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."

A Perspective on Afghanistan

After embarking on a campaign to be more informed about current events through more in-depth reading and analysis, it feels like the right time to reenter the blogosphere. Typing thoughts instead of just talking about them in a disorganized way helps to bring positions together with much more completeness and clarity. On that note, it's time to consider the war in Afghanistan.

Background
Afghanistan rests in a historically volatile area in Central Asia. Subject to Soviet power politics, it became the center of a proxy conflict in the Cold War. The United States facilitated the rise of the anti-Soviet government, who launched a radical Islamic campaign in the state. Al Qaeda found a safe haven in the area, and became enmeshed in Afghanistan and the Taliban government. After 9/11, it was only logical to pursue the Taliban/Al Qaeda link to undermined global terrorist networks. Therefore, the war in Afghanistan began.

Now it's time to dispel myth number one about the Afghan war. The citation of time as a factor in supporting withdrawal is a fallacious one. The much-heralded troop "surge" in Afghanistan would have increased the number of troops in Afghanistan from just 30,000 to 60,000. Consider that American forces in Iraq were consistently at four times or more of the level of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The key point is that Afghanistan has never been a large-scale conflict, and that it cannot be defined in terms of a record-length war that in itself justifies withdrawal. As the Economist aptly put it in the most recent edition: "The Afghan conflict, it is often said, has been not an eight-year war, but eight one-year wars."

Strategic inconsistency and deprioritization characterized the first seven or so years of the Afghan war. Therefore, it is important to consider that when understanding the current direction of Afghan policy, the "war" has been much more of fragmentary conflict across the country since 2001. The Al Qaeda and Taliban link is also an important factor to keep in mind.

Why We Fight
The Afghan war never received the criticism of aggressive neoconservative foreign policy that the Iraq war grew to receive. Legitimate justification exists for the presence of American forces in Afghanistan, before the debate on future strategy even begins. Understanding why the United States has fought in Afghanistan is key to understanding what to do next.

First, the rise of Western globalism triggered reactionary movements such as Al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups that sought to destabilize the new world order they saw emerging. Firmly attached to radical Islamic ideology, these groups justified their pursuit of power via terrorism. In this sense, terrorism is one of the many flashpoints of conflict that occur over time when a power structure changes, in this case the monolithic American power. However, terrorism exists much more intangibly that the geopolitical conflict that characterized earlier international conflict. Because of the intangible and psychological power of terrorism, (some terrorists operate in the name of Al Qaeda without any connection to the actual organization) destroying it entirely is not possible.

However, the primary justification for American presence in Afghanistan comes from the need to deconstruct global terrorist networks to prevent the unification of the anti-Western ideological movements that seek to undermine security of all nations. Furthermore, Central Asian security itself depended on eliminating entrenched and organized terrorist groups, as Pakistan's conflict in its frontier regions demonstrates.

Another impetus for the American presence in Afghanistan is that of the drug trade. While only a minimal link between opium production in Afghanistan and Western Hemisphere drug operations exists, the 90% of world poppy plants that come from Afghanistan further threatens regional security. Myanmar's security is just one example. The illicit narcotics trade funds organized crime around Asia, and thus destablizes governments and undoes social order.

For the global humanitarian interest, the Taliban government undermined the well-being of the Afghan people through economic backwardness. The CIA World Factbook cites:

"Afghanistan's economy is recovering from decades of conflict. The economy has improved significantly since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 largely because of the infusion of international assistance, the recovery of the agricultural sector, and service sector growth. Real GDP growth exceeded 7% in 2008...It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan's living standards from its current level, among the lowest in the world."

Only through some foreign intervention, whether military or not, could this be solved.

What We Must Do
Complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is out of the question, for the aforementioned reasons and context. However, a legitimate debate is broiling in Washington about what policy direction to take. Indicating political pragmatism and centrism, President Obama found more support with Republican lawmakers over Afghan policy than Democrats. The recent policy review with the complex interaction of the President, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, and General McChrystal opens the debate over a counterinsurgency policy versus sustained military action.

