New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Although best known for his leadership on 9/11, Rudy Giuliani’s best attribute is probably how well he ran New York City where he lowered taxes, reversed the budget deficit, cracked down on crime, etc. Now he is trying to position himself as the small government candidate among the Republican Party’s contenders for the presidential nomination.

On issues from taxation to healthcare he is pushing for free market reforms in order to ensure the nation’s prosperity while he accuses the Democrats of advocating a “nanny state”. From the AP: 

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Monday accused Democrats of favoring a controlling “nanny government” as he continued his bashing of the rival party.

…

Giuliani argued that he favors less government and lower taxes.

“That’s what makes America great, not this nanny government that Democrats want to give us, where government controls your entire life,” he said.

…

On Tuesday, Giuliani intends to outline his health care plan. Giuliani’s goal is to give individuals more control over health care decisions and to encourage state officials to come up with innovative solutions.

Key to his plan is a $15,000 tax deduction for families to buy private health insurance, instead of getting insurance through employers. Any leftover funds could be rolled over year-to-year for medical expenses, under Giuliani’s plan.

Even on social issues, which tend to be very polarizing in American politics, Giuliani offers a unique, constitutional alternative:

Giuliani argues that the best way to reduce tension about social issues is to allow states, rather than the federal government, to take the lead in responding to them. That would allow socially conservative and liberal states to each set rules that reflect the prevailing values inside their borders. Rather than perpetual combat in Washington, he insists, the nation could reach a new equilibrium as different states gravitated to different solutions.

In an interview last week, Giuliani said the key to resolving cultural arguments “where our society on a national level ends up being very divided” is to apply the “principle of federalism.” Questions on topics such as gun control, gay rights or aspects of abortion, he continued, “are issues that I think the founding fathers would say should be consigned to state and local governments, experimenting, deciding, having different views, and the federal government having a more limited role.”

The fact their top primary candidate is arguing for free market and federalist reforms in Washington should give comfort to Republicans who have witnessed the GOP descend from the modern party of small government, pioneered by Reagan and Goldwater, to become the other party of big government in the past 12 years. So much is put on the fact that Giuliani isn’t pro-life, nor pro marriage amendment, nor religious that no one has even bothered to look at his positions which would have a far greater impact.

Although I am supporting Ron Paul–who is the truest advocate of limited domestic government–I concede that I would support Rudy Giuliani out of the top four GOP contenders (Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Romney). And furthermore I urge those Republicans who long to stop the advance of the nanny state to support Giuliani in the face of the most popular alternatives.

Popularity: 59% [?]

I read this fantastic article by Governor Romney a few weeks ago and while I am sure that many of you have already seen it, I thought it still merited a post. The article covers many of the different aspects of foreign policy, and while it is brief, it does an excellent job of outlining where the former governor stands on the issues. In fact, I believe this is the best foreign policy outline released by any politician running for office in this election.

The article starts out with a lot of the usual Washington politics need change lines that the candidates love to throw around these days, but the subsequent pages are quite substantial.

Here is a link along with an excerpt-

WASHINGTON DIVIDED

Less than six years after 9/11, Washington is as divided and conflicted over foreign policy as it has been at any point in the last 50 years. Senator Arthur Vandenberg once famously declared that “politics stops at the water’s edge”; today, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee declares that our major political parties should carry out two separate foreign policies. The Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus, who pledged to implement a new strategy, as the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Yet just weeks later, the Senate began crafting legislation specifically designed to stop that new strategy. More broadly, lines have been drawn between those labeled “realists” and those labeled “neoconservatives.” Yet these terms mean little when even the most committed neoconservative recognizes that any successful policy must be grounded in reality and even the most hardened realist admits that much of the United States’ power and influence stems from its values and ideals.

In the midst of these divisions, the American people — and many others around the world — have increasing doubts about the United States’ direction and role in the world. Indeed, it seems that concern about Washington’s divisiveness and capability to meet today’s challenges is the one thing that unites us all. We need new thinking on foreign policy and an overarching strategy that can unite the United States and its allies — not around a particular political camp or foreign policy school but around a shared understanding of how to meet a new generation of challenges.

Popularity: 44% [?]

This is a great article with shocking insight into Putin’s new Fascist state.
Russia will be a problem for the United States in the coming years, as Europe and America seek to decrease dependency on the middle-east for oil we will find ourselves in the grip of the Russians, who have the worlds largest natural gas and oil reserves.
This article from the Daily Mail describes just how far Putin is moving Russia to the right, and how in little more than fifteen years after the fall of the Berlin wall, Russia is now closer to 1939 era Germany than at any other time in its history.
Communism may be a thing of the past for Russia, but it looks like fascism is in its future.

Here is an exerpt from the article along with a link.

“Sex for the motherland: Russian youths encouraged to procreate at camp”

Remember the mammoths, say the clean-cut organisers at the youth camp’s mass wedding. “They became extinct because they did not have enough sex. That must not happen to Russia”.

Obediently, couples move to a special section of dormitory tents arranged in a heart-shape and called the Love Oasis, where they can start procreating for the motherland.

With its relentlessly upbeat tone, bizarre ideas and tight control, it sounds like a weird indoctrination session for a phoney religious cult.

But this organisation - known as “Nashi”, meaning “Ours” - is youth movement run by Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin that has become a central part of Russian political life.

Popularity: 34% [?]

I just thought I should share this little news article from my favorite (and most pro-Palestinian) European news network.
Here is an excerpt-

“Reports from Turkmenistan say President Niyazov has ordered the closure of all the hospitals in the country except those in the capital, Ashgabat.”

Enjoy

Popularity: 29% [?]

This is an article from todays Financial Times that I found very interesting.

