"Over the past two decades American electoral politics has been transformed by the rise of a newly energized conservative movement. The result has been not only a radical shift in the program and politics of the Republican Party, but a decisive change in the nature of public discourse. Demagoguery is increasingly supplanting responsible dialogue, self-righteousness is replacing conscientiousness, and the victim is democracy" - John W. Dean III, former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon 1970-1973
In 2006, George W. Bush was mid way through his second term as President and already looking like a lame duck chief executive. In November of that year, Bush, as the undisputed leader of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, suffered his first major defeat in his six years in office. The American people, disgusted by a combination of political corruption, unprecedented secrecy in government, the dismantling of the United States Constitution and not to mention the war in Iraq, swept the Democrats back into the majority in the United States congress. Two years later the Republicans were decimated at the polls, Democrats significantly increased their majority, and America elected its first black president. Along the way, the tone of the political discourse in the United States would drop to a new low. Republican candidates, bitter after losing the congressional majority they had held for 12 long years and staring likely defeat in the face in the 2008 presoidential election, decided to join forces with a combination of rabid right wing talk radio fanatics, cable TV show hosts, conservative authors and editorial writers, retired (and sometimes discredited) military commanders and lobbyists, political hacks and racists of every shape and size to attempt to once again hijack the national mood for change in America through fear, intimidation, orchestrated confrontation and outright lies.
When John Dean wrote his book "Conservatives without Conscience" in 2006 he accurately captured the radical shift that had taken place in the Republican Party over the period of the previosu 25 years and repercussions of what this meant, and still means today, to the American body politic. There was a time when the conservative movement and the Republican Party was essentially one and the same thing. The universally acknowledged founders of the modern conservative movement, people like William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater, were lifelong, and passionate Republicans. Buckley founded "The National Review", the bastion of conservative writing and thinking now for over forty years; Goldwater was a long time senator from Arizona and former Republican candidate for President (he lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson in 1964). While both men's brand of conservatism was defined by their belief in small government, strong military defense, states' rights, fiscal responsibility and the deregulation of the economic marketplace, they were also viewed as men with a conscience, open to rational debate and whose motives and actions were not driven merely by pure ideology or prejudice. The Republican Party, and therefore the conservative movement, has become hijacked to a new ideology in the last 25 years. It began with Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the 1980's and was laid bare in all its viciousness and hypocrisy during the co presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bush ran on a plank of "compassionate conservatism" against Al Gore in 2000, but clearly his definition conservatism was radically different from that of Buckley, Goldwater or even Richard Nixon.
Since the election of Barack Obama, the Republican Party has been engaged in a civil war. The more ideologically driven half of the party (those that believe for example that John McCain wasn't conservative enough to be its nominee in 2008) is represented by a motley crew of racists and morally and ideologically bankrupt individuals that includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter to name but a few. The influence that these individuals have within the broader Republican movement is steadily increasing, so much so that the existing party leadership and infrastructure may become irreparably damaged as it looks ahead to the midterm elections of 2010. The recent events surrounding a congressional election this month in upstate New York provides a fascinating window into the political infighting that is currently going on within the Republican Party. In a part of the country where the Democrats have long been politically dominant, New York's 23rd district has been one of the few safe Republican seats going back over a hundred years. Earlier this summer the Republican Party in New York (and backed by the Republican National Committee and party leaders in the House and Senate) endorsed Ms. Deded Scozzafava as its nominee for the open congressional seat this November. In a district where Republicans have held the seat since 1871, the result seemed a formality. The problem for some national Republican figures however was that Ms. Scozzafava was not conservative enough in her leanings.
Enter Doug Hoffman. Hoffman is a carpet bagger (meaning he is running for a seat in a district that he has never lived in) who entered the race in September, proudly boasting his supposed conservative credentials and running as a "conservative" and not as a "republican". His star rose quickly when he was endorsed by none other than Sarah Palin. What half term governor and now part time blogger Palin knows about the issues of New York's 23rd district is not clear to me, however she delivered an enormous snub to the Republican establishment in New York by rejecting the party's chosen nominee and instead endorsing an unknown candidate, Hoffman, on the grounds that she, Ms. Scozzafava, the party nominee, wasn't conservative enough. In the weeks following the endorsement, a clutch of prominent Republicans from the four corners of the country have followed suit and endorsed Hoffman. The pressure on Scozzafava was such that on October 31st, 3 days before the election, she withdrew her candidacy. This issue this debacle has created for the Republican Party is that the constituents that had planned to vote for Ms. Scozzafava (viewed as a moderate Republican) may well now vote for the Democratic candidate, rather than the conservative Hoffman. Such an eventuality could swing the seat to the Democrats for the first time in multiple generations, an outcome made even more potentially likely when Scozzfava turned around and endorsed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, on November 1st! By the time you read this, the results will be in and we will know for sure. Be sure to do a Google on it.