Counterinsurgency options involve carefully removing individual targets to destory resistance hierarchies. This policy assumes that by removing Al Qaeda leadership from the equation, the security threat from Afghanistan will diminish. Advanced military technology could accomplish this, evoking thoughts of Tony Stark and Iron Man awesomeness.

Based on the previous contextual assessment of Afghanistan, this policy does not hold water. Removing leadership and key terrorist figures would not solve the larger problems that make Afghanistan more unstable and prone to being a security threat. For this reason and ones to be listed, my personal viewpoint is that the United States should make an effort to pursue a cohesive strategy to eliminate all vestiges of Al Qaeda in the region in the short term, and eliminate any future tendency for the Afghans to return to radical dependence by improving the country's economy, restructuring the agricultural sector away from poppy farming, and working to eliminate widespread corruption in the Afghan political and tribal system.

First, eliminating Al Qaeda's organizational capabilities will do the most towards hindering terrorism in the region. This policy is agreed upon even in Vice President Biden's policy proposals. However, the main distinction comes in the ensuing proposals.

Preventive practices are by far preferable to remedial short-term solutions. Therefore, avoiding any future repeats of pre-2001 Afghanistan is vitally important. In order to accomplish this, the economy must be improved, and a basic standard of living and human rights encouraged among the population. This policy will remove the ideological ground radical groups can use to attract locals to be sympathizers to their cause.

Furthermore, Afghanistan must be weaned from poppy farming. The Taliban feeds on poppy farming, and keeps the rural poor as sympathetic through buying what a legitimate government would not. Only through a widespread effort to educate farmers and provide new crops and diverse sources of agricultural livelihood aside from poppy production will the United States succeed in destablizing the funding and entrenchment of the security threats in Afghanistan, for the Taliban as it exists today operates closely with Al Qaeda.

Finally, eliminating corruption in the Afghan political system must occur in order to promote a fair government and cooperation among rival groups that will allow for the functioning of a state. Hamid Karzai clearly either oversaw or allowed the rigging of the national elections recently, pushing the numbers to ensure his ultimate retention of power. Honest oversight of the elections and assessment of the structure and origins of Afghan politicians will go a long way towards preventing future security problems.

Hitches?
Pakistan is an important consideration in Afghan policy as well. With an overbearing military that often controls the civilian government, the United States must be sensitive to Pakistani moves to fight terrorism on its own soil. The recent initiative in South Waziristan shows promise. This alliance and coordination must be maintained in order to achieve success in the above goals. India must also be indirectly considered in the Pakistan front as well.

The main knock on this outlined course of action is practicality. A large commitment of resources is necessary to attain the goals of security and preventive policy. However, with a solid strategy, effective leadership, and international cooperation in all areas, not just military, will help with a cohesive and effective solution to the Afghan conflict.

The United Nations has outlined many of these goals already, and will continue to work for their completion. The international community must commit to solving Afghan problems, for no half-hearted efforts will be enough to maintain the peace and security necessary in Central Asia.

Information and Change

Instead of attempting to tackle specific current affairs like I have recently with healthcare and energy, I'm going to work on an overview of the state of modern culture in the developed world, mainly based in my own experience in the U.S.

Introduction

It's very difficult to step outside one's own experience to give an objective assessment of current times. Good histories don't really emerge until years after events, when enough information is still available about them combined with a better understanding of how they fit into the context of the world. For example, some left-wingers were ready for the Bush administration to bring on some radical new world order in which we all marched in chain gangs under the yoke of authoritarian corporatism. Also, some right-wingers were ready for President Obama to resurrect every idea in the Communist tradition and sadistically and systematically destroy the American economy by this point in his presidency. Time soothes these notions and reveals truth.

However, revisionist history is one of the more painful things for the student of history to deal with. For various reasons, the caretakers of historical knowledge decide to alter their insights into past realities to avail their conscience and draw false connections between the past and present. The Civil War is one of the prime examples of this revisionism that much of the time is based in an errant pursuit of "political correctness". In my experience in history classes, the Union side is always subtly taught as the morally and politically justified side in the war, just because of today's shifting views on the need for a larger central government and greater equality. At the time, however, nothing was this clear cut, and the North was as guilty as the South in fomenting the conflict. A good historian should try at all costs to avoid falling for the traditional "the winners write the history books" mentality.

