Friday, December 17, 2010

[USA] Obama or the Two-Headed-Monster


Whilst doing some research for this post, i spent some time with Dr. Google [no its ok everyone, im not sick, i mean like Ph.D google] and just happened to type into search bar: Obamaism, and low and behond but not really to my surprize popped up that picture [from obamaism.blogspot.com]. Now if one looks up Bill Clinton and 'socialism' quiet alot of stuff does pop up, but with the tea party movement in full swing there are clearly some crazy people out there. However, If you type in Clintonism you don't get a picture of Clinton with a moushache, nor do you get a picture of Clinton with a red flag in the background [which isn't also white and blue and has traded the stars for that communist hammer thing] you get this weird notion of something that sounds alot like what a Republican would be concerned about: being fiscally responsible [not spending too much government money and saving some of what you have to reduce government debt], work instead of just welfare, and smaller government and more people empowerment. Clinton, was one of the most popular presidents, which some might suggest is due to the surge of economic growth that occured under his presidency [internet boom and all] but i think there is more to a popular president in the United States than that [tho, it does help].

Recently, i spent some time reading a Column of The Washington Post called: Post Leadership, where Jena McGregor talks about Obama re-alignment towards more politically centre lines. Whilst she, like alot of bloggers and columists out there is talking about 'does this new tax deal represent a reinvestion of obamaism to clintonism' [i know, i guess there are going to be a whole lot of tea party people really sad, cause they won't know what to do with their Obama as Starlin posters anymore] but instead she points out a key destinction, saying that Clinton had an inclination to play 'centerist' on side issues, like education, quoting  "symbolic, superficial or trivial" areas, as according to her the The National Review's Jonah Goldberg points out as the one's Clinton would go Bi-partican over. What does this mean? Well, it means that really, when you break it down, this new tax deal, is a huge concession for the white house, and is not a move to the centre like Clinton, but is a move to redefine what it means to be a centerist president. Whilst alot of liberals might be quick to however point out, this represents a stab in the back for them [since isn't this there president!?], not the reinvention of something as great as a Clinton presidency, I think this represents a real mistake on their behalf. What we need in Washington, is progress, which will happen, as long as the Two-Headed-Monster doesn't rare his head.

Too often, we want to talk about politics [specially in Washington] as though it were a game. This big argument, which I have been reading about recently in Hedrich Smith's really good book The Power Game: How Washington Works where he discusses as a side topic whether the best metaphor for how washington works is football or baseball [please, don't judge his book on my one segiment of baseball over football, it really is a awesome account, on how Washington works, all 1000 pages of it]. I however, read this discussion and thought that neither really surfices as an explanation of how politics should work, or does work, WHY? Cause politics, is not a sport, nor is it a game, cause whilst people run for election and either come back for another round [or don't], politics when it comes to the legislation, and the issues at hand, is not easily won by one side. In baseball, or football or any kind of sport, a winner always takes all. And that winner, shouldn't make concessions to the other side, shouldn't compromise, he should be focused on the ball and win. No one however wins this way in politics, you become a 'one man' game if you play politics like this. Just because there is more then one 'I' in politics doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a team effort. Having this notion that politics is a sport where one wins or loses is crazy, and this is where the Two-Headed-Monster comes in. The Two-Headed-Moster, wants us to forget all that. It becomes all about 'one side' over 'the other side' and who gets the most legislation though, who gets to dominate an issue [when really, it could be a bi-partician effort, if people sat down together] and who gets to better their country.

It would seem that some of the best presidents are Democrats who are alot like Republicans [Clinton, Truman, for example] or Republicans who are alot like Democrats [Reagan in his secound term for example]. But more then just that, the best politican are pragmatic and human. They arn't fixed in stone with their ideological positions [and don't inspire crazy people like the tea party in the first place by attatching themselves to one side of politics too much, even tho, Obama in reality isn't even close to Hitler, or Starlin, or anything like that], they are open to reason, and care about the voters they serve enough to compromise to make a difference for them. This concession by the White House, isn't a 'new president' but the one we wanted all long, the one who would work with others, and listen to different ideas, and would get things done. There are alot of people on either side who look at centerism as a fudge factor, but those people are just feeding the Two-Headed-Monster and assuming that politics is one side, with them right, and the other wrong. And whilst so many will scream to critize Obama, this represents progress, where a true centerist platform can be found. We won't have any progress to the better of our country without it, [and come on, lets face it, no one likes a Two-Headed-Monster.]


