Republican Bipartisanship and President Obama

The following is an essay I wrote for a Political Science class this semester. Domestic and local politics have been the foci of recent entries, but the next entry will pertain to foreign affairs. I plan to examine Middle East politics, with special attention to Turkey. Stay tuned.

For now, here is my case for bipartisanship:

Introduction

Solomon Yue, a member of the Republican National Committee in Oregon, effectively described the fundamental need of his party when he said, “articulating a political philosophy is equally important as applying it consistently.”[1] Because Republicans need to articulate and apply their principles as Mr. Yue suggests, I firmly believe in the necessity of the party’s cooperation with President Barack Obama on a bipartisan basis. To best articulate and apply their principles, Republicans must engage in bipartisanship for the benefit of their political ideology, their party’s long-term health, and the functionality of the United States government as a whole. To make the wrong decision by rejecting any notion of cooperation with the president would mean the continuation of a long and painful spiral of political brinkmanship fueled by a conflict-hungry and polarized media and American public. Bipartisanship, despite being rarely conducted in a spirit of fellowship across gulfs of opinion, should lead to a needed reaffirmation of American values and trendsetting as one of the world’s most dynamic and healthy democracies.

Claims to Compromise

The first key reason I believe Republicans serve to benefit from bipartisan work with President Obama is the president’s willingness to compromise. President Obama’s policy agenda contains three main centrist elements that make bipartisan cooperation from the GOP worthwhile. In foreign policy, the president followed through on policies such as troop increases in Afghanistan, protection of some wiretapping operations, and an increasingly hard line on U.S.-Iran relations that are all supported by the Republican platform. In energy policy, President Obama put forward proposals to allow for nuclear energy loan guarantees, expanded offshore drilling, and clean coal power initiatives, all of which are issues espoused far more by Republicans than Democrats. Finally, in economic policy, the president passed tax breaks for job creation and promised incentives to small businesses and loans to community banks, both issues supported by Republicans. If the Republicans cooperate on these issues, then they can lay claim to victory on certain policies and strengthen their ideological foundation for long-term direction in their platform.

Adding to the benefits of Republican compromise with President Obama is his renewed efficacy as the nation’s policy leader. Emerging from the shadow of a Democratic Congress that assumed the face of domestic policy, the president recently “took charge, and started doing all the things he ought to have been doing a lot earlier.”[2] A bitterly divided Congress with approval ratings dipping as low as 14% in a recent CBS poll is not the place for Republicans to begin efforts at bipartisanship. Instead, looking to a president with renewed control over policy issues who is also willing to compromise is the best option for the party.

Fiscal Conservatism and Moderation

The second key reason the GOP should cooperate with President Obama through bipartisanship is the benefits the party would reap in electoral politics in the long run. While this may seem counterintuitive, given the current political climate of the United States, an examination of trends in the electorate substantiates the claim. When presenting an image of obstructionism, typified by Republican members of Congress waving Crayola marker-made signs from Capitol balconies to protest health legislation, the GOP plays directly into the hands of antiestablishment anger and inflamed anti-Democrat rhetoric. Staunch Republicans argue that capitalizing on such anger with broad and radical promises of dismantling government programs and dramatically reducing taxes means success in the 2010 midterm elections. Indeed, the Republican National Committee and different ad hoc conservative organizations around the country considered implementing, and did implement informally in some cases, a checklist for lawmakers to test their conformity to hard line ideology, with the end goal of purging “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) from the political ranks at all levels of government. While I agree that there would be short-term gain from this approach, the Republican Party could not sustain support from such antagonism, as the movement would lose momentum soon after economic recovery and greater stability set in after 2010.

Instead, the party would be best served by the bipartisan appeal of moving to a pragmatic center-right stance. As young people in the party’s evangelical base become less socially conservative and more pluralistic[3], other issues of importance to conservatives like economics and the role of government will have increasing relevance in the future. By working more flexibly with President Obama, the GOP can tie itself to long-term policy issues like the reform of government entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. As these programs face an impending lack of sustainability and associated government debt rises precipitously, a cooperative and solutions-oriented Republican Party could realistically frame the desire for less government and reduced spending in the context of such political discussions.

The American electorate would respond well to a fiscally conservative platform from the GOP in the future. Since the election of President Obama in November 2008, the percentage of the public “very worried” about their long-term financial future increased from 38% to 50%, according to a Associated Press/Gfk poll. The case of British politics illustrates the ability of a center-right group, like the Tories, to present a viable and pragmatic alternative to economic problems handled badly under the existing Labor government. The Tories project to win in called British elections in upcoming months. Furthermore, the Tories largely divorced themselves from far right radical movements like the British National Party (BNP), just as the GOP could do in 2010 by distancing the party from the radicalized Tea Party movement. While campaign platforms that appeal to the inflamed minority appear beneficial in the short run, bipartisanship and political moderation will assuredly help the long term efficacy of the Republican Party as an organization.

"Scratch My Back..."

The final major reason why the Republican Party should work with the president on a bipartisan basis is the benefits such an approach would bring to the functionality of American government itself. With the benefits of cooperation already proven, and the trends showing a tilt towards future fiscally conservative policies, I strongly believe that the GOP could buy political insurance for the future through bipartisanship. With the threat of filibustering from Republicans, Democrats used parliamentary techniques like budget reconciliation to bypass the need for cloture, and with Republican blocking of presidential nominees, which crippled organizations like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the party is not establishing a productive precedent for the potential of acceding to the majority in 2010 or 2012. In the operation of Congress, quid pro quo and reciprocity are fundamental values. If Republicans continue obstructing legislation, Congressional Democrats will have every incentive to do the same if they fall to minority stature.

Not only will bipartisanship restore the value of legislative reciprocity and pave the way for a brighter future for a Republican political agenda in Congress, it will also unclog other pathways to action in the government. Unwilling to compromise and using harsh political statements to berate Democrats over healthcare legislation, Republicans in many ways shut themselves out of the lawmaking process. Without sufficient GOP input into the reform, a succession of alienated Republican governors and state attorneys general promised to block the implementation of new state-based health policies from Washington. The drawing of lines in the sand in this way will only lead to a conflict over federalism and a protracted and widespread battle over the issue in the court system. Bipartisanship, therefore, operates as a preventive measure for long and expensive conflict in other pathways of political change. I firmly uphold the value of such preventive measures to save time and funds, and therefore see an even greater necessity for Republican bipartisanship.

Consideration and Conclusion

Before concluding, I must respond to an underlying critique that bipartisanship from the GOP is equivalent to “selling out” the party’s core values. Considering my previous points, bipartisanship upholds Republican core values far better than refusal to compromise does. If Republicans wish to turn their values into policy, my contentions show that bipartisanship upholds more conservative policy from a Democratic president, a national trend of fiscal conservatism, and the ability of Republican lawmakers to implement core values in the future.

The great political philosopher John Stuart Mill advocated political cooperation when he said, “it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the truth has any chance of being supplied.”[4] While my beliefs on the necessity of bipartisanship for long-run health of Republican ideology, party sustainability, and governmental functionality will not come to fruition in a world where political strategists want to exploit the trends of the moment to win a single election, it is important to present firm and logical arguments for rationality in the American political scene. If Republicans cooperate with President Obama on a bipartisan basis, not only will they be more able to articulate and apply the principles advocated by Solomon Yue, they will also bring to light greater political truths, as Mill believed, leading to a stronger and more dynamic policy future for the world’s premier example of a strong and dynamic democracy.

