It took me longer to get back to this than I thought. When I last left off, I had explained my theory on presidential elections. Basically, I had gone through presidents from JFK to JEC showing that the results of each election was predictable. It's almost as if some "invisible hand" was guiding not just economics, but elections too.
The last president I covered was President Carter. He took over after Ford, the only un-elected president we've ever had. America wasn't too happy with America. We'd been through the Vietnam war, then a crooked president. Then a president who tried to patch things up (Ford), but never seemed to do anything of note (except the Mayaquez incident). Inflation was high, unemployment was high. And things didn't get much better after Carter stepped in.
The hostage crisis in Iran sealed President Carter's image. Fairly or not, Americans felt defeated. A rescue attempt failed, costing the lives of 8 servicemen. The hostages were taken deeper under cover and were not released until after Carter left office.
America need to regain confidence in American. Ronald Reagan was the man for the job. Reagan was every man's grandfather. It didn't matter what he said, you just liked him. He believed in himself and he believed in America. He wanted to take the country back. I heard back then, that there was a huge boost in the sales of American flags. With him in office, America recovered. The economy got better, we ended the Cold War with the Russians and we actually made progress. We bombed Libya (on my birthday) and showed we would not put up with terrorism. Reagan surrounded himself with some very smart people, he may have been the last president to do so.
After 8 years of Reagan, control of the presidency went to his VP, George H.W. Bush. His time was lackluster. And his timing was worse. Americans had 8 years of Reagan and saw Bush as a continuation. They made fun of his "points of light" and everything else he did. When it was time for re-election, the economy was down and he seemed to not care.
In walked Bill Clinton. Like JFK, he held a Prince Charming appeal. America wanted a younger person in office, someone with charisma (a value Bush never was accused of). Sure, he was a womanizer, but he was a good looking womanizer. Men would laugh, women didn't care. And he said he would fix the economy.
At the end of his first stint, the economy looked good, so he was reelected. But after eight years, America decided it wasn't just the economy that was important, it was credibility also. They were tired of the snickers and back room jokes. Tired of the womanizer or maybe he had just grown too old? American wanted credibility again an reminisced about the days of a man named Reagan. He wasn't available and his VP Bush hadn't been all that good, but another Bush stepped in.
On George W. Bush's first presidency, 9/11 happened. Americans everywhere were convinced he was the right man for the job. There was even a political cartoon that showed Tipper Gore saying she thought he was a better choice. He was locked in for 8 years, primarily on the vote of Obam Bin Laden.
Americans can't be patient with anything and at the end of 8 years, the economy was again in a bad situation.Terrorism was no longer considered as big a threat as in 2004 and the reminiscing of Reagan fell flat. America wanted a change again, someone younger. A fresh view of the world. Someone who wasn't a cowboy. Someone who could negotiate.
In a perfect storm, a young candidate named Obama showed up. Not just a change, THE change. He wasn't Bush and he wasn't Clinton. He cared about people. He was a minority, but not too much of one. Americans could identify with him.
So what does this mean for 2012? Well predictions are easy in hindsight. It's the forward looking predictions that are hard. But I believe most presidential elections revolve around the economy. If the economy rebounds, President Obama will have no trouble getting reelected. If there is another 9/11 attack and if President Obama responds, he will have no trouble getting reelected. (I don't think there will be another 9/11, Bin Laden has no incentive) If on the other hand, the economic recovery still lags (and I think it will), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still linger and we have new issues crank up (Korea, Tibet, etc), I think he will face strong opposition.
It will be up to his opponents (both Democrats and Republicans) to surface a new face, one that shows confidence. One that shows patriotism (I think we're headed back to that).
What do you think?
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Friday, February 04, 2011
Thursday, April 10, 2008
John McCain's foreign policy speech - Commentary
Ok, I'm finally to a point where I'm ready to comment on John McCain's foreign policy speech. If you haven't read it, please go here to see the whole speech or here to read my summary. I probably didn't do it justice, but I tried.
First let me say that I am flattered with the way Sen. McCain read by blog a few months ago about foreign policy. Back on January 18, I outlined what I felt about foreign policy and McCain's speech lined up pretty closely with mine (see my post here). McCain indentifed "dangers posed by a revnachist Russia" as one of the challenges that NATO faces. He must have also read my post titled "Russia is still our long term greatest enemy" (see here).
While I don't actually think he reads my blog, I am impressed with his approach. He voices a quote by Harry Truman that basically says that God has put us here "for such a time as this" (to borrow from a sing. It's clear that he's a man of history and a man of faith. He's also a man that reckognizes that we face "new opportunities, and also new dangers."
McCain realizes the requirement that we must lead, but that we must also work with "the collective voice of the Eurpopean Union" and others. Some of my conservative counterparts see this as a problem, but I do not. Gone is the day when we can afford to act unilaterally and while I believe we did NOT do that in the recent engagement in Iraq, that is best left for another topic. For now, I think it's critical that we work with the EU and other nations.
As a part of being a model citizen, McCain believes we should close Guantanamo and work with other nations to decide how to handle "dangerous detainees under our control". He also says we need a "successor to the Kyoto treaty." I put these two together because I believe they both are examples of McCain bowing to pressure. While these are good ideas, they don't rise to the same level as the rest of his speech.
McCain stresses the need for working with our Latin American neighbors and quotes JFK. He talks about the Asia-Pacific area and mentions that more people live under democratic rule in Asia than anywhere else in the world. That's amazing. I have to assume it's true, the news media hasn't pounced on him. But he doesn't stop there, he address the need to deal with a rising China. "but until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be bassed on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values." Simply put, a real relationship can only be realized by changes in China.
