Not that there isn't a dearth of political pundits discussing these two topics, but I wanted to throw in my two thoughts about the recent political events that have occurred - the election of Scott Brown as the new Massachusetts senator and the Supreme Court's decision to repeal the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation so that corporations may now contribute directly to candidates' election campaigns - mainly because I can't do so without having a contentious discussion with my father :). My blog is thus the perfect venue to vent my thoughts :).
First, I have to admit that I was kind of surprised that Massachusetts of all states elected a Republican to replace the "Lion of the Senate". I don't know if I agree that it was an election referendum on Obama's presidency thus far, or if it was more of the way of the American people to elect parties to balance each other out in the Congress. The political institution was designed by the founding fathers to be thus so - no one party would ever gain a significant advantage over another for any significant amount of time. And the voters throughout the centuries have born this out - with this election as the most recent example. Whether or not this permanently derails the health care legislation currently being pushed through the Congress will remain to be seen.
As to the Supreme Court's repeal of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, I do feel like this is a setback. But according to a Yahoo! News story that I came across shortly after this broke, corporation CEOs want candidates to leave them alone and quit soliciting them for money. I also believe that candidates will find that the constituents that they hope to reach with their inordinate amounts of money already will tire quickly of them and vote against them. The danger lies in the possibility of good political candidates being snuffed out because they don't have money to get their message out. Perhaps the proliferation of new media like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, and other Web 2.0 tools, will allow these candidates to be innovative and use these free tools to spread their message. It will interesting to see how it affects the coming elections...that is if I'm even interested in the coming elections. For I really do detest the inanity and bureaucracy of anything to do with government - a system that is designed to hinder ANYTHING of worth to be done. Which is why I will stick with the private sector - the only place that moves and changes anything, in my opinion!
And on a completely different note, I am very excited for a Saints and Colts Super Bowl. It will hopefully be a great one!
Showing posts with label politcs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politcs. Show all posts
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Realpolitik
Today marks the anniversary in which President Nixon announced that he would visit communist China. It was a landmark event in the history of US foreign policy and it embodied a foreign policy worldview, first coined by Henry Kissinger (Secretary of State at the time), as "realpolitik".
Realpolitik basically says (definition courtesy of The History Channel), that this is a policy of "politics that favored dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics". Take a minute to digest that.
This opened the way for the US to enter into economic relations with China and change the free-market as we know it, flooding it with a myriad of cheaper manufactured goods - despite the human rights' atrocities that occur daily (Tibet, or the most recent Uighur protests and violence). It also currently allows us to turn a blind eye on human rights' atrocities occurring in Russia (check out this article and remember the situation with Georgia last summer). Other examples of realpolitik? How about turning a blind eye on Rwanda (not a powerful enough nation to warrant our attention), or not mentioning anything when former General Musharraf gained power by virtue of a coup (and then becoming our "ally" when we invaded Afghanistan in 2002?). How about continuing to support Israel, even as it demolishes Palestinian neighborhoods and builds a literal wall around the West Bank? How about supporting Saudi Arabia as it promotes radical, fundamental Wahhabi Islam, denigrates its female population, and employs migrant Indian workers (who are no better than indentured servants) while the entire population lives off royalties from oil?
Realpolitik allows the US to turn a blind eye on many things, allowing practicality and logic to dictate foreign policy. But the question has got to be, is this a good thing?
I truly don't know. I don't know when a state on the scale of the United States should step into conflicts and try to help the situation. Do you try to help a failed state like Somalia and risk another Black Hawk Down occurring? Do you go against the political power and money of the Jewish lobby and say that no, we will not support Israel's tactics against Palestine? Do you try to stop genocide occurring in Sudan? Do you confront an economic and military powerhouse like China about it's human rights violations that it flaunts in front of us? Do you rescue North Koreans from an insane dictator that is hellbent on starving his people before he launches a nuclear missile? What dictates a state's foreign policy? Economics? Or ethics? Sell your soul or be guided by principles? Can it be both? Or should it be neither?
What do you think? What should the role of a state like the US be in the realm of world politics? Isolate itself so that we do not "meddle" in the affairs of other states and do nothing; help ethnic minorities throw off the restrictions of a dictatorship so that they might have a chance at the basic human right of freedom; rescue those suffering from gross human rights' injustices; or follow a combination of economic-ethical policies that allow us to turn a blind eye on some things, but not others?
It's not an easy answer.
Realpolitik basically says (definition courtesy of The History Channel), that this is a policy of "politics that favored dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics". Take a minute to digest that.
This opened the way for the US to enter into economic relations with China and change the free-market as we know it, flooding it with a myriad of cheaper manufactured goods - despite the human rights' atrocities that occur daily (Tibet, or the most recent Uighur protests and violence). It also currently allows us to turn a blind eye on human rights' atrocities occurring in Russia (check out this article and remember the situation with Georgia last summer). Other examples of realpolitik? How about turning a blind eye on Rwanda (not a powerful enough nation to warrant our attention), or not mentioning anything when former General Musharraf gained power by virtue of a coup (and then becoming our "ally" when we invaded Afghanistan in 2002?). How about continuing to support Israel, even as it demolishes Palestinian neighborhoods and builds a literal wall around the West Bank? How about supporting Saudi Arabia as it promotes radical, fundamental Wahhabi Islam, denigrates its female population, and employs migrant Indian workers (who are no better than indentured servants) while the entire population lives off royalties from oil?
Realpolitik allows the US to turn a blind eye on many things, allowing practicality and logic to dictate foreign policy. But the question has got to be, is this a good thing?
