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!

George Soros is convinced that the world is about to enter a serious recession.  Unfortunately, it seems as if most of the financial world is similarly convinced. The latest trend in stock markets seems to be, “Sell!  Sell!” as traders don’t know what’s going to happen in trading today in the United States, which just opened at 10AM.  The Federal Reserve, in an attempt to head off the recession, cut interest rates last night in a rare between-meetings announcement.   News from the Asian markets isn’t good, with Forbes saying that the environment is rather negative.  One Japanese trader seems to have summed up the mood.

“It’s like a funeral in here,” said Ken Masuda, senior equities dealer at Shinko Securities in Tokyo.  ”No one knows what’s going to happen tonight in New York.  It’s like we’ve gone blind, you don’t know what’s coming.

“Until we see New York, all we can do is sell.” 

We can hope that the United States can stave off recession with an economic stimulus package and without pushing the stock market lower.  Unfortunately, the stimulus package seems far off, as Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on how to reinvigorate the economy.  Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY] predicts that the stimulus package will be passed some time in March.  If the market drops today as it has been predicted, this may be too late.  Europe, meanwhile, is convinced they won’t be affected by the US’ possible recession.  We’ll be covering the financial situation all day, and we hope that our next post comes with good news instead of bad.  In the meantime, as Eftychis suggested, stick to Forbes, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, and financial aggregators like Google Finance & Yahoo Financefor up to the minute reports on the stock market’s position.  As of this writing, the NASDAQ was down approximately 117.68 points, or 5.03%, while the DJIA has seen a drop of 59.91 points [or .49%].

Popularity: 99% [?]

The end of the week is a happy time for most, and I felt like we at NSP could share some of the things we’ve enjoyed this week with our readers. Those of you who read Ryan’s objectivist content tag will notice that he’s a big fan of Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul. While Paul may make sense to the more economically inclined and intelligent parts of the electorate, he largely what amounts to gibberish to the average voter. His economic policies and opposition to governmental growth are often ridiculed by fellow presidential candidates, both in the debates and out on the campaign trail. College Humor has captured the essence of America’s understanding of Ron Paul by utilizing the music of Sean Paul. It’s a video well worth watching after the jump, along with more humor from the Onion. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 35% [?]

President Bush’s mideast tour was kicked off amidst unsetting news the other day, as Iranian Navy vessels seemed to come a bit too close to a US Navy battle group in the region. Al Jazeera has footage of the incident, released earlier in the day by the Department of Defense.

The United States responded harhsly to the incident, as they should have, and President Bush condemned the actions of the rogue Iranian speedboats as “threatening world peace.” The situation in Iran has intensified in recent weeks, after a recently announced NIE announced Iran had not seriously pursued nuclear weapons in several years [PDF]. US war games in the region have served as suitable provocation for Iran, and the Islamic Republic offers rebukes every time the United States participates in an exercise that seems to threaten their security.

Photographs of the Speedboats that Swarmed US Navy Vessels [Courtesy CNN/US Dept. of Defense]

The United States has treaded carefully, however, ensuring that they never get close enough to Iranian forces to provoke an attack. It doesn’t seem like the Iranians are being as careful. The recent “scare tactic” (if that’s what it can be termed) took us dangerously close to war with Iran. While the Iranian nation does not serve the interest of the United States in the region, toppling it would result in the implosion of American foreign policy. Nations that maintain friendly but cold relationships with the United States, like Russia, could quickly become our enemies, prompting a new Cold War or, worse yet, World War III. I’m the first to admit that Bush’s policy certainly doesn’t leave much room for action on the part of the Iranian government. Previous attempts at goodwill were rejected by the Bush Administration, which seems as eager to invade Iran as they were with Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s demagogue Prime Minister, always insists that it is the Bush Administration his country disapproves of, not the American people themselves. Rogue actions from his military, however, could further turn US public opinion against the Islamic Republic and result in an attack.

The US is all too wary of naval attacks since the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. In conventional warfare, a bigger ship bristles with more weapons and more firepower. In this era of terrorism and suicide attacks, a small vessel filled to the brim with explosives can sink a considerably larger ship like the USS Port Royal. The appearance of the flotilla of smaller boats was accompanied by threatening radio messages in English, “I am coming at you. You will blow up in a couple of minutes.” The threat of attack was all too present in this situation, and the commander of one of the US Navy vessels was seconds away from ordering an attack when the Iranian boats turned around. That order could have started a propaganda machine, fueled by the neoconservative hawks, similar to the one that erupted after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 that began the Vietnam War.

