camp” where Israel are “controlling the food, electricity and fuel”.
The pro-Israeli lobby here in the United States is a powerful one. Criticism of Israel in either the House of Representatives (Dennis Kucinich excluded) or the Senate is practically non-existent. There are many prominent Jewish politicians who make sure that Israel’s interests are well served along the corridors of power in Washington and in the White House. Money of course is the fuel that drives every political campaign and pro-Israeli organizations across the country have for decades helped politicians at a local and national level. On the whole however, America’s history of ongoing, unilateral support for Israel has to be seen as having negatively impacted its standing in the Middle East and the world at large. The Arab world’s hostility to the United States is at an all time high and has made America susceptible to Arab backlash, whether it be in the form of a terrorist attack, control over the flow and price of oil or broader support for America’s regional policies.
While I don’t expect huge changes in U.S. foreign policy towards Israel with the inauguration of President Obama and the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as the country’s top diplomat, I will be interested to see if the United States will adopt a more nuanced approach towards its relationship with Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict in general.
"President Obama”
On January 20th, Barack Hussein Obama will have been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Forty years after his death and the day after the holiday that commemorates his memory, Dr. King’s dream has come to pass with the inauguration of America’s first black president. As we leave the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush in the rear view mirror, Americans are looking forward with hope, optimism and excitement at the dawning of a new era in national politics. I for one feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be an interested onlooker while the remarkable story of Barack Obama’s election to the office of President has been written. In the words of Byron, “the great art of life is sensation, to feel that we exist, even in pain”. Indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