---

[1] Fund, John, “Wall Street Journal Political Diary” December 31, 2008 http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/1956-Oregon-delegate-Solomon-Yue-makes-WSJ-quote-on-GOP-revolt.html

[2] The Economist, “Now What?” March 25, 2010 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15770733

[3] Allen, Bob, “Researcher: Young evangelicals shun 'conservative' label, embrace 'justice'” May 14,2009 http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4077/53/

[4] Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty” London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869

Half Mast: Patriotism and Civic Engagement

Most recent entries to this blog involve a carefully moderated and neutral perspective on issues both national and international. As a result, they are evidence-laden and research-oriented. This entry has a more normative focus, less research, and more call for broad solutions from a basis of personal values. Keep that in mind while reading.

A Parable

It's been a long day at work today. When the clock hits five, it's time to make the grinding commute through interchanges and gridlock to the quiet, welcoming seclusion of one's own property. Thank goodness that there's news and talk shows on the radio to block out the noise of other cars. A text message from home says to stop and get take-out.

Turning onto the street now. The neighbor is out mowing the lawn, but the car is too quick into the garage to allow for a chance to ask him about his daughter's upcoming graduation. Oh well. She'll probably have a big party soon, and people will hear it happening. The triathlon runner down the street is out training again, too. It would be nice to know when the next big race is, but the music from the headphones is too loud to allow for asking. Wasn't she getting a divorce, too?

Inside now, greet the family, set down the take-out boxes, drop in on the kids playing their video games, asking if they've finished their homework. Did they enjoy soccer practice? Maybe. Their vague and stunted responses while immersed in a game are hard to decipher. The refrigerator started leaking today, too. Hopefully Home Depot or Lowe's will have someone who knows what's going on. Maybe even their websites can help with the answer. The baseball game is on tonight. Much better than watching the news. The radio already took up enough time with that subject.

Dinner conversation is on the muted side tonight. The first pitch should be thrown soon. The opening notes of The Star-Spangled Banner blast forth from the TV as they have so many times before. The kids talk about school as a commercial break starts. There's been another spat of bullying that the counselors can't handle. One of the kids lost their lunch money in class and no one would admit to having taken it.

Didn't see the mailer from the mayoral candidate earlier. What's their position on big national issues? Can't support them if they lean a certain way. Oh well. The game's getting good now, bottom of the sixth and tied 5-5. This weekend will be nice. Have to dust off those bookshelves though, guests coming next week. Time to think about bed, more meetings tomorrow.

Themes and Thanks

The story just told is an intentional extreme meant to exemplify the ills of the 21st-century American civic culture. While this lifestyle trend set in gradually and generally unnoticed by successive generations born in the 1980s and 1990s, it has drastic social implications in the small and large picture, and the short and long run.

The following consideration of the decline of American civic culture and its effects on patriotism will carefully scrutinize:

(1) Indicators of and explanations for the status quo of declining civic culture,
(2) Solutions for policymakers, and
(3) Solutions for communities and individuals.

The works of Harvard scholar Robert Putnam (via Robert Pekkanen) and Princeton scholar Maurizio Viroli regarding the relationship between society and government especially influenced my consideration of this subject. Many thanks to them for spurring my mind to action!

Flagging Civics

To many Americans, the tendencies exhibited in the parable do not seem harmful. However, the isolation facilitated by such courses of action leads to a decline in civic participation, less awareness and appreciation for democratic heritage, and reduced trust and reciprocity between individuals.

What's happening: Robert Putnam's work on social capital validates this assertion, providing the bridge between day-to-day interaction and government. Putnam's social capital, which is the collective strength of mutual relationships and the associated trust they bring, shows that governments in areas with low social capital (high isolation) are far less likely to function properly and have accountability to their constituents. The lack of social capital also challenges people's sense of commitment to the true ideals of their country, and their genuine patriotism.

Examples of declining social capital in the parable include: listening to the radio for political opinions instead of actively forming one's own opinion, not talking to the neighbors about even the most mundane subjects, looking to buy repair materials instead of asking around (think Dagwood and Herb in Blondie), bullying and petty theft in young school age children, disconnection with local politics, use of television as a substitute for recreational human interaction or mental engagement through reading, and other small details.

Why it's happening: The status quo, therefore, is demonstrably harmful. However, understanding why these trends occur is critically important. Putnam labels the changing family, suburbanization, and privatized leisure as the principle factors in declining social capital. Indications of these factors abound beyond the above anecdotes from the parable. Americans routinely fail civic literacy tests, showing a disconnect with democratic heritage and patriotism. More and more children live with single parents and fragmented families, placing social stress on their early lives. Ubiquitous electronic entertainment drives people, especially children, to spend increasing time with just themselves, reducing the need for direct social interaction and peer involvement that is most beneficial for maturation.

(Associated with new forms of entertainment is the role of the modern media and its implications for society and civic engagement. I wrote about this last August in this entry.)

The outlook appears dire. However, participation could just be changing forms with no net negative effect on social capital. I disagree. Increasing isolation dissuades individuals from acting to solve problems. Internet message boards and blogs (irony? probably) produce material that seems to operate like military products operate in the economy of Orwellian Airstrip One: maximizing productivity while minimizing actual production. New-media activism for philanthropic purposes only creates the illusion of more sophisticated and informed participation in causes. The same problems still exist. Even the media-savvy campaign team of Barack Obama in 2008 relied on armies of volunteers on foot to effectively canvass in innovative ways.

With social capital and civic engagement flagging down to half-mast, solutions are necessary. Government and local communities can provide them.

"From the Government and Here to Help"

With patriotism and social bonds on the decline, the federal government can employ different strategies to foster greater love for country among its citizens. Often, indirect government action can be the best way to effect change, rather than direct and restricting legislation.

Maurizio Viroli in his book, Republicanism, advocated for a return to the ideals of classical republicanism found in Renaissance Italy. The relevant aspect of his work is his discourse on patriotism. Patriotism, according to Viroli, comes from an understanding and respect of a nation's democratic institutions. Respect for these institutions comes best from distributive justice, as Viroli states that "[for] citizens to love their republic and its laws, then the republic and its laws must equally protect all of them." Justice as equal protection and accountability under the law is intimately tied with a meritocratic state, which is predicated on equal opportunity. To act as a government with justice in the context of honest and clear-sighted understanding (avoid revisionism) of American heritage is a paramount responsibility of government.

Not only should the government uphold justice and merit in its actions, it should also establish an educational policy that upholds these values. The American culture of activism and social justice above all can at times beget revisionism out of the desire for moral security. Perhaps prioritizing a classical education with a focus on democratic heritage and institutions while viewing activism and social justice movements in the context of that heritage will improve civic literacy and patriotism.

Furthermore, the government should pointedly avoid creating an excessively nationalist tone. Synthesizing physical characteristics with the intangible love of republican institutions and justice undermines true patriotism. Viroli explains that patriotism and valuing citizenship "does not bloom on the branch of cultural or ethnic or religious homogeneity." Historically, efforts at implementing nationalist ideology ignorant of diversity have led to violence or regionalist reaction. In his book, Mexican National Identity, Michael Beezley discussed how the efforts of dictator Porfirio Diaz (1876-1910) to create a universal Mexican identity failed, and nationalists that celebrated diversity with common citizenship took power in the Mexican Revolution.

To eliminate cookie-cutter nationalism, not only should a civics-based education be encouraged, but the federal government should encourage local organizations to teach young citizens in school more about their communities and microcosms of democracy, upholding federalism and some local autonomy. After all, Reagan was the source of this section's header.