I truly don't know. I don't know when a state on the scale of the United States should step into conflicts and try to help the situation. Do you try to help a failed state like Somalia and risk another Black Hawk Down occurring? Do you go against the political power and money of the Jewish lobby and say that no, we will not support Israel's tactics against Palestine? Do you try to stop genocide occurring in Sudan? Do you confront an economic and military powerhouse like China about it's human rights violations that it flaunts in front of us? Do you rescue North Koreans from an insane dictator that is hellbent on starving his people before he launches a nuclear missile? What dictates a state's foreign policy? Economics? Or ethics? Sell your soul or be guided by principles? Can it be both? Or should it be neither?
What do you think? What should the role of a state like the US be in the realm of world politics? Isolate itself so that we do not "meddle" in the affairs of other states and do nothing; help ethnic minorities throw off the restrictions of a dictatorship so that they might have a chance at the basic human right of freedom; rescue those suffering from gross human rights' injustices; or follow a combination of economic-ethical policies that allow us to turn a blind eye on some things, but not others?
It's not an easy answer.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Finally - An Interesting Turn of Events in Politics
This past Friday John McCain picked the Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin to be his Vice President, and I think, turned the tide of the race and made it a whole heck of a lot more interesting.
First to add a caveat and be honest, I hate politics and am very disillusioned by it (thanks to my stellar UVA education). Whether it is broken, needs fixed, etc, etc, doesn't really matter, because in the end the people in power are going to do what they want to do and the little person doesn't really have much say, and that won't change ("Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely").
That being said, I also dislike both candidates for this election. I don't care for either of them and wasn't excited by either candidate. Obama is interesting in the fact that it is historic to have an African-American man run for president (thank you David Palmer). But his message of "change" is just empty to me because I don't really like the kind of change he is proposing AND it's not like he will get half of the things "changed" that he wants to. Universal health care does sound great (with many pitfalls here and there), but I will be shocked if this country ever gets to that point, because of the kind of economic system that we run and exist in (plus, do we really want our government running the health care system?). A complete reduction of American forces in Iraq would be a huge mistake, in my opinion, and further destabilize a region known for its instability. And I don't really think he would help the economy.
I don't know what McCain plans to do either - I didn't want him to be the Republican nominee (I am a Mike Huckabee fan). Plus I didn't think he stood a chance to win when he won the nomination in April, unless he picked the Alaska governor for his VP, this lady who was making waves out there - only then did I think that maybe he would have a chance.
And he flippin' did. Seriously??
That is guts. To pick a pretty unknown candidate who has one of the most dramatic politcal stories in recent history takes guts. She is totally unknown to Washington and the national scene. The media is of course scrambling and looking for every little thing they can find about Palin and her family and stories are popping up every hour, but I don't care. McCain picking Palin as his VP made me interested again in this election and I might actually watch her speech tonight on network TV, something I have not done this entire election. And the fact that people are saying she doesn't have enough experience to be a VP, I find hilarious, since Obama has, until this pick, been touting the fact that he hasn't been taken by Washington because of his "newcomer" status. (And don't people find it funny that now both camps have basically switched attacks, with the Democrats now crying that Palin doesn't have enough experience, while the Republicans say that she does, when just a week before it was the opposite with Republicans saying that Obama doesn't have enough experience and the Democrats saying that he does?)
Anyway, I give McCain credit for a brilliant pick and for making me excited about this election. I am mightily impressed, which is very hard for politicians to do for me these days.
First to add a caveat and be honest, I hate politics and am very disillusioned by it (thanks to my stellar UVA education). Whether it is broken, needs fixed, etc, etc, doesn't really matter, because in the end the people in power are going to do what they want to do and the little person doesn't really have much say, and that won't change ("Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely").
That being said, I also dislike both candidates for this election. I don't care for either of them and wasn't excited by either candidate. Obama is interesting in the fact that it is historic to have an African-American man run for president (thank you David Palmer). But his message of "change" is just empty to me because I don't really like the kind of change he is proposing AND it's not like he will get half of the things "changed" that he wants to. Universal health care does sound great (with many pitfalls here and there), but I will be shocked if this country ever gets to that point, because of the kind of economic system that we run and exist in (plus, do we really want our government running the health care system?). A complete reduction of American forces in Iraq would be a huge mistake, in my opinion, and further destabilize a region known for its instability. And I don't really think he would help the economy.
I don't know what McCain plans to do either - I didn't want him to be the Republican nominee (I am a Mike Huckabee fan). Plus I didn't think he stood a chance to win when he won the nomination in April, unless he picked the Alaska governor for his VP, this lady who was making waves out there - only then did I think that maybe he would have a chance.
And he flippin' did. Seriously??
That is guts. To pick a pretty unknown candidate who has one of the most dramatic politcal stories in recent history takes guts. She is totally unknown to Washington and the national scene. The media is of course scrambling and looking for every little thing they can find about Palin and her family and stories are popping up every hour, but I don't care. McCain picking Palin as his VP made me interested again in this election and I might actually watch her speech tonight on network TV, something I have not done this entire election. And the fact that people are saying she doesn't have enough experience to be a VP, I find hilarious, since Obama has, until this pick, been touting the fact that he hasn't been taken by Washington because of his "newcomer" status. (And don't people find it funny that now both camps have basically switched attacks, with the Democrats now crying that Palin doesn't have enough experience, while the Republicans say that she does, when just a week before it was the opposite with Republicans saying that Obama doesn't have enough experience and the Democrats saying that he does?)
Anyway, I give McCain credit for a brilliant pick and for making me excited about this election. I am mightily impressed, which is very hard for politicians to do for me these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)