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!

Two opinion pieces today, one in the Wall Street Journal and one in the Dallas Morning News, shed some negative light on the libertarian Congressman.

First, a revelation from the WSJ editorial entitled “Ron Paul’s Earmarks” (just the title could strike fear into the heart of any Ron Paul admirer):

After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 to fund shrimp-fishing.

When we called Mr. Paul’s office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom Delay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked,” the spokesperson said. “What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public–and I have to presume it’s not by accident.”

On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere. The problem with earmarking is that each year the habit grows by leaps and bounds so that it now represents real money. It is also a gateway to political corruption–a la Duke Cunningham, and other Congressmen currently under investigation for trading favors for earmarks.

Mr. Paul is one of Congress’ better fiscal conservatives. So the fact that even he feel obliged to grab multiple earmarks is all the more reason to keep fighting for transparency in the earmark process, as well as for the line-item veto, which would give Presidents a chance to impose some spending discipline from outside Congress.

Mr. Paul’s defense is in vain. This does not change the fact that Mr. Paul’s request increases the demand for government appropriation of private funds. The $400 million in frivolous projects proposed by the Texas Congressman is money that is taken from private producers and out of the private market and does nothing more than further erode the private citizens’ economic liberty. 

While Congressman Paul still stands as most in favor of individual liberty on the domestic front among presidential candidates, this development is, at least, troubling. Keep in mind that $400 million is a lot of money, and the day that we all start saying that it is not a large sum, we know that the size of our government has gotten out of hand. If all 535 congressmen got $400 in earmarks for their own constituencies–like Dr. Paul desired–that would amount to a total of over $200 billion in earmarks. I wonder if the Congressman would be in favor of that?

The second editorial mention of Ron Paul was by Mark Davis of the Dallas Morning News:  

File all that under disturbing quirkiness. But it is the Ron Paul take on fighting terror that makes him unfit for even the briefest consideration for the presidency.

In the now-famous May 15 GOP debate in South Carolina, he stood out among the crowded field by blaming America for 9/11. “We’ve been over there,” he lectured. “We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. … What would we say here if China was doing this in our country?”

That phony equivalency rises to the level of sheer moral idiocy, and it doesn’t stop there. Dr. Paul’s longstanding unfortunate tendency is to rope Jesus into his war objections. Today, the notion of going to war to actually prevent additional terrorism strikes him as antithetical to the concept of a “Prince of Peace.”

We should expect sixth-graders to recognize that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities. Peace is what you get when the good guys win.

Joined by a host of Democrats who clearly do not view America as “the good guys,” Ron Paul has shown he is one of many otherwise respectable Americans wholly unworthy of the White House.

As I have said many times, I have plenty of problems with Dr. Paul’s foreign policy and I think that Davis lists some of them here in an entertaining manner. For one, the origin of hatred for America in the Islamic world is ideological and it goes far deeper than something as nominal as American foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. Try the fact that Islamist believe that God–through his prophet Mohammed–wants Muslims to wage a jihad against all cultures and peoples that do not conform all aspects of their lives to Islam.

The second troubling fact is that he uses–as Davis says–Jesus to justify his foreign policy. My question is, what major war in America’s history could General Christ have won?

Popularity: 75% [?]

There’s a great article today on Real Clear Politics illuminating Congressman Paul’s foreign policy both philisophically and in relation to the modern political landscape. Here’s a dosage:

Against such an overwhelming tide of grandiosity and hubris, it sounds farcical to suggest that non-interventionism will some day sway voters and find eventual electoral success. But it will.

First though, it’s important to distinguish non-interventionism from isolationism. The former seeks a more rigorous and delimited definition of America’s interests, while the latter a walled garden that completely cuts America off from the world. Non-interventionists are not pacifists, but they do reserve war fighting for moments of actual national peril. (Paul, for instance, voted to authorize war in Afghanistan in 2001.) They do not view the military as an instrument of social policy. If war is to be fought, non-interventionists demand a Congressional declaration of war to ensure that the conflict is one in which the nation’s resources are fully brought to bear. 

(The italics are mine.) If the standard for foreign policy is what will further America’s self interest–that being what will preserve the freedom and prosperity of the American people–a non-interventionalist foreign policy has a good amount of merit. Here are the basic reasons why:

-It ensures that America won’t entangle itself in costly foreign entanglements.

-It ensures that America won’t sacrifice its health or resources to other nation’s problems or interests, nor engage itself unless American interests are at stake.

-It ensures that America will not engage itself militarily unless the security of its freedom has been attacked or is under imminent threat.

-It ensures that America will not employ military force unless Congress declares war and both the legislative branch and the executive are resolved in doing so.