"They're Asleep All Across America"

Local autonomy is important because both broader patriotism and a reinvigoration of social capital come from community action. It is in regular interaction with one's townfolk that bonds of trust form. Maurizio Viroli cited a theorist in stating that "true patriotism is found in the city hall." Awareness of local issues and the election of officials best suited to handle local issues make the most difference for any given community. For it is local policy that makes the most impact on day-to-day living: schools, zoning, recreation, etc. People can often become too focused on large issues that have little impact at home, forsaking the foundations of a democracy by neglecting city councils and neighborhood associations. If communities function well together, patriotism and engagement on a larger scale becomes much more achievable.

Communities can also be defined beyond geographical terms and framed as ethnic groups. Technology can be used in a positive way to allow ethnic groups to reconnect and further their own priorities as a subunit, just as a specific geographic location ought to focus on its local interests. The impacts of ethnic community involvement are profound, particularly in terms of economic growth. Therefore, promoting community involvement in both traditional and unorthodox ways is in the best interest of policymakers.

Ultimately, individuals are the beginning of social capital. Working on teams, joining extracurricular activities such as clubs and sports from an early age, committing to a community cause that involves direct and regular action, holding neighborhood block parties, sitting on the front porch more often, inviting the new family on the block over for dinner, or just taking a run without the headphones in: all of these simple activities lay the foundations for trust, reciprocity, and basic democratic values while never leaving the suburban environment. Arising to involvement in this way also reduces susceptibility to demagogues, Maurizio Viroli claims, as isolated individuals will heed their own opinions or close their social circle to only those that continually reaffirm their belief system.

One more question needs to be asked: can new sources of information and media be utilized in a positive way that increases social capital? As with suburbanization, the answer is that no one development is intrinsically harmful. The real test of its impacts is how it is used. For example, the use of the Internet as a means to coordinate and lubricate the flow of information instead of supplanting human contact and the processing and development of the information itself is a worthwhile application. New growth of social capital can occur in the current reality of the 21st-century United States.

If individuals awake across America to their need for a greater amount of socialization and building bonds of trust, patriotism and civic engagement will greatly benefit.

Broad Stripes and Bright Stars

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Enlightenment theorist, accurately described what a state needs to function when he said:

"The fatherland lies in the relations between the state and its members; when these relations change or fail, the fatherland ceases to exist."

Therefore, valuing justice, education, community vitality, and individual involvement will uphold the relations between the state and its members, countering isolation and decline in social capital by building trust and awareness. With these prescriptions, the United States can witness the flag of its vibrant democracy raised proudly and patriotically from half-mast to its pinnacle.

The Souls of Texan Folk

The greatest eroding force in the world is human history.

Mankind chews up and spits out its past, taking apart the old for a a desirable new. Yesterday passes from memory to library, and from library to scholarship, from scholarship to history textbook, and from history textbook into the dusty corners of the collective human conscience. And there the memories are made again for future generations. As the process is repeated over and over again, the window of knowledge about a time period narrows and narrows, until thousands of years in the future, it is almost entirely forgotten. Such are the works of man.

I wanted to undercut this eroding process in the most effective way possible. Thus, I ventured into what has become the forgotten past, and in part what is now the forgotten present. Texas was my destination. Or more precisely, the four counties Parker, Palo Pinto, Young, and Jack. In the mold of W.E.B. DuBois, who traversed the Deep South at the turn of the century to immerse himself in issues of racial inequality, I ventured into the Texas farm and ranchlands. What DuBois said a century ago equipped me:

"We can only learn by intimate contact with the masses, and not by wholesale arguments, covering millions separate in time and space, and differing widely in training and culture."

Fittingly, the title of this entry is inspired by the book that resulted from DuBois' Southern encounters, The Souls of Black Folk. Here is The Souls of Texan Folk (in a day).

Of Forts and Frontiersmen

Introduction

In Jacksboro, Texas, there exists a lens into one of the most dramatic and celebrated times in American history. Fort Richardson operated from 1867-1878, a formative and often chaotic period of warfare between American settlers and frontier bands of Comanches, Kiowas, and the like. What transpired at Fort Richardson during its short period of service to the United States serves as a launching point for understanding Texas history.

Independence Era

Wars against the natives of Texas were inevitable as the first American settlers, with the permission of Mexico, blazed trails out of the Eastern woodlands and into the rolling hills of the cross timbers ecological zone in the early 19th century. The woodland Indians, tribes of Caddo and other relatively sedentary agrarian societies, did not give prolonged difficulty to the advancement of American settlement. Thousands of Americans thus filled East Texas by the 1830s, farming and raising livestock in fertile lands around the many rivers flowing to the Gulf of Mexico.

Demographic tensions and provocations from the Mexican government led to the Texan demands for autonomy, and the ensuing Texan War of Independence. Armed with a declaration of independence and grievances, drafted in March, 1836, the Texans established protection from Indian raids as a key priority of their new government. For, as they saw it, the Mexicans had "incited the the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and the scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our defenseless frontiers."

Statehood and Fort-Building

As Texas operated as an independent nation from 1836 to 1845, its leaders adopted different policies towards the Indians of the region, who conducted regular raids on frontier farmers to steal horses and provisions. While Texas hero Gen. Sam Houston preferred policies of negotiation and diplomacy to end hostilities, his successor as President of Texas, Mirabeau B. Lamar, sought to exterminate all Indian presence in Texas. This policy had some success, but the most fearsome bands of Comanche still roamed the plains.

When Texas joined the United States in the 1840s, Indian relations were still a problem. To secure the frontier, a host of forts sprung up in the 1850s, garrisoned by federal troops. These forts had to cover huge swaths of land from mobile Comanche bands that could project their particular tribe's raiding power hundreds of miles eastward. Kidnappings and deaths occurred, but the line of forts pushed West, as garrisons like Phantom Hill, Mason, and McKavett housed both infantry and cavalry units to protect local residents. All of this unraveled, however, with the secession crisis of 1860-1861.

Secession, Reconstruction and Grant's Follies

With the formation of the Confederate States of America and Texas' joining thereof, the federal troops did not have the blessing of Texas' people. Confederate units took over security as they could, peacefully ousting the federals. However, lack of manpower for the frontier took a heavy toll on Texas frontier residents from 1861-1865. Texans did participate in forays into New Mexico with other Confederate units, and conducted friendly relations with Mexico during this period, but could not preserve frontier security.

After the Civil War and the arduous years of Reconstruction, while politics tore apart successive governments in Austin, the United States worked to reclaim the frontier for its citizens. This is where Fort Richardson came into play. The frontier line had fallen back to the East, but the new forts soon pushed Comanche influence back towards the high plains. The Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867 stymied military pressure under President Ulysses S. Grant's mandate, but Indian raids continued.

Grant also implemented the "Quaker Peace Policy" in the late 1860s, designed to encourage peaceful resettlement on large reservations far from areas populated by Americans, with oversight from Quaker officials. The condition was that the government provide rations to the inhabitants of the reservations, and other federal support. When the condition was not met, the raids began again, with dissatisfied Comanches again harassing the frontier inhabitants of Texas. Civil War veterans like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman witnessed this policy failure. Soon, many lobbied for the revocation of the Quaker peace initiative.

Victory, But How?

When the Quaker Peace Policy ended in the early 1870s, forts like Richardson projected their power with maximum effectiveness and soon drove Comanche tribes out of Texas, along with other native groups. The climactic Battle of Palo Duro Canyon ended most incursions. The Texas frontier had been won.