“There has been a striking decline in support for terrorism in Muslim countries over the past five years, according to the annual take on world opinion by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

Of the 16 majority Muslim countries included in the survey, 15 have shown waning enthusiasm for terrorism in general and suicide terrorism in particular, it says.”

You can see the whole article here

Popularity: 50% [?]

Today President George W. Bush linked the war in Iraq to the fight against Al-Qaida. While he has done this many times before, it was one of his most controversial speeches as he “lashed out at critics who say that al-Qaida’s operation in Iraq is distinct from terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.”

I would briefly like to give our president a foreign policy lesson.

Al-Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization that Al-Qaida; it was formed by now infamous terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was created in Afghanistan by Al-Zarqawi after the retreat of the end of the war with the Soviet Union. He ran a terrorist training camp that had no correlation to Al-Qaida or Osama Bin Laden and was operating with the intent of overthrowing the Jordanian government (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian who resents the Jordanian Kingdom for not following strict Sharia law).

He left Afghanistan prior to the US invasion and traveled to Iraq where he was famously treated at an Iraqi medical facility. However, this occurred prior to the invasion and he still had no tie to the terrorist organization, which attacked American on September 11th. While he was in Iraq he established ties with a radical Kurdish militant group and also manifested contacts with senior Iraqi intelligence and military officials. It was not until nearly a full year after the invasion (in 2004) that al-Zarqawi announced his coalition with Al-Qaida. Zarqawi allied himself with Al-Qaida with the belief that it would legitimize his guerrilla movement to the rest of the Muslim world and increase his recruitment of foreign fighters. In 2004 al-Zarqawi renamed his organization Al-Qaida in Iraq, note that Al-Qaida in Iraq is a different entity than Al-Qaida with its own separate command structure and military imperatives.

It is true that there is an organization called Al-Qaida in Iraq, but it was not until after the US invasion (a full year after) that there was a correlation between the radical Sunni groups which killed over three thousand Americans in 2001 and the group which is responsible for many of the roadside bombs and beheadings in Iraq.

Today both groups share similar broad goals, however prior to US intervention in Iraq the groups had separate ideologies and goals and were only united in a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It is true that there is now a connection between the people who attacked us on our own soil and those we are now fighting in Iraq, but to say that Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden are leading operations in Iraq on a day-to-day basis is plane wrong.

Popularity: 40% [?]

Ryan briefed our readership on the situation with Ed and Elaine Brown several weeks ago.  The national media has slowly picked up on the story, with the LA Times publishing a short article on July 20th.  The saga rolls on, after power cuts, and various other attempts to get the “criminals” to turn themselves into the authorities. 

“We’re fighting for you, your country,” adds Elaine, 66, a calm woman with short, wavy dark hair. “This isn’t just taxes.”

“There’s no more America,” Ed says. “It’s already gone.”

“I’ll die fighting, rather than live in slavery,” Elaine says. “I’ll tell you that.”

The Browns continue on a tirade throughout the LA Times article, and it’s a terrific read.  Many Libertarians see the Browns as a signal of hope in a tax-filled country, but most pundits doubt it’ll have any lasting implications for America’s taxpayers. 

Popularity: 38% [?]

Need help deciding who you’re going to vote for in 2008?  2Decide.com and DEHP.net have helped to provide two tools that help anyone and everyone decide which candidate’s best for them in 2008.  If you’ve yet to decide, use 2Decide’s data and DEHP.net’s candidate chooser, which presents you with the best candidate for you after a short questionnaire formulated on the data from 2Decide. 

Popularity: 34% [?]

It’s a change.  Obama’s campaign has been plagued by indecision and inexperience.  His opponents play up the short period of time he’s been in the US Senate, while others note that he’s almost just a “pretty face.”  One of today’s top news stories, however, sees Obama fighting for something he believes in-withdrawal from Iraq.  His comments seem to be a bit more harsh than is necessary, incorporating a bit on genocide as well. 

the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and [that] preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

Obama’s brought up another issue that may make a bit of an impact on his campaign.  Darfur, an ever increasing problem, is central to the success of some aspects of Democratic campaigns.  The Save Darfur movement, constantly growing, may help to decide who wins the Democratic nomination.  Obama’s comments may alienate this section of his liberal base.

The harsh stance on Iraq-get out immediately and stay out-may resonate with anti-war Republicans.  Luckily, Obama hasn’t flip-flopped on this stance and seems to stand strong with Hillary Clinton against a prolonged American presence in Iraq.  Leaving isn’t simple, and it requires an extensive plan, which, Obama will hopefully incorporate into his platform. 

His comments pertaining to genocide may rattle some liberals, but the Iraq withdrawal strategy is almost a catch-all, as the majority of the Democratic nominees share his opinions.  Although his stances seem to alienate key sectors of the Democratic base, the future for Obama must be rife with decisions and strong policy stances in order to lead him to success in 2008 and beyond.

Popularity: 51% [?]

Everyone makes mistakes, and, for politicians, those mistakes can be the difference between victory and a loss in a campaign.  Mitt Romney, for some reason, seems to have an even larger tendency than most to flip-flop and embarrass himself in public.  The Daily Show loves to televise these very errors.  Romney has changed his abortion position (from pro-choice to pro-life) and his position on gun control (pro-control to no regulations) all to appease an increasingly Republican and conservative base.

Famed online celebrity gossip rag TMZ.com seems to have found pictures of Mitt Romney at a recent rally posing with a sign that claimed, “No to Osama, Obama, and Chelsea’s Moma” (spelling in the original poster).  There’s been little mainstream media coverage of this fluke, but how can Romney be so stupid as to pose with a woman holding that poster? Maybe some politicians are only as good as their press secretaries.

Popularity: 39% [?]