-It ensures that when America does go to war it does so swiftly and forcefully, for the sake of total destruction of the enemy; it ensures that war will not be fought half heartedly or with mercy, nor that we go to war for reasons relating to occupation or nation building. 

Perhaps I am projecting too positively on Ron Paul’s foreign policy, because it is worth pointing out that I believe that he has applied it poorly in several ways today. He is right to say that Iraq should not have been invaded, he is right to say that Iraq was managed poorly, he was right to say that we should have invaded Afghanistan.

However he is wrong to say that we largely created the threat, he is wrong to say that Iran should not be touched, and he is very wrong to advocate the just war theory. (The fact that he is for the feeble-fighting ways of the just war theory would probably show that Paul would dissent from the first half of my last point, that when we fight we should do “so swiftly and forcefully and for the sake of total destruction of the enemy).

So while Dr. Paul’s domestic policy is unequivocally good, I can find both good and bad in his foreign policy. 

It hurts to be ambiguous.  

Popularity: 52% [?]

It’s always nice being told that I’m heartless or don’t care about human life or some variation thereof because in that case I know that my arguments are effective enough to make some bleeding heart kick and scream. The latest episode is from Zach, NSP’s own author of liberal content:

While those without much regard for human life (perhaps Ryan’s post “Darfur: Why I Don’t Give a Damn” best summarizes the perspective of these individuals) continue to emphasize that Darfur is Sudan’s problem to handle, it seems as if the only way the bloodshed will stop is if an international force attempts to impede the progress of the janjaweed.

Simply dismissing my position as a disregard for human life represens a dull and trivial level of reasonin. I am against intervening in Darfur because I am against using government coercion at home to finance a massive international aid scheme that will probably fail in the end anyways. Quite simply the American taxpayer has no obligation to make sacrifices to anyone in Africa and they should not be compelled as if they do. As i have said before, if any individual believes that Darfur is worth it, they may donate anything of their own or even go over to Africa to fight against the Janjaweed themselves, however they have no right to force another American to sacrifice their property in one form or another for the cause, which is essentially what organizations like Save Darfur advocate–using the democratic process to force other people to finance a humanitarian effort.

As I have expounded, it is the job of the American government to protect the rights of those within the domain of the American government (aka within our borders); not every poor, hungry man, woman and child roaming the earth. If it was the responsibility of rich countries to take care of poor chaotic ones then they should not have their own governments–they should become part of ours–and they should pay taxes to us. As I see it, the third world and governments who shamelessly beg for our foreign aid are like the spoiled, 23-year-old college dropout son America never had. He lives in his parents house, partys hard, and always says he’s going to get a job but never does–simply he has been given all the resources to be successful but lacks the moral value and discipline to achieve it himself.

Likewise poor nations today live in a thriving global economy, of the like America never benefited from back when it was founded. For them, greater prosperity can be achieved with only minimal structural necessities, however they still fail to accept the prerequisites of free minds, free people, and free markets–and until they do, those countries will still be waking up at one in the afternoon with a hangover, a  strange girl in bed next to them, and no income.

Next is that just because the action currently being undertaken is by the UN does not mean that the American people are not assuming an irrational burden. The Bush administration promised one and one quarter billion dollars in funding for international organizations in 2007 and moreover the US funds 22% of the UN’s total budget–which is the maximum–as well as 25% of the UN Peacekeeping budget–which is also the maximum allowed. So, nevertheless, the American taxpayer finds himself coerced to pay for this initiative.

Moreover, I doubt that the resources being allocated to Darfur will actually be well spent. Quite simply if I really wanted something done about Darfur, I would not trust the UN to do it effectively, nor would I assume that a lazy occupation (aka “peacekeeping mission”) would stop the genocide in the long run. When you are faced with a society in as much disarray as in Sudan, and such a reckless government, and such a merciless militia group, a lousy UN Peacekeeping mission will not truly do the job. The only way that I coul foresee a peaceful end to the the matter is if the US invaded, dismantled the government as well as the Janjaweed (with greater force than is currently being employed in Iraq), and maintained an occupation for some time thereafter. Either way the reality is that most in the “save Darfur crowd” don’t appear to be rational enough to realize that the roots of the violence in Darfur run deep, that any effort to fix the problem will come at a severe cost, and finally that no person has the right to force any American to put his money or his life on the line for that cause.

I fear where all this is going. We heard more than a decade ago in Rwanda, “never again”. But around the same time we also saw what happens when we did intervene in third world instability. When two Black Hawk helicopters went down at the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia, 19 American soldiers were killed as well as dozens of soldiers from other nations in the occupation which persisted for two more years. I say never again to Somalia–never again to America sacrificing the interests of its individuals to every other humanitarian crisis around the world. Such a foreign policy is reckless and self-sacrificial and will doubtlessly drain America’s ability to prosper and support the advancement of human life for its own citizens in the future.