Thursday, December 9, 2010

[NZ] Wiki-Leaks, why I'm glad it wasn't us

When I first found out about the cables that had been exposed to the public, I thought it was another bogus story but when i finally got around to checking some of the papers in the United States [as you do] and see for myself what all this was about, I have to admit I was slightly worried. No, its ok, I haven't been having chats with Hillary Clinton over cable about things I would much rather see kept private [although considering the excitement of some of our local politicans, I have to wonder about others]. I also, just in case your wondering, had nothing to do with Wiki-leaks and this whole mess [I know, big surprize right]. I wasn't concerned either cause I thought something was going to be exposed relevant to New Zealand. I couldn't help but find amusing what Michael Field said in his article, NZ way down the Wikileaks queue, on STUFF.co.nz where he made the point that by the time they produced all the cables that had gone between New Zealand and Washington [and anything interesting] it would have been the year 2033.

In fact in certain respects there remains reasons to rest assured with these leaks are out and the information there. In this weeks [December 13th, 2010] TIME magazine, Fareed Zakaria makes some really good points about how the release of these cables may actually be for the better, in the column: World View. He is not suggesting that whoever released them get off scot free but is suggesting that the cables expose the value of the US State Department, whilst also exposing that Israel isn't the only one concerned with Iran as a potential nuclear power [other middle eastern nations like Saudi Arab came forward with private concern]. I have a feeling even with that as the case, they still were not popping bottles of champagne at the state department, but in any case I think there is some truth to the point Zakaria has made. Iran is now in the cornor concerned, and even accused Washington of releasing the cables [I guess only Iran is the one convinced they were poping champagne at the State Department]. What I guess these cables do, which is really important, is give a clearer picture of the concerns on various people's mind, and show a bit of the reality too often shrouded in secrecy. In any rate, having gotten all that out of the way: Why was I concerned then?

The USA-UK intellgience community, incapsulates a number of different countries around the world which share valuable intelligence that carves foreign policy positions, and security concerns. This network, of collaboration, which includes a whole bunch of similar countries which tend to align, which are: The United States, The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and this very small country in the south pacific called NEW ZEALAND! Thats right, we give, they give, we all share the same pot of intelligence [its ok, this isn't a big secret or anything, I have not been inspired to start my own rounds of leaks]. This is the part though that I'm sure it would be prefered that was thought, but not said. New Zealand, it terms of intelligence, represents the 'back door' in a certain respect where anybody who wants to find out about information shared that might be interesting and valuable to a foreign government. What that means is when the United States has a whole bunch of their cables dumped on the web for the world to see, and at the same time shares all its intelligence [including these cables] with the rest of the world, including little old New Zealand [or so i suspect]. Well?

I think you can see there I am going with this, and here comes the fear that I'm sure would be very real if the United States wasn't sure who had collected and released all these cables [which they are]. Some one frustrated with the secrecy that nations hold their relations could come about anywhere in the world, where these cables were avaliable, and my big fear was that if all this had happened in New Zealand. Wiki-leaks being given global intelligence cables through our back door and in our backyard. Examples of something like this happening in NZ are not as far fatched as you think. One of this dishes that is used to gather intelligence [god knows what those things are doing in New Zealand, but anyway] was tampered with, although some time ago. If you remember a couple of guys climbed over a fence and hey presto, they did what they could to try and damage the dish. The two men were arrested and charged, and whilst I'm sure no one in New Zealand's military with access to these cables would want to share them and catastrophize future kiwi-yanky relations, I couldn't help but wonder if something had gone on, it would only take one crazy member of the New Zealand armed forces [I'm not suggesting a link between that attack, and wikileaks potentially, just an example folks]. I would like to hope that even with the rifts between the US and NZ, we would have nothing like that on our hands. I am glad therefore, that the man who caused this mess was an American [First class private Bradley Manning, who gave the material to wikileaks] and not a kiwi, so that the search for who let the cat out of the bag didn't turn into a witch hunt which might include New Zealand. As for Julian Assange who is the creator of wikileaks and released the material [who many conservative americans want to see hung from the highest tree] he is an Australian, and their problem [for once, we arn't going to fight over a celebratey, you can have him Australia....he has no connections with New Zealand! thank god].

When Hillary Clinton recently came down to New Zealand, I spent those few days drinking tea. I am not so use to having an american politican turn up on our doorstep and have all our local politicans turn giddy. My girlfriend didn't get it though [don't get my wrong, she is a bright one, but she didn't understand what i was going on about, TEA?] Normally I drink coffee, I do so avidly. I explained: "Most of the tea the american's have, is at the bottom of Boston harbour, so i think im safe here drinking tea" [yes, I am talking about the Boston Tea Party, when Britain taxed the shit out of their US colonies with tea, and the now US returned the favour by sticking it in the harbour and telling them to sod off]. However, I don't have anything against the United States, on the contrary, I just get a little nervious when my too favourite countries start mingeling together with no clarity as to 'why?', particularly having someone like Hillary on our doorstep? That being said: I would be concerned if this current climax of 'good relations' was destroyed. With that in mind, I'm glad that even with our own potential backdoor to more US cables then Wiki-leaks would know what to do with, that all we have in our backyard isn't a scandel, but just boring grass, and that it wasn't us!