The USS Hopper at Sea, One of the Ships Surrounded by Iranian Navy Speedboats [Courtesy CNN/US Navy]

Neither party can afford war. The United States, bogged down in Iraq, has too many international obligations to sustain a winning war in Iran. The failure of US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan should act as an indicator that an invasion would not be the wisest idea. While things are looking up for the United States in Iraq, the war against the insurgency has not ended there. Inciting war in Iran could push Iraq to further turmoil and leave the United States with a Middle East that is heavily aligned against it. Iran seems not to want war either, and has pushed for peaceful reforms in the development of nuclear energy with Russia. The “Iran-Russia” axis has aligned against the United States, a power they see as capitalist and militarily invasive. While the new alliance could cause problems for the West, it’s in the best interest of both parties to pursue peaceful relations and continue economic development. Time Magazine went so far as to suggest that the action of Ahmadinejad’s forces was an attempt to force the United States Navy out of the region. I’m not in agreement with that statement, but it is in Ahmadinejad’s interests to have foreign powers out of his way while he builds relationships with other countries based on Iran’s oil industry.

The American people are being tested. In 1964, they gave into the demands of a warmongering president and ended up tangled in a twelve year conflict in Vietnam. In 2004, they were led into a baseless war by a president who manipulated their fears. There too, they ended up in a conflict that’s sure to last more than the twelve years the United States spent in Vietnam. In 2008, they should stand up for the democratic and diplomatic values of the United States and ensure a conflict with Iran is averted.

Update: Iran’s own “update” on the situation aired on state-owned television today and shows a far more peaceful and routine encounter. The US Navy admitted that the audio they merged with video seen on the above DoD video may not be from the same source. More to come as the conflict continues or becomes resolved…

Popularity: 29% [?]

You’ve seen us post the early results of the Iowa caucuses, and now the winners have been officially crowned.  I didn’t post predictions, but [yes, this is much easier in hindsight] I had Huckabee winning Iowa without an official call on the Democratic caucuses.  While many news organizations have hailed tonight as the “first major surprise of the 2008 presidential campaign,” it really bears little significance on the race for the mainstream candidates.  Few future presidents have emerged with victories in the Iowa caucus, and there’s no reason to accept things will be any different this time.  I have lots more to say about the majority of the candidates in the coming days, but here’s what I’ve deduced thus far.

Results / PredictionsRepublicans
Mike Huckabee:  Not quite as big of a surprise as most news organizations are making of it.  Huckabee appeals mainly to the majority of Iowa’s religious voters, and if they’re basing their convictions on “morals,” he’s the safe bet between what many perceive as a field littered with those with disrespect for religious traditions [Mormons have been criticized by the Evangelical establishment, along with Huckabee himself; Giuliani is a divorcée and doesn't have the cleanest ethical record].  Regardless, Huckabee will lose steam when faced with a more educated and less religious electorate like the one he’s likely to see in New Hampshire.  The past several weeks have seem him demonstrate remarkable stupidity in the realm of international politics, and Americans are in desperate need of a president with international expertise at this stage in global politics.  Huckabee’s article in Foreign Affairs didn’t quite seem like his voice, as this is the candidate who claims he can’t keep up with news like the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate.  A Huckabee nomination could seal the rift between the Democrats and Republicans, leaving it open for a more moderate Democratic candidate.

Mitt Romney: Romney’s the party’s favored candidate, and there’s a reason.  Currently, he’s the only normal Republican in the field [besides John McCain] with valuable executive experience.  His business experience can’t hurt as well, and Mr. Romney has proven time and time again that he is capable of leadership.  His lack of success in Iowa may be attributed to his status as a Mormon, and I think he’ll pick up steam in other states as the election tournaments move out of the Bible Belt.

Rudy Giuliani:  The one candidate whose disappointing showing in Iowa has nearly no bearing on his political career.  Giuliani has focused more on New Hampshire, and skipped out on appearing in Iowa to continue campaigning in the Northeastern state.  As previously mentioned, Giuliani’s ethical issues [affairs, Bernard Kerik, etc.] could overshadow his strength as an executive.  Biden, however, seems to have nailed Giuliani’s strategy when he pointed out that his rhetoric usually contains “a noun, a verb, and 9/11“  Fearmongering works to a point, but it’s time to move on to something else.  Without a good showing in New Hampshire, the Giuliani campaign may be on its last legs.