Popularity: 35% [?]

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: 40% [?]

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: 27% [?]

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: 54% [?]

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: 65% [?]

Since its establishment as a prison for “enemy combatants,” Guantanamo Bay, the American military base in Cuba, has been protested and decried as one of the most alarming human rights breaches in recent times.  Many of the prisoners, often kidnapped through the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition,” report gross violations in the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention.  Despite being both a signatory of the Geneva Convention and an open enemy to torture, the United States refused to detail its activities at Guantanamo.

Human rights groups like Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch have attempted to stop the violations, but the US paid no heed to their concerns.  While some may argue that Guantanamo is a necessary institution in this day and age, with the US being attacked by nameless and faceless enemies, none can argue that they’d like to see US troops treated the same way.  It’s essential that we treat our enemies the way we’d like to be treated.  Repetetively, terrorist groups have paraded dead American bodies through Middle Eastern countries, displaying the horrific things they have done to Americans.  If we’re not setting an example for our enemies, we should set one for our friends . If the US is the model of decency for the world, we should treat our prisoners with the level of respect the world has come to expect from the most modern nation on the planet.

Today isn’t about the breaches of human rights, however.  Instead, it’s about another degree of freedoms they’ve been granted.  Bush, after being besieged by activists for years, has finally barred torture for CIA detainees.  The agreement leaves some room for various other forms of interrogation, but it’s a first step.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has demanded that the executive branch turn over information regarding how they handle Guantanamo.  This is all in an effort for better transparency between the branches of the federal government, and hopefully, it’ll make the government more accountable for the various abuses occurring at Guantanamo.

As the most advanced country in the world, it shouldn’t just be a minor objective of the US to be respectful of human rights.  In a war that’s increasingly hard to follow, it’d be nice to able to have some consistency.  And, in rocky times such as these, it’s important that the US to set an example for the rest of the world. 

Popularity: 38% [?]

China, by focusing its economy on manufacturing, has been able to make itself an industrial powerhouse across the world. With its rapid industrial progression, there has been at times, a de-emphasis on the quality of its goods being produced. Pet food was found to be containing toxic material causing kidney failure, and just today the FDA curbed the sale of five seafoods farmed in China, also found to contain poison and cancer causing materials. This can have ill-effects on the United States, for the obvious reason that these foods are killing us, and the not so obvious reason that these imported foods make up a large part of our food market in the United States. These seafoods, for instance, account for 22 percent of our total imports of seafood from abroad, according to the New York Times. Food is not the only sector of concern: a Chinese made automobile recently receive a 1-star rating in European crash tests. The car basically collapsed in on itself, causing anyone inside to die. In June 2007, 450,000 steel-belted radial tires were realized to be defective because they lacked a key safety feature, likely causing many fatal accidents. Toy trains and toothpaste have also been realized to be poisonous.

But there are also consequences for China in all of this. With China rapidly progressing its reputation from a cheap supplier of goods to a deadly supplier of goods, less countries will accept China’s reasonably priced goods. China’s economy depends on its exporters more than its importers depend on China. If scandals such as this continue to develop, the Chinese government will ultimately be forced to intervene, establishing new quality controls. The United States depends on Chinese goods as a matter of economic convenience, however China depends on the United States and the rest of the industrialized world as a matter of economic survival. However, the United States and others should not patiently wait for this change to come about, but should instead put economic pressure on Chinese manufacturers and the Chinese government to quickly initiate reforms and minimum standards. This economic pressure can be accomplished by importing more goods from other countries, thereby forcing China to clean up its act before Chinese imports are allowed to go back to pre-scandal levels. In the meantime, who can tell me where I can find some rock-bottom prices?

Popularity: 37% [?]

In the Wednesday Journal, Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, pointed out an illuminating fact in his op-ed, “Fatah Isn’t the Answer”:

Since its creation…the Palestinian Athority has gotten more aid per capita than any entity in modern history–more than Europe under the Marshal Plan.

He continues:

The lion’s share of this fortune has been siphoned into the prevate accounts of Fatah leaders or used to pay off the commanders of some 16 semi-autonomous militias. The PA also maintains an estimated 60,000 uniformed gunmen on its payroll giving the West Bank the world’s highest percentage of policemen-to-population.

The Palestinian people, meanwhile, languish in ever-deepening poverty and unemployment, while lawlessness plagues the Palestinian streets.

If this is how they run an administration with a small range of responsibilities, not to mention that they get more financial help than any athority in modern world history, why should they be given their own country?! And, why should we expect anything different than the status quo from Palestine if they are given their own country?

Popularity: 56% [?]