The winning of the frontier did not occur in some thoroughly romantic fashion, however. The garrisons of places like Fort Richardson often suffered more deaths from alcoholism and dysentery than those from battle. Soldiers deserted, became infected with venereal disease from local places of ill repute, and longed for some real sense of battle. Life was lonely and hard on the Texas plains in the 1860s and 1870s. As progress moved necessity elsewhere, the forts shuttered, becoming monuments to a forgotten era and lifestyle.

Progress and Possibility: Texas Today

Urbanization and Modernity

The second key part of my trip was the investigation of the modern state of living in the aforementioned counties. Oil and cattle, long the economic engines of Texan development and prosperity, become more centralized and lost relative importance with the growth of new industry and big urban centers in the 1960s. The interstate highway system bypassed hundreds of towns that once held major thoroughfares. The heritage and condition of small-town Texas fades more with each passing year for these reasons. It is the erosion of human history.

In a researching state of mind, the question framed is this: "How has small-town Texas responded to the modernization and urbanization of the past four decades?" (The independent variable is town leadership, and the dependent variable is conservatism) The answer to this question stems in large part from a conversation I had with a staff member at Fort Richardson. An important note is that conservatism in this context simply means reluctance to change, not American political conservatism.

I will examine briefly two case studies: the thirty-mile separate towns of Jacksboro, county seat of Jack County, and Graham, county seat of Young County.

Jacksboro

Situated at a major crossroads about an hour northwest of Fort Worth, Jacksboro is a town that should have been poised to benefit from mass movement into Texas, given its strategic location and historic ties. It is, besides being the location of Fort Richardson, the town that produced a TCU All-American football player and a TCU head football coach, Abe Martin. However, this is not the case. The population of Jacksboro has scarcely changed over the past fifty years, resting steadily at around 4500.

The staff member at Fort Richardson, a longtime resident of Jacksboro, attributes this to the intense conservatism of the town, or more appropriately, town leadership. He related a story from several years ago told by the then-96-year-old pastor at the Church of Christ. The pastor told the staff member, "I've been in this town since 1922, and they still know me as an outsider." The prevailing mentality is that one must be a native son to be accepted, even in the most extreme cases.

This mentality is not conducive to welcoming outside development and investment, and in such a small town, the attitudes of a powerful few carry a stranglehold on local policy. Jacksboro's town square appears relatively dilapidated and worn, as the people seem to care not for outward appearance, staying inside much as they have stayed inside their own little world for fifty years or more. The Ft. Richardson staff member told me that many young Jacksboro residents have never traveled farther than Wichita Falls, an hour north, in their lives. Many have never even been to or seen the Dallas-Fort Worth area, yet they drive trucks that could take them there for any purpose in forty-five minutes.

Intense conservatism not only stagnates growth, it also has counterproductive tendencies. Jack County held the status of a "dry," no alcohol county for many years, and no one on the town leadership wished for that to change. Even as Jacksboro High School students became more assertive on alcohol consumption and drove to nearby Graford, in "wet" Palo Pinto County, incurring many DWI deaths along the way, the leadership would not relent. The staff member told me how, come election day, senile residents of local nursing homes would be almost pulled from their wheelchairs by the intensely conservative town leadership to vote on keeping Jack County dry.

Such harsh austerity and conservatism in the face of changing times drove Jacksboro inward. But, as the staff member told me, small town differences can be "like night and day" in Texas. Enter the town of Graham.

Graham

Located thirty miles West of Jacksboro on U.S. Hwy 380, Graham, TX is an out-of-the-way small town gem close to Possum Kingdom Lake. It does not have the major highway convergences of Jacksboro, nor any nearby forts of places of great historical note. Yet its population is currently double that of Jacksboro, and the town is thriving.

An aesthetic view of Graham places it far higher than its neighbor in Jack County. Graham claims to have the "largest town square in America," a square that is beautifully kept and lined with well-preserved storefronts. A crisp and shining memorial to veterans of all wars stands in front of the courthouse. The streets of Graham are clean and shaded, and stately old homes line the main roads. Civic pride radiates from every block. Graham possesses a far greater amount of business development as well.

The town leadership of Graham clearly brought in this outside investment and maintained a strong culture even as the forces of time threatened to siphon its livelihood away. The high school has a thriving theater department that regularly sends students to Texas colleges on scholarship in theater production. The town also recently attracted as its high school football coach Brad McCoy, father of former Texas Longhorns quarterback Colt McCoy. Colt's brother Case graduated from Graham High School and followed his brother to Austin. Graham is quintessential Texas.

As Jacksboro's austerity drives it inward, Graham demonstrates what small town Texas must do to survive in a world that increasingly wants to pass it by. Flexible leadership that does not demand unreasonable opposition to business development, preserves the core identity of the town and welcomes outsiders (like the well-known Brad McCoy, unlike Jacksboro's reminder that its pastor of fifty years or more was an outsider) proves instrumental to a town's vitality.

A Lone or Lonely Star?

Texan identity, forged in independence and in the hardy souls of frontier settlers, can be best preserved in the small communities and county seats that dot the state. Just as the lonely Indian fighters sat at Fort Richardson in the 1870s, watching the frontier conflict pass them by, so too sits small town Texas. Will it despair, drive itself inwards, and desert? Or will it instead seize its moment of glory that it dreams for in earnest, even as human history dramatically molds the landscape all around in new and ever-changing ways? The souls of Texan folk must answer.

Russia: Throwing Elbows and Holding Together

Having considered domestic issues for most of the blog so far, it is time to approach an issue in international relations. The politics of post-Cold War Europe are far more complex than my current knowledge can grasp, with the relationship of NATO, the EU, the neo-Warsaw Pact CIS, and aspiring member-states of all three groups. With these complexities and difficulties in mind, here is an assessment of Russia, examining its current state of affairs domestically and in foreign relations, with a specific emphasis on actions in its geographic sphere of influence.

Russian Society Unmasked
Russia emerged from the Cold War as the chief former member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, bringing a 20th-century record of revolution, authoritarianism, secrecy, and decay with it. On the whole, Americans perceived everything behind the Iron Curtain as a sort of massive "Soviet bloc" that acceded to the will of the Kremlin. During the Cold War, Russia created a monolithic image in the Western consciousness, representing the ideological conflict between traditional socioeconomic liberalism and centralized, authoritarian rule.

However, the perception of Russia as a unified force fell apart quickly with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. New states sprang (or slogged) into existence in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Today, Russia is commonly understood as a unified force, now that its many former appendages are independent. However, Russia contains a diverse range of ethnic groups, many of whom would never identify as Russian, like in Dagestan. Dagestan characterizes the diverse ethnic background of Russian citizens, and the complex steps Moscow must take to hold the country together. Dagestani elections are a subject of tension with the central government. Historic violence Chechnya arises from similar circumstances.

Furthermore, the Russian government also must deal with native Siberian populations and immigrant labor from Central Asia. It is also easy to forget about Kaliningrad, the country's Baltic Sea enclave with a set of problems that the Kremlin must deal with independently of the far different Russian interior.

From Oil to Medals: Russian Politics and Economics
Maintaining stability in such a large and diverse range of populations seems to naturally beget authoritarian governance in a state with an already large heritage of such approaches. The biggest institutions are oil companies, like the behemoth state-run Gazprom (more on oil later) and former Soviet agencies still suspected of covert operations throughout Russia. With business and military interests playing such a large role in government, and a shadowy political figure like Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, human rights issues are inevitable. Sustainability is an area of concern for individuals like Putin who govern with an iron fist, but the former president anointed a close ally, Dmitry Medvedev, for the new president in 2008.

Local leaders, such as the mayor of Moscow, also create problems for residents and display strong-handed governing tendencies. Josef Stalin is ideologically trendy, too.