Others: McCain really seems to be coming back.  I think the steam he gained in recent weeks will show through with a victory in New Hampshire, a state known to like moderate candidates as opposed to established partisans.  Thompson, meanwhile, staved off news of quitting by tying McCain.  Ron Paul’s showing was impressive considering his standing with the partisan establishment, but he unfortunately will have a hard time making any real progress [even with a win in NH].

Democrats
Barack Obama:  Obama’s all about energy.   His campaign has, from the beginning, tried to separate him from his opponents by highlighting his youthful vigilance and the new perspective he brings to Washington.  I think his approach is working, even with less progressive voters in states like Iowa.  Hillary, constantly perceived as too regimented, represents what once was in Washington, and after eight years of poor governance from the Bush Administration, it’s time for a change.  If Obama can keep this energy going throughout the next couple of days, he could walk away with a victory in New Hampshire as well.

John Edwards:  The populist’s second-place showing means he doesn’t have to drop out of the race quite yet.  Newsweek’s cover article on “The Sleeper,” seems to have come true a bit, but I don’t think Edwards has the appeal to draw some Republicans .  His antics may meld well with the current Democratic base, but an Edwards nomination may not bode so well for the Democratic party.  I see Edwards being the last candidate to drop out, but he’s not really viable enough to support on a national level.  His new “plan” on the removal of Iraq’s troops certainly doesn’t garner any praise from me, as not training the military and police forces adequately could lead to the collapse of the Iraqi government. 

Hillary Clinton:  She’s not fizzling, and she’ll have Bill no matter what happens.  Still, without some sort of second wind, the Clinton campaign may see some struggle in the future. 

Others:  It’s sad to see Chris Dodd, our Senator, drop out of the race.  He championed the fight against telecom immunity recently, and that provided him with a slight boost in support.  His drop was accompanied by a similar announcement from Senator Joseph Biden, another Democratic mainstay.

The Unknown
Michael Bloomberg:  Bloomberg’s been in the news recently, with a discussion of his meeting with notoriously bipartisan Sam Nunn coming up.  Unity08, a new group meant to support a nonpartisan candidate, seems to really champion the idea of a Bloomberg candidacy.  He keeps refusing to announce, but I think Bloomberg will not hesitate to announce if Huckabee becomes the Republican nominee [not likely, unless the Republicans are eager to cannibalize themselves].  It could be interesting with a third-party candidate who can support himself, and an announcement form Bloomberg could radically change the future of American politics.

Conclusion
Nothing conclusive is coming out of the Iowa caucuses, but results from New Hampshire’s primary next Tuesday will help to change the face of the race.  It’s been interesting so far, and I look forward to observing the next stages of one of America’s most important electoral contests.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: iowacaucuses, liberal content

Popularity: 13% [?]

Despite wide disagreement throughout the world, and particularly in the United States, the UN has finally decided to help stop the bloodshed in Darfur. 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. Years of lobbying from organizations like Save Darfur have drawn attention to the genocide. Progress on Capitol Hill has been slow, however, as many politicians believe Americans don’t have the military motives or capabilities to intervene in the African area.

Furthermore, some individuals see it as a violation of Sudan’s sovereignty. The recent UN action, with supplementary troops provided by the African Union, helps the country tame the rising problem. While the force may keep the peace, it’s still important to analyze why Darfur was possible and what can be done in the future to help prevent catastrophes of the similar degree.

Even though the UN’s activity is an encouraging step in the right direction for the conflict, experts say it could be months before the force is capable of completely stopping the violence in the country. The size of the force is another good sign, however, as UN troops stationed in Rwanda during that country’s genocide did little to stop the ensuing massacres.

Cooperation from the central government in Khartoum is critical as the date for deployment approaches. Frequently cited as the source of weapons and air support, Sudan’s government may not be capable of quelling unrest post-peace. When the UN pulls out, it’s important to stabilize the government as well. While “nation building” hasn’t turned out so well in the past and the UN force is by no means an invading force, this should give the world an opportunity to finally make a historically unstable country a model of peace for the rest of Africa. Civil wars in Congo and infighting elsewhere within the continent mean Africa still leaves much to desire before it’s an attractive option for ecnomic enrichment.

Following the peace, the UN should work hand-in-hand with the Sudanese government to ensure that such a blatant violation of human rights does not occur again.  Organizations like Save Darfur that once fought for a peacekeeping force to be stationed in Darfur should now shift their attention to overseeing the operation and the continuation of genocide prevention in Darfur and the rest of Africa.  The UN and the world have finally taken a step in the right direction, but there remains a marathon to run before Darfur is at peace.

Popularity: 37% [?]

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: 41% [?]

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: 31% [?]

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% [?]

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: 35% [?]

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% [?]