Tuesday, December 7, 2010

The Given Century


Too often, we are quick to acknowledge what something is, without realizing how it came to be, or in this case how it will come to be. This type of thinking, where one breaks down the processes of change and the mechanisms that guide it, which was the concern of philosophers of centuries long past, philosophers like Aristotle who put object and change as one, and others like Descartes correcting them in making object and mechanisms of change, distinct. So resulted: Cause, and effect [and is the back bone of just about any academic school of thought]. This thinking, need not be ignored in our own century.

Recently, I have spent time reading Thomas Friedman's column in the NewYork Times, and have read column after column about the biggest concern that should be on every american's mind [but isn't] is how this century is being handed to China, India and anyone else interested in it on a silver platter [I imagine him getting bluer and bluer in the face, as I read more of his columns]. One such column, Got to Get this Right, places huge emphasis on the fact that the United States needs nation-building, and is lost with its own leadership at present, concerned with simple holding a popularity margin to get it through the next election, whether that be the president or congress. Part of this comes down to keeping up with the rest of the world, with China and India, who continue to grow in economic power, which will swiftly turn in the view not necessarily of Friedman but of other more neo-realist thinkers, into military power. Friedman talks about the United States needing to get its act together column after column, but I think beyond the remarks of Friedman that its important to remember that who's century this is, isn't normative. What do i mean what i say normative? you say. I mean that this century isn't set in stone already, like so many in China would love you to think, and so many in the United States seem to be making a habbit of worrying. Our actions make a difference and so will they in guiding this century.

It has been discussed for some time, both academically but also publically of the idea that this is to be the Asian century. But as George Friedman points out in his book, The Next 100 Years, that the Asian century has been discussed since the Nixon years, where many in the United States became convinced that their best years were behind them [as T. Friedman recently pointed out many american are also now]. Looking back, it could certainly be said [without getting all emotional and screaming "oh say can you see?"] that the United States has had some really good times since Nixon was president. However, if this really is to be the Asian century, if China, India, really are to be the next superpowers who direct foreign policy, and guide economic boom and bust phases, then this is also to be the 'Given Century'. What do i mean what i say that? I mean this: that anyone who suggests that this century is the asian one, is making it the case. An idea, a prophacy such as this, is too often a self fufilling one, where people see it as the asian century, and so too invest their money in asia, and watch asia, and the cycle of growth and influence spreads like a virius, as much of the mind, as of circumstance.

If this is the Asian century, it will also be the first 'given' because i can imagine this process will fold out, without a war like the decline of the British empire and European power, or without major disease like the Roman empire declined with. What excuse will this century have to be given up to Asia? The answer is: nothing but our own mind set. In so being the case, I want to reflect on my initial remarks, the process of change, and the object. [And you thought i threw in that babble about Aristotle for fun, this is the part where i see if you were listening.] One has to look not just at what others have and how we can get it, but remember how things work: How did the American century come about? Many would say, that it resulted from the decline of Europe after World War 2, where the United States was a safe haven for wealth, and was a superpower laying in wait. But all this, ignores that the United States was an economically free and thus prosperious nation. In this regard, Asian nations are missing something that it needs to become the next superpower: The Statue of Liberty! Don't suggest that China is the next super power when they are communist, and will so quickly limit and censor what is on the internet and isn't on the political agenda! America got where it is because of its freedom, as much economic and political. Freedom is the name of the current game, no nation will rise to the United State's demise without it.

I am not bagging on China, nor India, bother are great countries, with there current economic strides setting great examples for other nations potentially. But what i am saying is this: there still remains open the possibility that this is not the given century, for in the end, whether the United States steps down and someone else steps up depends on how one sees the world, and what one does in the world. This century, isn't destined to be the Asian century, instead, as much for Americans as for China or whoever else, it is for whoever wants it. It is with this is mind, I tell you that the 'given century' is not the newist prediction, but is instead its own un-doing. For changes in centuries are up to those involved: a nation and superpower are only what they make for themselves. To Americans therefore i say this: whos century this is, it remains up to you! Keep you eyes on the ball, and what you need to do. Don't forget, the road to change is pavent with bricks. Get competitive, the battle ground has changed and the rule narrows down to just one: Be the best, or step aside. Change doesn't just come out of nowhere, you should make sure you remind China of that and fight, not with your bombs, but with your heads and your work ethic, before you simply give this century away.