Authoritarianism has its limits, as victims of an aggressive state or state-sponsored groups can make their case heard to the world. Conflicts over opposition media and the killings of journalists critical of the Kremlin drew international ire. Political parties opposing the omnipresent United Russia party also have gained traction. Even the supposedly submissive establishment ally President Medvedev stepped up against Putin loyalists, though the true nature of his relationship with the Prime Minister remains clouded.

Economically, Russia suffered greatly from the decline in demand for its rich oil and natural gas reserves, and rebounded far more slowly than its BRIC counterparts, Brazil, India and China. The CIA World Factbook considers Russia's long-term economic problems to be "a shrinking workforce, a high level of corruption, and poor infrastructure." These problems are rampant, and affect even the heavyweights of Russian business, like Gazprom. Furthermore, the Russian ruble is in the ignominious company of financially troubled states like Argentina for its decline against the dollar in the past year.

Even with one of the world's ten largest economies, Russia will struggle to remain competitive and politically cohesive on a domestic front in years to come. An indicator of this declining strength within Russia is its poor showing in the Vancouver Winter Olympics, and the resulting fallout between the country's Olympic Committee and the government. If Russia cannot win the medals, what has it been doing globally to carve out its self-interested sphere of influence in the midst of decay and potential instability at home?

The Bear's Old Hunting Grounds
(In Russian foreign policy, the two separate areas of geopolitics and international cooperation will be assessed)

The end of the Cold War did not spell the end of the Kremlin's influence in the affairs of now-former members of the USSR. Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, while different in heritage, share a common political thread in the issue of Russian influence. This influence is apparent through the leverage exercised through both soft power incentives and hard power enforcement of interest, or "carrot and stick."

In the Caucasus, Russia received international attention for its short 2008 war against Georgia, a small state with a pro-Western, pro-NATO government. (Tblisi has a street named after George W. Bush - it is hard to be more pro-Western than that!) While an EU report absolved Russia of the immediate blame for starting the war, Russia was still accused of pushing Georgia into taking action to preserve its territorial integrity in the strategically important regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia continues its bullying of Georgia, rooted in a desire to compete with NATO and assert its historical opposition to the organization combined with a subtler hint of irredentism.

Most Russian geopolitical influence comes not from the "stick" of military action, but from soft power. In the old, traditional Iron Curtain states of Easter Europe, many ethnic loyalties still tilt in the Slavic direction, especially in the Eastern reaches of states like Ukraine and Belarus. The Eastern Ukranian Viktor Yanukovich defeated the Western-oriented Yulia Tymoshenko in a recent election. Promises for closer Ukrainian-Russian relations to repair the damage from the Orange Revolution followed. When ethnic loyalty cannot be relied on, Russia uses incentives in a more forceful way with the shutoff of gas lines to Eastern and parts of Western Europe. Taking away heating oil from millions of Europeans in the depths of winter is a huge bargaining chip.

Not only does Russia seek favorable environments within its old stomping grounds, it also seeks to regulate foreign involvement in these states, much as the Monroe Doctrine-backed United States influenced the Caribbean in the late 19th and early 20th century. The American plan for a missile defense system in Poland revealed in 2009 roused great suspicion from Moscow, despite modifications to demonstrate a focus on Iran as a target.

Finally, the exercise of geopolitical power in Russia extends to the Arctic Ocean and to Central Asia. Though in Central Asia, Russia has witnessed the rise of China as a competitor. This consideration leads to the question: what role does Russia play in its modern interactions with other states on a multilateral basis?

Uneasy Partnership
Briefly answered, the Russian interaction with the international community has been generally cooperative and productive as of late. Effective multilateralism must be exercised by a state with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

With powerful Western European states, relations with Russia seem to be warming, as seen in a recent arms deal with France. Despite objections from the United States to such deals, a desire for a Europe not defined solely by the EU is emerging. Russia still maintains a productive nuclear policy, working with the United States for a new treaty to replace the expiring START from 1991.

On issues that mandate full multilateral cooperation, Russia has demonstrated a willingness to work with the United States and other global powers in the interest of collective security and sustainability. Despite early objections, Russia is in favor of sanctions on Iran's nascent full nuclear enrichment program. Russia participated in (eventually frustrated) efforts to defuse the situation in the early months of 2010 through a "nuclear swap" proposal. At the Copenhagen summit on climate change, Russia promised emissions reductions if reciprocity could be had from the United States and China. That is no small goal from the world's third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Don't Exile Your Big Hopes to Siberia
Russia must be, in most ways, taken as it is by international powers. It cannot be pressured sufficiently as a member of the Security Council to change its fundamental political culture. An emboldened opposition and restive citizens in a declining economy may yet break the political mentality and corruption carried over from Soviet days.

Thus, the United States should tread carefully, appreciating Russia's contributions to multilateralism, while still placing measured criticism and international pressure on Russia's regional power grabs. Over time, engagement and cooperation with Europe may lead to greater democratization and a strong future for the world's most expansive state.

Down the road, perhaps United Russia will not be the name for a political party, but a movement of change, patriotism and honesty among citizens and government. What is Russia? The famous gulag survivor and author Alexander Solzhenitsyn said it well, and Russian people would likewise do well to spread it among themselves:

"Patriotism means unqualified and unwavering love for the nation, which implies not uncritical eagerness to serve, not support for unjust claims, but frank assessment of its vices and sins, and penitence for them."

The Establishment Under Fire: Tea Party Time

The movement sweeping the country resembles a religious revival. Homespun radicals set up meetings that assuredly would be in field tents had they taken place in 1840s America. The intricate rules and proliferating role of overbearing institutions are attacked. Ordinary citizens that never before cared about this part of their lives are suddenly engaged in an eristic passion, ready to go toe-to-toe with any dissenter.

Parallels to the Second Great Awakening that inundated frontier America only go so far. Nonetheless, a "Great Awakening" is happening now in the American political scene, loosely united under the banner of the Tea Party Movement. Anecdotes from rallies around the country are compelling, as protesters passionately call for the end to the income tax, government intervention in the private sector, and removal of disloyal politicians. Names of different reactionary groups evoke the struggle for American liberty in the late 18th century. Tea Parties seem poised to dump tea off the proverbial boat of United States government.

Before joining the chorus, often cacophony, of unhappy voices, many questions should be asked about the movement. How legitimate are its claims about the state of affairs in the United States? Can it successfully maintain political clout without sacrificing its principles? Will it avoid a takeover by extremists? Is the Tea Party nomenclature even historically accurate? I will seek to answer these questions in a comprehensive and analytical assessment.

Crucible of Malcontent: 2008-2009
As with a large number of current world issues, the rise of the Tea Party Movement can be traced back to the beginning of the burst of the housing bubble and the ensuing securities collapse that eventually led to a global recession beginning in 2008. In classic Keynesian fashion, the United States and other world powers responded in a fairly similar way: stimulus via government investment and an easing of the billions in assets rendered unusable by mass mortgage default. Damage control happened elsewhere, as the government spent on jobless benefits and tax credits.

However, in the public eye, the most noticeable byproduct of these many programs was their collective price tag. The Recovery Act alone gobbled up $787 billion, while hundreds of billions more went to the financial industry. Fused with anger over executive salaries bankrolled by government expenditures, the price of countercyclical spending drew increasing ire. President Obama's approval rating dropped precipitously over the course of 2009, and Americans lost faith in the Democratic Party.