McCain also addressed Africa and the problems unproportionally attacking that continent: HIV/AIDS, poverty and malaria. He addressed North Korea and Iran and the fact that the "international community must work together (to)... contain and reverse" their nuclear capabilities.
Most importantly, McCain realizes that "passive defense alone cannot protect us... we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate." Not only does he favor a strong military, he also says that we must "win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims". What a change. Yes, we need to work on hearts and minds, and yes we need a strong military. Seems like for as long as I can remember (through both parties in the White House) we've had one or the other, but not both.
But McCain didn't shy away from Iraq and Afghanistan. First McCain acknowledges that post policies that relied on folks like the Shah of Iran and even Saddam Hussein have caused the problems we face today. He identifies that "we can no longer delude ourselves" that this is the easy way out. Instead, we have to "expand the power and reach of freedom" to these areas. Democracy is the key.
And McCain shows some impressive statistics on Iraq. Statistics that show that things are improving, even if the political progress isn't as good as we had hoped. He then says that we have a "moral responsibility" in Iraq. "If we were to walk away (we would) consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow."
Regardless why you think we went to war, or if you think it was right or wrong, this fact should remain clear. If we leave now, we condemn many of those people to death. We must not do that. If you think we should leave, have to wonder if you WANT this war to be a failure.
While I may disagree with parts of his speech (he leaned to heavily on international cooperation, included words on Global warming and Kyoto that shouldn't be a part of it), I have to say I agreed with a large part of the speech. Most importantly, McCain and I agree on the issues that matter most, defense, Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror.
Unlike many others who want to abandon these countries,
First let me say that I am flattered with the way Sen. McCain read by blog a few months ago about foreign policy. Back on January 18, I outlined what I felt about foreign policy and McCain's speech lined up pretty closely with mine (see my post here). McCain indentifed "dangers posed by a revnachist Russia" as one of the challenges that NATO faces. He must have also read my post titled "Russia is still our long term greatest enemy" (see here).
While I don't actually think he reads my blog, I am impressed with his approach. He voices a quote by Harry Truman that basically says that God has put us here "for such a time as this" (to borrow from a sing. It's clear that he's a man of history and a man of faith. He's also a man that reckognizes that we face "new opportunities, and also new dangers."
McCain realizes the requirement that we must lead, but that we must also work with "the collective voice of the Eurpopean Union" and others. Some of my conservative counterparts see this as a problem, but I do not. Gone is the day when we can afford to act unilaterally and while I believe we did NOT do that in the recent engagement in Iraq, that is best left for another topic. For now, I think it's critical that we work with the EU and other nations.
As a part of being a model citizen, McCain believes we should close Guantanamo and work with other nations to decide how to handle "dangerous detainees under our control". He also says we need a "successor to the Kyoto treaty." I put these two together because I believe they both are examples of McCain bowing to pressure. While these are good ideas, they don't rise to the same level as the rest of his speech.
McCain stresses the need for working with our Latin American neighbors and quotes JFK. He talks about the Asia-Pacific area and mentions that more people live under democratic rule in Asia than anywhere else in the world. That's amazing. I have to assume it's true, the news media hasn't pounced on him. But he doesn't stop there, he address the need to deal with a rising China. "but until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be bassed on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values." Simply put, a real relationship can only be realized by changes in China.
McCain also addressed Africa and the problems unproportionally attacking that continent: HIV/AIDS, poverty and malaria. He addressed North Korea and Iran and the fact that the "international community must work together (to)... contain and reverse" their nuclear capabilities.
Most importantly, McCain realizes that "passive defense alone cannot protect us... we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate." Not only does he favor a strong military, he also says that we must "win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims". What a change. Yes, we need to work on hearts and minds, and yes we need a strong military. Seems like for as long as I can remember (through both parties in the White House) we've had one or the other, but not both.
But McCain didn't shy away from Iraq and Afghanistan. First McCain acknowledges that post policies that relied on folks like the Shah of Iran and even Saddam Hussein have caused the problems we face today. He identifies that "we can no longer delude ourselves" that this is the easy way out. Instead, we have to "expand the power and reach of freedom" to these areas. Democracy is the key.
And McCain shows some impressive statistics on Iraq. Statistics that show that things are improving, even if the political progress isn't as good as we had hoped. He then says that we have a "moral responsibility" in Iraq. "If we were to walk away (we would) consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow."
Regardless why you think we went to war, or if you think it was right or wrong, this fact should remain clear. If we leave now, we condemn many of those people to death. We must not do that. If you think we should leave, have to wonder if you WANT this war to be a failure.
While I may disagree with parts of his speech (he leaned to heavily on international cooperation, included words on Global warming and Kyoto that shouldn't be a part of it), I have to say I agreed with a large part of the speech. Most importantly, McCain and I agree on the issues that matter most, defense, Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror.
Unlike many others who want to abandon these countries,
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
I approved this message - National Defense
As I've been promising, I am laying out what I think are critical issues for the presidency of the US. As this thread gets closer to the actual facts, it gets more serious. None of the issues are as serious as national defense.
On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.
911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.
My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.
Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.
In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.
Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.
The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.
Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.
Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.
Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.
This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?
On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.
911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.
My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.
Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.
In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.
Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.
The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.
Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.
Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.
Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.
This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)