This brand of red meat political conservatism that was played out in New York's 23rd district is a microcosm of the broader dilemma the Republican Party faces as it seeks to improve its image with the national electorate coming into a new election year. A recent country wide poll showed that only 20% of voters identify themselves as traditional Republicans. If the party is to increase this percentage and make gains in the 2010 midterm elections it knows it must broaden it's appeal to moderate Republicans (Republicans that abandoned the party in 2008), independents and even border line and conservative Democrats (like those Democrats who voted for Reagan in the 1980's). Should the party of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan continue to give way to the influence of Cheney, Palin and Limbaugh, and should President Obama's legislative changes begin to improve the lives of everyday Americans in 2010, it is not inconceivable that the GOP will shrink to be an almost exclusively white, Southern and ideologically bankrupt party.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The "Af-Pak" Decision
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?” – Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Around 330 BC, in his attempt to reach “the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea”, the Greek king, Alexander the Great, drove his armies across the vast plains of Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia and conquered the lands that today roughly correspond to Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Genghis Khan would experience fifteen hundred years later, Alexander’s armies found the rugged terrain and brutal climatic conditions of the Af-Pak region to be extremely inhospitable and morale shattering; so much so that as the great warrior drove his men relentlessly forward towards the borders of India, he was eventually forced to turn back by the near mutiny of his soldiers. Over the centuries, waves of conquerors have descended on these ancient lands, positioning the region at the crossroads of the historic trade routes between the great cities of Rome and Athens in the West and India and China in the east.
Eight years after the invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, President Obama is at a crossroads in determining the way forward for U.S. foreign policy in what is no longer being referred to as the war in Afghanistan, but rather the broader Af-Pak strategy. After vanquishing the Taliban back in October 2001, the general consensus is that the United States took its eye completely off the ball by focusing its international war on terror almost exclusively in Iraq. While the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq, Osama bin Laden found refuge in the arms of his Taliban kin, the same mujahideen he fought alongside in the 1980’s against the Soviets, and who now control the mountain landscape that borders the countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under the ineffective rule of Bush puppet, President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban in Afghanistan have reinvented themselves and are now back to pre 9/11 strength. Karzai’s inability, or unwillingness, to tame the resurgence of the Taliban and to stamp out the widespread corruption that exists within his administration has led to a perceptible cooling in relations with the United States. Accusations of extensive fraud in Afghanistan’s recent elections have contributed to President Obama’s insistence on revaluating the entire United States mission in that country.
The sovereign nation of Pakistan was formed in 1947 after the northwestern part of what was then British India was carved off from the rest of India to become an autonomous state in its own right, the home to millions of Indian Muslims. Many military and political strategists believe that Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan, is where the United States should be placing most of its military, economic and diplomatic efforts in any new regional strategy to be announced by the President. Even though Pakistan was a U.S. ally during the CIA funded war of the Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets in the 1980’s, relations soured quickly thereafter when Pakistan refused to abandon its nuclear program, an issue that has now come front and central for the Obama administration. Former Pakistani president during the post 9/11 era of George Bush’s war on terror, Pervez Musharraf proved to be an ineffective and prickly ally, who like his counterpart Karzai in Afghanistan, was unable or unwilling to tame the rise of the Taliban within his own country. The fear now for the Obama administration, in addition to the resurgence of the Taliban, who are natural allies of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, is that Pakistan’s nuclear capability could fall into the hands of an insurgent force like the Taliban, the potential impact of which could be catastrophic.
Right now, the usual motley crew of foreign policy hawks are talking up America’s need to recommit itself to bringing stability to the region, taking the war on terror to its enemies and spreading so called democracy. This is the same mantra we heard in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan (in the 1980’s and in 2001) and Iraq, a mention just a few. The military, industrial, intelligence and political nexus that controls the Pentagon, CIA, Department of Defense, Wall Street and the Republican Party have controlled the foreign policy of the United States for half a century.
It is unreasonable to expect President Obama to be able to reverse this trend less than one year in to his first term. The President can however demonstrate leadership, vision, respect and responsibility by carefully re-evaluating U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and begin recalibrating its mission there. The President was recently awarded the Nobel Peace prize not just for what he has already achieved; both symbolically and through his actions, but also for the change towards peace he can engineer in the matter of U.S. foreign policy and the application of America’s military might. Let us wish him well as he takes on this awesome task.