Several months into the government-orchestrated economic recovery effort, most opposition came from the top-down, instead of the bottom-up anger that typified the rise of Tea Party groups. Governors in conservative states fought government influence in the form of stimulus money, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry went so far as to make a quip about secession in April 2009. Over the summer and to the fall of 2009, however, the real awakening began.

The Fringe Takes Center Stage
For years, the common perception of the radical right in American politics involves carryovers from the Jim Crow era, Ayn Rand zealots who libertarian CATO fellow Michael Tanner called thug libertarians, gun-toting militiamen opposed by Republican George W. Bush, and the crazed cluster of protesters that gathered every April to call for an end to the federal income tax. The radical right traditionally attacks the established institution of government and hearkens back to some not-so-plausible version of centuries old Jeffersonian values. Even with the brief internet-fueled cult popularity of Ron Paul in 2008, the public seemed fairly quiet on the issue of governing philosophy.

Enter President Barack Obama. Already under fire from the radical right on absurd questions of national origin and religious affiliation, opposition further grew from the radical fringe as the billions of dollars spent on recovery seemed worthless to many Americans. The next logical step was to question the need for government spending of any kind, if not benefits were immediately visible from the most recent legislation. Smelling blood, the anti-establishment crowd gained waves of new adherents. However, the story is about the politcal neophytes, not the longtime advocates of a deconstructed government.

Many participants in Tea Party activities expressed their only recent following of politics, and how discovering the extent of government atrocities was in a sense like being "reborn." Anger was the emotion cited by 60% of Republican respondents and 52% of Independent respondents in an Economist poll in early February when asked about current government. Protests have increased in frequency and intensity, and even turned to activism, as Scott Brown defeated a bumbling Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senatorial race on the wings of Tea Party support. Anti-establishment anger took a form of domestic terrorism in the mold of Timothy McVeigh with the suicide attack of Joe Stack in Austin, Texas.

New sociopolitical trends in the past have spawned resistance movements composed of members new to politics. Public anger is in many ways what happens when awareness of trends is dragged up to meet the reality that has been evolving in the irksome direction all along.

Focusing the Anger: Identity Questions
Tea Partiers face two distinct questions of identity. One is how they perceive themselves, and one is how the political analyst should perceive them. Both are rooted in an understanding of history.

As the name implies, the movement draws on the patriotic fever instilled in all American-educated students stemming from opposition to British rule and taxation. The tax opposition carries special symbolism, as participants see themselves as fighting the impositions of the establishment, which represents a kind of domestic neocolonialism. (notice the similar in thought but role-reversal with the radical left here) There is a definite historical inaccuracy here in the fundamental identity of the Tea Party. Antitax writer Robin Einhorn says the founders of American government "had no interest in renouncing their own power to tax themselves." Still, pride, even if falsely placed, in the heritage of anti-taxation movements will continue to fuel Tea Partiers.

The common catchphrase to describe the Tea Party's rapid expansion is "populist." This phrase is used in political analyst circles to mean desire for government promotion of both order and equality - the polar opposite of radical libertarianism, in which the Tea Partiers are best classified. Furthermore, the Populist Party of the late 1890s provided the historical connotation for the term with their support of government action against corporate interests. Furthermore, Populists were a largely rural movement based on specific geographical circumstances tied to wheat production, unlike the primarily ideological force behind Tea Partiers. To call the Tea Party Movement populist is a confusion of terms. They must be understood as a byproduct of the rise of bigger government, a rise that many Americans did not fully grasp until the financial crisis of 2008.

Selling Out or Cashing In: Leadership Questions
Using the 1890s Populists for comparison, one can see the leadership dilemma faced by the Tea Party Movement. The Populists soon faced a division between the "fusion" and "mid-roader" groups. The fusion group was content with aligning with political leaders from the mainstream that would give voice to their concerns in the current system. The mid-roader group wished to go it alone and continue building grassroots support.

The Tea Party movement is split in many ways by the same question. Republican leaders such as Sarah Palin, who spoke at the recent Nashville convention of the movement, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann have aligned themselves with some radical viewpoints. Should the movement work with these leaders or put forward their own? Home-grown sheriffs and city council members lead many rallies now, but some credible candidates are emerging. Marco Rubio in Florida is one example, though as the linked article suggests, he is already hobnobbing with the establishment and not his original base.

Not all Tea Party leaders have such shining futures. Some political fortunes were made and spent quickly, as seen with Debra Medina in the governor's race in Texas. Medina surged in popularity recently, but a gaffe about 9/11 conspiracies quickly took air from under her wings. Leadership questions will continue to challenge a movement founded on and by dencentralization. Will the Tea Party Movement sell out or cash in with its leadership choices? The answer remains in the future.

Before the Tea Party faces the choice the Populists had to make in 1896 that led to their casting of lots in with W.J. Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech, their ripple effects in the rest of partisan politics will be felt.

Grand Old Pickle?
Meanwhile, the other side of the equation is also engaged in a struggle over how to approach the new movement. The Republican Party, while sometimes spurned by more radical Tea Partiers, is closer ideologically (at least with Reaganites) than the sitting Democrats who are the target of disgust from the anti-establishment crowd. However, the potential new base of activism that gives needed fiscal conservatism to the GOP platform also could greatly undermine legislative progress and bipartisanship.

The Economist in early February asserted that the Tea Party Movement is one of the key reasons why the GOP should not engage in bipartisanhip on key issues in Congress, like jobs, deficit reduction, health care, and environmental regulation. However, as President Obama pursues popular measures against health insurers in the wake of large rate increases in California, bipartisanship by the GOP would be prudent. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed with other Congressional Republicans to atten a bipartisan summit as well.

Leading up to almost certain gains in the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans seem to wish for a balance between cooperation so as to avoid appearing excessively obstructionist and maintaining Tea Party support. The Economist further asserts that Congress is indeed functioning better than popular perception, indicating a degree of success of this GOP approach.

Onward
Other realms of the American political system have responded to the anti-establishment onslaught, but often by increasing opposing demands. Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, promotes increasing government regulation to avoid a future financial crisis with the reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act, removed under Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. Even internationally the trend is towards greater oversight and a more streamlined but effective approach towards government in the economy, as indicated by a recent IMF panel of economists.

What does this suggest about the future of the Tea Party? When the international intellectual trend is countervailing to the movement, the long term outlook is not good. In the short run, the 2010 midterms will in many ways resemble the 1894/1896 decisions Populists had to make. As the public opinion enforces a degree of changes on the governmental system through their choices to Congress, the overall trend will be more in the direction seen with Volcker and the IMF. Yet the ethos of fiscal responsibility will integrate more deeply into American culture and politics as those in power are reminded of the popular will on issues of government involvement. Pressing questions still remain in terms of debt burden and the government entitlement programs, however.

The camp meetings will pack up their tents. The Atlas Shrugged-waving will subside. Rebirth into the "new reality" will end. Popular anger will retreat into the shadows. But, in the end, the Tea Party will have left its mark on the United States.

State of the Union: 2010

The occasions in which I feel compelled to blog are rare, but I felt that some commentary on Wednesday's State of the Union address and the nation as a whole would help organize and present my thoughts on the different policy aims of the Obama administration. As with all previous blog entries, I will attempt to be as objective as possible in my analysis, yet keeping in mind that I am shaped by my own experience and values.

American Politics in 2009: My Summary
(Disclaimer: skip past this section to the next bold heading if you want to read about the State of the Union address itself)

President Barack Obama approached the State of the Union with little wind left in his sails of political capital from a hard several months of political setbacks. President Obama began his term with an energizing 69% approval rating from voters, and only a 13% disapproval rating. Over the course of one year, that comparison fell to 48% approval and 45% disapproval, as tracked by Gallup. Why did this happen?

The president pushed a broad agenda that on many fronts failed to produce the hoped-for dividends. I'll start domestically and move internationally.

1. Healthcare: The largest issue in the public mind for 2009 was the progress of health insurance reform in Congress in which the President fully invested himself. Numerous conservative criticisms drove an increasing public cynicism about the ability of a reform bill to successfully translate to an effective policy. In that already daunting task, Democrats worked to iron out their differences, especially between fiscal liberals and the cluster of Blue Dogs that expressed consistent concern over reform. The House and the Senate passed separate bills that had to be reconciled, leading to debate over funding for abortion and the creation of a public insurer. Furthermore, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy's leadership on the issue was lost even in spirit shortly after his passing in August.

To reasons largely unexplained by the mainstream media and accepted almost by default, Republicans forced Congressional Democrats to operate with a 60-vote supermajority for passing healthcare legislation. Despite the switch by Sen. Arlen Specter to the Democratic caucus and the courting of moderate Republican Senators such as Olympia Snowe, the public impetus to reform healthcare slowly withered in a combination of Democratic disagreement and Republican obstructionism. Scott Brown's election sealed the fate of healthcare reform decided on solely the Democrat's terms.

President Obama invested much of his campaign and presidency in this issue, and consequently came away from stalled healthcare legislation with little to show the nation.

2. Economy: Few issues captivated the nation like healthcare reform in 2009, but the administration's continuing influence in economic matters maintained attention. In a real sense, the oft-debated and little-understood "bailout" programs worked almost precisely as they were intended to work. Major banks began to pay back Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money as early as June. The leadership of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was instrumental in the continuing recovery. These men deserve great credit (not just for the way they handled credit) but for their professionalism in the face of undeserved popular outrage.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was painfully inefficient, but nonetheless had a positive effect on education, energy policy, and public works. Even as the government propped up services, housing and investment, unemployment hovered over 10%. The lack of jobs and indebtedness, according to the Economist, could remain a long-term problem. New jobs could come in energy legislation, but the difficulty of passing a "climate bill" with a cap-and-trade program to limit emissions remains. The Economist recommends a carbon tax, but the very word "tax increase" is an anathema to many Americans.

3. Spending and Backlash: All of these domestic policies collectively created an immense federal deficit for 2009, adding to an already large government debt burden. By percent of GDP, (see graph here) the administration created a deficit in 2009 that was almost four times the level of any one year in the Bush administration. Projections for 2010 are still very high. Bias aside, the government spent at an unprecedented level in 2009, and must handle the problem soon. The radical-turned-mainstream fiscal conservative Tea Party movement took the streets demanding a reduction in government spending. (Despite one protester's illogical demand that the government should not be involved in her Medicare, the movement still has credibility in the eyes of Republicans looking to return to fiscal conservative roots that will carry them to long-term electoral success.) While fractious, the Tea Party uprising of 2009 underlines a broader concern for the administration with spending and debt.

4. Republican Resurgence: Not much is to be said for the state of partisan politics in 2009 despite the great media attention it received. Logically, the party in power with the burden of lawmaking in a time of duress will quickly lose support and yield to the opposition party. For this reason, it is safe to assume Democrats will sustain significant losses in 2010, and Republicans will make up ground as they did in Massachusetts and other states that may historically be bastions of Democratic leadership. However, legislative obstructionism will no longer work once the party regains at least some of the legislative influence it enjoyed from 1994-2006. Also, watch for the role of the campaign finance decision in the Supreme Court in the 2010 elections.

5. Law and Liberty: With campaign promises that appealed to minority rights and gay rights groups, the administration has not fulfilled many of these burdens. However, Attorney General Eric Holder oversaw gains important to the administration in the form of hate crime legislation. The president also worked to phase out prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, but still faced many challenges in the prosecution of terrorism. New cybersecurity initiatives should also help enforce the rule of law domestically.

6. Foreign Policy: The Obama administration approached foreign policy with possibly the most idealism of any part of its agenda.

The president made a wise decision on Afghanistan, and despite electoral fraud and a spat with the UN, support from NATO is growing and objectives are being set. If the Karzai government works effectively (that's a big if) and the war of information against the Taliban succeeds, the other pieces are in place for real success in Central Asia. Pakistan's cooperation is also essential. (see previous entry on Afghanistan)

Other foreign policies were hit and miss, as an arms reduction treaty with Russia was signed, but preventing Iran from pursuing a nuclear program proved incredibly difficult. The web of the Iranian government, its people, the U.S.-Israel alliance, and the stances of Russia and China proved very sticky. On Israel and Palestine, meaningful progress was not made, and Washington failed to achieve its goals in the Honduran election. China and Japan both raised their hackles toward the United States at different points in the year, and a binding international climate change plan of action accord was not reached at Copenhagen.

On the whole, the administration still managed to mend many of the wounds in the international perception of the United States left from the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration. Relief efforts in Haiti help the country's international image. Still, the jury is out on the potential success of the administration's lofty foreign policy goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the confluence of these factors, it is no surprise that the president's approval ratings dipped to 48% by the time he took the podium on January 27th, 2010, 372 days after taking office.


The Address
President Obama formatted his State of the Union around five key points: Economy and Investment, Healthcare Reform, Government Spending and Operation, Security and Foreign Policy, and Civil Liberties. I'll rate my view of each section based on how I feel the policy proposals meet the challenges faced by the United States in 2010.

1. Economy and Investment: The focus on job creation in this section was essential to the administration's 2010 agenda. The President demonstrated an affinity for small business interests, proposing initiatives such as lending to community banks and selectively eliminating the capital gains tax. The calls for spending on education, jobs, and the taxation of banks will rile Republicans, but the GOP should appreciate the president's call for nuclear power and expanded offshore drilling. The bipartisan emphasis and empathetical style showed in this part of the address were needed. Data on the effect of the stimulus is sketchy, so some overstatement may have occurred.

Grade: A-

2. Healthcare Reform: For reasons stipulated earlier, this is an issue that is losing ground and priority for the administration as a result of political reality. The President only brushed over the issue, but made claims about saving money and bipartisanship that will do little to positively affect public opinion on the issue. A feel-good statement about Michelle Obama's work against child obesity means little in the larger context of holistic reform, and was indicative of the President's desire to shift focus away from the healthcare issue for easier items on the agenda. Smart, but unhelpful for actual progress.

Grade: D

3. Government Spending and Operation: Here the President unfurled the game he needed to stop playing by the end of his 100-day mark: criticism of the Bush administration. While some observations are true about the debt the Bush administration incurred, the move smells of a political reach to shift blame. The proposed spending freeze in 2011 will only be a short-term solution to government debt, but his work to end some tax cuts and persuade Congress to reinstate pay-as-you-go policies for the budget while cooperating with a commission on debt reduction has more long term potential.

Lobbying reform will probably not happen, despite the President's overtures. The condemnation of the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance decision and subsequent call to Congressional action seemed to overstep Constitutional separation of powers, despite legitimate concerns over the decision's implications. Tackling tough issues in this section, President Obama spoke about working actively to reduce debt and control corruption. Chances for success look to be below average, but the issue was well-addressed.

Grade: B

4. Security and Foreign Policy: As with healthcare, President Obama made few suggestions and mainly resorted to a synopsis of events and policies in this section. As said above, the jury is still out on foreign policy. Can the outlined goals be achieved in Afghanistan by 2011? What will happen with a climate change accord? Calls for some protectionism may or may not have teeth, but they are always appealing to the public ear.