Around 330 BC, in his attempt to reach “the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea”, the Greek king, Alexander the Great, drove his armies across the vast plains of Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia and conquered the lands that today roughly correspond to Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Genghis Khan would experience fifteen hundred years later, Alexander’s armies found the rugged terrain and brutal climatic conditions of the Af-Pak region to be extremely inhospitable and morale shattering; so much so that as the great warrior drove his men relentlessly forward towards the borders of India, he was eventually forced to turn back by the near mutiny of his soldiers. Over the centuries, waves of conquerors have descended on these ancient lands, positioning the region at the crossroads of the historic trade routes between the great cities of Rome and Athens in the West and India and China in the east.
Eight years after the invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, President Obama is at a crossroads in determining the way forward for U.S. foreign policy in what is no longer being referred to as the war in Afghanistan, but rather the broader Af-Pak strategy. After vanquishing the Taliban back in October 2001, the general consensus is that the United States took its eye completely off the ball by focusing its international war on terror almost exclusively in Iraq. While the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq, Osama bin Laden found refuge in the arms of his Taliban kin, the same mujahideen he fought alongside in the 1980’s against the Soviets, and who now control the mountain landscape that borders the countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under the ineffective rule of Bush puppet, President Hamid Karzai, the Taliban in Afghanistan have reinvented themselves and are now back to pre 9/11 strength. Karzai’s inability, or unwillingness, to tame the resurgence of the Taliban and to stamp out the widespread corruption that exists within his administration has led to a perceptible cooling in relations with the United States. Accusations of extensive fraud in Afghanistan’s recent elections have contributed to President Obama’s insistence on revaluating the entire United States mission in that country.
The sovereign nation of Pakistan was formed in 1947 after the northwestern part of what was then British India was carved off from the rest of India to become an autonomous state in its own right, the home to millions of Indian Muslims. Many military and political strategists believe that Pakistan, rather than Afghanistan, is where the United States should be placing most of its military, economic and diplomatic efforts in any new regional strategy to be announced by the President. Even though Pakistan was a U.S. ally during the CIA funded war of the Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets in the 1980’s, relations soured quickly thereafter when Pakistan refused to abandon its nuclear program, an issue that has now come front and central for the Obama administration. Former Pakistani president during the post 9/11 era of George Bush’s war on terror, Pervez Musharraf proved to be an ineffective and prickly ally, who like his counterpart Karzai in Afghanistan, was unable or unwilling to tame the rise of the Taliban within his own country. The fear now for the Obama administration, in addition to the resurgence of the Taliban, who are natural allies of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, is that Pakistan’s nuclear capability could fall into the hands of an insurgent force like the Taliban, the potential impact of which could be catastrophic.
Right now, the usual motley crew of foreign policy hawks are talking up America’s need to recommit itself to bringing stability to the region, taking the war on terror to its enemies and spreading so called democracy. This is the same mantra we heard in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan (in the 1980’s and in 2001) and Iraq, a mention just a few. The military, industrial, intelligence and political nexus that controls the Pentagon, CIA, Department of Defense, Wall Street and the Republican Party have controlled the foreign policy of the United States for half a century.
It is unreasonable to expect President Obama to be able to reverse this trend less than one year in to his first term. The President can however demonstrate leadership, vision, respect and responsibility by carefully re-evaluating U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and begin recalibrating its mission there. The President was recently awarded the Nobel Peace prize not just for what he has already achieved; both symbolically and through his actions, but also for the change towards peace he can engineer in the matter of U.S. foreign policy and the application of America’s military might. Let us wish him well as he takes on this awesome task.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Soul of the Senate...
“For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the works goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die” – Senator Edward M. Kennedy 1932-2009 – concession speech in the campaign for the Democratic nomination for president in 1980 against incumbent Jimmy Carter.
On Saturday, November 23rd 1963, at the request of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, the Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara made four separate trips to Arlington Cemetery to survey the burial grounds for a suitable resting place for the dead president. After finding what he believed to be the most beautiful location in the cemetery, McNamara called Mrs. Kennedy and asked her to come to Arlington to make a final decision. At the foot of a hill, atop which stands Arlington House, a memorial to Confederate General Robert E. Lee, and overlooking the Potomac River, Mrs. Kennedy would light the eternal flame for the first time at the gravesite of her dead husband, a flame that has burned ever since. Forty six years later, Edward Moore Kennedy, the last remaining son of Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald, would travel the same road, passing the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial along the way, before being laid to rest within a hundred feet of his assassinated brothers.
Joe and Rose Kennedy raised their children around the biblical concept of “to whom much is given, much will be required”. Despite the fact that one brother served as president and another as attorney general, Senator Ted Kennedy lived this principal in a way that neither of his brothers ever did, or indeed ever had the opportunity to. Kennedy’s half century of dedication to public service was driven by three key themes; his genuine empathy and consideration for the underprivileged, minorities and the elderly, what he felt was his duty to carry forward the fallen standard and social and economic policies of his slain brothers, and yes, in the aftermath of personal irresponsibility and tragedy at Chappaquiddick, his long road towards redemption by becoming a lightning rod for every just social cause, authoring some 2,500 legislative bills in the United States Senate, covering everything from health care and immigration, civil rights and education reform to promoting gender equity, protecting voting rights and being a lifelong advocate for the working man and woman.
Ted Kennedy was a natural politician in a way that his more famous brothers never were. His brother Jack, the president, was renowned for being cold and detached, a man who cloaked his emotions and even though he spent 14 years in the congress before becoming president, was never at home in the Senate and was not a legislator in the way his contemporary Lyndon Johnson was, not even close. Robert Kennedy, while notoriously shy and often brutally stubborn and harsh in his years as attorney general, was a man of perpetual motion and action, who found the slow process and grind of legislating a terrible chore after he entered the U.S. Senate in January 1965. Teddy was a different story altogether. Politically speaking he was more of a Fitzgerald than a Kennedy.
His maternal grandfather, John F. “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald (after whom the future president would be named), was the rambunctious, back-slapping, wheeling and dealing former U.S. congressman and later two time mayor of Boston. The tradition of grass roots, ward politics that was symptomatic of the rise of first and second generation Irish immigrants within the Democratic Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was woven into the DNA of Ted Kennedy. Teddy not only loved the U.S. Senate, he loved legislating. He understood, more than anyone, that bipartisanship was a lot more than just a word. Although he was the voice of American liberalism for over forty years and the political nemesis of two generations of conservative Republicans, Kennedy was never afraid to reach across the aisle, wooing Republicans to his cause time after time, convincing them of the morality of the cause at hand, compromising when he needed to, promising his support for future opposition bills, always delivering the votes required to get the legislation passed.
Kennedy loved his Irish heritage and was a lifelong friend of Ireland. As early as 1971 he publicly compared Britain’s military presence in Ireland to that of the U.S. presence in Vietnam. In the 1970’s he helped persuade then President Jimmy Carter to provide U.S. financial support to Northern Ireland in the event of a peace settlement. In 1994, he was the leader among a number of prominent Irish American politicians who convinced President Clinton to grant a US entry visa to Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. When the IRA subsequently abandoned its ceasefire a couple of years later, Kennedy publicly snubbed Adams, calling on him to once and for all cut his ties to the IRA, and declined to meet him during several consecutive St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Washington. Behind the scenes however, over the period of twenty five years, he worked with several Irish Taoisigh and British prime ministers to broker a peace settlement in Northern Ireland.
As is often the case, with the passing of time comes wisdom and a perspective that only a history of life experience can bring. As he was being laid to rest at Arlington cemetery, the presiding priest read a letter that Kennedy wrote earlier this year to Pope Benedict XVI. Reflecting on a life of public service and still haunted by the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, Kennedy, like us all, hoped his life’s good work would help redeem himself in the eyes of his Creator…” I have been blessed to be a part of a wonderful family, and both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained, nurtured and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path”. Indeed, he did try.
For the exception of two years, a Kennedy has represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate since 1953. In excess of 140 million Americans, born since January 1963, have never known the Senate without Ted Kennedy in it. It remains to be seen if the torch will be passed to a new generation of Kennedy men or women to pick up where Teddy has left off. As an Irishman living in America, I am proud of the accomplishments of Ted Kennedy. We are all imperfect human beings and we all need GOD’s forgiveness. Let us hope that President Obama, a gutsy and transformative leader, can learn from the career of Ted Kennedy and guide the upcoming Health Care Reform bill through congress and its passage into legislation.
R.I.P., Teddy, the liberal lion and soul of the Senate. To whom much is given, much will be required.