Grade: B

5. Civil Liberties: Speaking briefly and to particular segments of the electorate, the President addressed minority rights, women's rights, and gay rights, thus essentially renewing promises from his campaign and celebrating the passage of hate crime legislation. While small, this section, combined with the success of the Sotomayor nomination providing a positive overtone, is a positive amidst the difficult challenges tackled in other parts of the address.

Grade: A

Overall, the 2010 State of the Union address utilized the theme of optimism despite the temptation to feel otherwise. With a restive citizenry and the opposition closing in quickly, President Obama elicited a share of positive responses from both sides of the House chamber during the speech. The reaction was mixed, but had significant bright spots. Policy goals are laid out, healthcare is tabled, and the stage is set for 2010 in the United States.

With charisma, eloquence, and a characteristic knack for illustrative anecdotes, President Obama placed himself at the crossroads of words and action in this speech. The midterm elections in November 2010 will be a key indicator of which path our government treads.

Liberty and Individualism

Sometimes the best insights and discussions come when they are least expected. Such was the case yesterday, as I thought more about social science and the individual than I have in a long time. I will try to bring together many of the thoughts and ideas from that discussion into this entry.

Over the past several months, I have been looking for ways to make sure that I retain and apply everything learned in and out of classes in college. Blogging, I realized, is a means to that end. Now with more personal motivation to blog, more entries will definitely be on their way to this page.

Pre-19th Century: Liberty and Government

While the concept of liberty intersects heavily with political philosophy, with negative liberty considered protection from the elimination of rights, while positive liberty is the freedom to act. Negative liberty arose with its modern context in Enlightenment philosophy.

As the concept of progress replaced views of cyclical history in political theory, thinkers saw liberty as a means to achieve a better society. By giving individuals the freedom to act, they would behave (more or less) in a way that benefited the greater good. Hopefully, for these philosophers, individual liberty would help the people more than aristocratic rule and feudalism. This sunny byproduct of rationalism arose from the writings of Rousseau, who had such faith in humanity to suggest that:

"The general will is always in the right and inclines toward the public good...People always desire what is good, but they do not always see what is good."

Rousseau continued on to express the necessity of preventing corruption of the popular interest to maintain the purity of the general will. Here is an exclusive emphasis on negative liberty, in the interest of good governance. It was in this spirit that the early American notion of liberty arose. Faith in the intentions of mankind, overseen by a protecting government hybridized between aristocratic and popular rule, would bring collective benefits.

The 19th Century: Rugged Individualism

The perception of liberty would change in the nineteenth century (1) for the American experience and (2) for philosophy as a whole. The "pursuit of happiness" therefore would take on greater importance than ever before.

(1) The frontier spirit, represented by Andrew Jackson and other icons of pioneering in the West, pervaded American thought as thousands of settlers operated almost independently in the virgin lands of mid-America. As pioneers moved West, they fought not only with unfamiliar land and distance from authority, but Native Americans. In a decades-long struggle that raged with particular ferocity on the farm line in Texas, frontier America overcame the Native American threat to Western security and successfully plowed millions of acres for their survival and sustainability. The frontier, according to Frederick Jackson Turner, was closed by a self-made race of men. In truth, the frontiersmen definitively earned this sense of worth.

America thus left the nineteenth century with an ethic of the individual operating not for the government as an institution, but for a larger ideal of autonomy and ability to conquer. This could possibly relate to the rise of romantic nationalism, transcending the operation of government itself. Irish nationalist Thomas Francis Meagher said in 1846, "A strong people alone can build up a great nation." In sum, the individual could achieve greatness as the sole master of his own fate.

(2) John Stuart Mill made a push in the direction of the modern perception of the impetus for individualism as part of his Harm Principle:

"The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

At this point in the evolution of individualism, the right of the individual to possess positive liberty becomes distinct, not a means to achieving greater social progress. Mill still upholds the value of negative liberty by asserting that one must be considerate of others' liberty in his actions. Thus, in application, both positive and negative liberty entail the same governmental actions, but arise from different intentions.

The Early to Mid 20th Century: Heritage and Decay

The memory of the American frontier began to fade, yet the sanctification of positive liberty did not fade. The United States fought two world wars with a strong sense of national pride, and waged an ideological conflict in the Cold War under the popular banner of liberty and sovereignty. Great American political figures built foreign policy around the right to self-determination. Th United States sought to replicate its own journey and fight for freedom in other countries around the world. But to what end? It is not possible to promote a standard of liberty abroad when its meaning is lost domestically.

The decay of liberty came not from a place of authority, but as a collective shift. After all, history is the sum of the thoughts and actions of individuals manifested through certain recorded events and documents. As has occurred before in history, the population continued to understand liberty as freedom of action, but forgot its origins, as outlined above. Positive liberty dominated negative liberty as an ideal, and service to government lost priority as an aspect of the importance of freedom. As the foundations of negative liberty are eroded, and the individual forgets that it is critical to not harm the liberty of another. When the respect of the other leaves the equation, the stage is set for radical individualism. Ayn Rand provided philosophical backing for the movement that came.

The Late 20th Century and Early 21st Century: Radical Individualism

While I will never be a Luddite, technological expansion that redefined communication faster than the natural human tendency to adapt accordingly resulted in the final puzzle piece for the most recent change in perception of the individual. In what some writers label "The Cult of the Individual," the increasing mobility and interconnectedness of humans allowed for the deconstruction of the age-old sense of community. People now possessed unprecedented control over their own contact and communication.

Fusing this tendency with the loss of respect for the other and the dominance of positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty leads to an emerging culture of entitlement. Selfishness and self-absorption becomes an ethic, in a perversion of the heritage of positive liberty. As a population naturally forgets history over time, the context behind the value of positive liberty is lost. Americans especially seem to forget that their forbears experienced a journey to attain and maintain their positive liberty, which codified the right to act for oneself. Now, the sense is that certain rights are earned by virtue of simply existing.

In no way is this a universal value, but it has become entrenched in popular culture, helped along not only by the aforementioned progress of technology, but by changing connections in the communication between the public and business.

Consideration of Neo-Marxist Response

With business in mind, it is possible to blame private institutions as creating the sense of entitlement and radical individualism, as well as many other related problems in modern society. It is tempting to place blame on something altogether intangible such as "the corporation," yet one finds a causality dilemma: did the business create the values or the values create the business?

My interpretation of history as the sum of individual decisions and discovery and the measurement of foundational change by ideas (see Hegel here) leads me to differ from a Marxist-leaning interpretation. Class struggle is superseded by the clash of ideas.

The Future of Liberty and Individualism

I will choose to focus on the more optimistic solution to this problem, maybe because it fits my context as a policy-minded college student still youthfully idealistic.

From consideration of the small window I have found into the history of liberty, it seems that John Stuart Mill articulated the balance of liberty best. The value and understanding of the intentions behind negative liberty is necessary for a nation to succeed, as Meagher suggested. My personal values and desire to strive for the knowledge of God's love in all things, as well as the personal journeys of others all require understanding the value of positive liberty.

Government, therefore, should seek to reconnect with what Rousseau believed was the benefit and necessity of the general will to the furthering of the collective good. The promotion of negative liberty and national service ties in with the classic Kennedy quote of asking what one can do for their country. Therefore, the two forms of liberty must work together to bring about both what the individual wishes to seek, and what the individual must contribute to the government and collective good to ensure that all individuals have the opportunity for the same pursuit.

John Steinbeck, from "East of Eden"

"This I believe: That the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government that limits or destroys the individual."