On Saturday, November 23rd 1963, at the request of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, the Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara made four separate trips to Arlington Cemetery to survey the burial grounds for a suitable resting place for the dead president. After finding what he believed to be the most beautiful location in the cemetery, McNamara called Mrs. Kennedy and asked her to come to Arlington to make a final decision. At the foot of a hill, atop which stands Arlington House, a memorial to Confederate General Robert E. Lee, and overlooking the Potomac River, Mrs. Kennedy would light the eternal flame for the first time at the gravesite of her dead husband, a flame that has burned ever since. Forty six years later, Edward Moore Kennedy, the last remaining son of Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald, would travel the same road, passing the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial along the way, before being laid to rest within a hundred feet of his assassinated brothers.
Joe and Rose Kennedy raised their children around the biblical concept of “to whom much is given, much will be required”. Despite the fact that one brother served as president and another as attorney general, Senator Ted Kennedy lived this principal in a way that neither of his brothers ever did, or indeed ever had the opportunity to. Kennedy’s half century of dedication to public service was driven by three key themes; his genuine empathy and consideration for the underprivileged, minorities and the elderly, what he felt was his duty to carry forward the fallen standard and social and economic policies of his slain brothers, and yes, in the aftermath of personal irresponsibility and tragedy at Chappaquiddick, his long road towards redemption by becoming a lightning rod for every just social cause, authoring some 2,500 legislative bills in the United States Senate, covering everything from health care and immigration, civil rights and education reform to promoting gender equity, protecting voting rights and being a lifelong advocate for the working man and woman.
Ted Kennedy was a natural politician in a way that his more famous brothers never were. His brother Jack, the president, was renowned for being cold and detached, a man who cloaked his emotions and even though he spent 14 years in the congress before becoming president, was never at home in the Senate and was not a legislator in the way his contemporary Lyndon Johnson was, not even close. Robert Kennedy, while notoriously shy and often brutally stubborn and harsh in his years as attorney general, was a man of perpetual motion and action, who found the slow process and grind of legislating a terrible chore after he entered the U.S. Senate in January 1965. Teddy was a different story altogether. Politically speaking he was more of a Fitzgerald than a Kennedy.
His maternal grandfather, John F. “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald (after whom the future president would be named), was the rambunctious, back-slapping, wheeling and dealing former U.S. congressman and later two time mayor of Boston. The tradition of grass roots, ward politics that was symptomatic of the rise of first and second generation Irish immigrants within the Democratic Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was woven into the DNA of Ted Kennedy. Teddy not only loved the U.S. Senate, he loved legislating. He understood, more than anyone, that bipartisanship was a lot more than just a word. Although he was the voice of American liberalism for over forty years and the political nemesis of two generations of conservative Republicans, Kennedy was never afraid to reach across the aisle, wooing Republicans to his cause time after time, convincing them of the morality of the cause at hand, compromising when he needed to, promising his support for future opposition bills, always delivering the votes required to get the legislation passed.
Kennedy loved his Irish heritage and was a lifelong friend of Ireland. As early as 1971 he publicly compared Britain’s military presence in Ireland to that of the U.S. presence in Vietnam. In the 1970’s he helped persuade then President Jimmy Carter to provide U.S. financial support to Northern Ireland in the event of a peace settlement. In 1994, he was the leader among a number of prominent Irish American politicians who convinced President Clinton to grant a US entry visa to Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. When the IRA subsequently abandoned its ceasefire a couple of years later, Kennedy publicly snubbed Adams, calling on him to once and for all cut his ties to the IRA, and declined to meet him during several consecutive St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Washington. Behind the scenes however, over the period of twenty five years, he worked with several Irish Taoisigh and British prime ministers to broker a peace settlement in Northern Ireland.
As is often the case, with the passing of time comes wisdom and a perspective that only a history of life experience can bring. As he was being laid to rest at Arlington cemetery, the presiding priest read a letter that Kennedy wrote earlier this year to Pope Benedict XVI. Reflecting on a life of public service and still haunted by the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, Kennedy, like us all, hoped his life’s good work would help redeem himself in the eyes of his Creator…” I have been blessed to be a part of a wonderful family, and both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained, nurtured and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path”. Indeed, he did try.
For the exception of two years, a Kennedy has represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate since 1953. In excess of 140 million Americans, born since January 1963, have never known the Senate without Ted Kennedy in it. It remains to be seen if the torch will be passed to a new generation of Kennedy men or women to pick up where Teddy has left off. As an Irishman living in America, I am proud of the accomplishments of Ted Kennedy. We are all imperfect human beings and we all need GOD’s forgiveness. Let us hope that President Obama, a gutsy and transformative leader, can learn from the career of Ted Kennedy and guide the upcoming Health Care Reform bill through congress and its passage into legislation.
R.I.P., Teddy, the liberal lion and soul of the Senate. To whom much is given, much will be required.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