Today and Yesterday

With that in mind about perspectives and history, how is our present cultural and social state different from the past? Nostalgia for the the mid-20th century could well be considered revisionism. Undoubtedly, every time period has its shortcomings. In the early 21st century, however, we have seen an unprecedented rise in globalization (or westernization) and cultural collision. As Fareed Zakaria talked about in The Post-American World, the fall of the USSR brough the United States into a unique position of unipolarity unrivaled since the height of the British Empire. American ideals and values have spread with every McDonald's and Starbucks that gets thrown up in a foreign country. Of course, there are other countries putting their unique imprint on this new globalism, as well as ones fighting for a larger piece of the pie. This has bred a sense of cultural superiority and apathy among many Americans that could come to harm us in the future. This is not the first time I'll make a comparison between the late Victorian era and today.

The engines of this mechanical West-driven globalism are powered primarily by economic influence. The collapse of Western banking and regulation systems notwithstanding, the average joe in a foreign country knows many of the same things Americans do about popular culture. A good example is American words that are copied in other languages, such as "los jeans" in Spanish meaning (ta da!) "jeans" in English. It takes huge economic engines to power this globalization process, so we have seen a rise in corporate multinationals. This is what makes the modern era distinctly different from the past.

Media Multinationals

Google is always a quick and easy resource for a blog, and I found this Columbia Journalism Review resource on major media companies. Time Warner, CBS, and Disney own an enormous share of the media market, sometimes nearly monopolizing appealing coverage of things like sports or news. This control allows these multinationals great control over what they report and the information they pass on. The average news-watcher won't know any better when ESPN comes to gobble up local sports reporting stations or something similar occurs.

Traditional media is not faring well either, as the Media Daily News reported in February:

"Traditional media's 26% drop will be from $141.3 billion in 2008 to $112.4 billion in 2013. That segment stretches from newspapers to TV to out-of-home."

This means that there is statistical proof that we will only continue to see the rise of larger media congolmerates with the sustained decline of traditional information services. Here is yet another change evident in today's world.

The Gilded Age of Information

This control of information has reduced standards of accountability, especially in journalism. Many news anchors today (especially male ones) wear more makeup than credibility. CNN Headline News has become about as valuable as the magazine rack in the grocery store checkout line. ("Celeb Talk and Gossip = News!! OMG!") The best analysis I have heard on television of the reasons behind today's economic problems and the subprime mortgage crisis that touched it off came from the strongly Christian conservative "700 Club" anchor Gordon Robertson, not CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, or any other network that claims news it its first priority.

Instead, the media outlets look inwardly to the celebrities and tabloid material, making the death of Michael Jackson more important than any world event in several years and continually reporting on the unfolding drama from lawyer battles and manslaughter investigations instead of discussing the implications of significant world events outside of well-worn sound bites. Does this maybe again sound like the cultural decay of the late-Victorian, unipolar world of the Gilded Age British Empire?

Moreover, an idea that gets thrown around a lot is the declining sophistication of news reporting. This is also assuredly a sign of increased apathy among the run-of-the-mill news watchers. This is evidenced in everything from comic strips to presidential debates. Calvin and Hobbes cartoonist Bill Watterson said in 1995 that comic strip changes "have now gone so far as to take a serious toll on the art." The vice presidential debates between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden in 2008 had a grade-level reading average of 7.8 for Biden and 9.5 for Palin.

However, this average was skewed by sentences such as "What I would do, also, if that were ever to happen, though, is to continue the good work he is so committed to of putting government back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington," and "The middle class under John McCain's tax proposal, 100 million families, middle-class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change; they got not a single break in taxes." Since these sentences technically registered highly on reading level, they dragged up both candidates' overall speech sophistication average. Meanwhile, the eloquent and understandable Gettysburg Address by Lincoln in 1863 registered an 11th grade reading average without any political mishmash. Overall it seems like there is a certain degree of dumbing down in the spread of information, still resonating with the apathy and cultural stagnation of the Gilded Age.

Opinions and Facts

Based largely on personal observation, many of the apathy-facilitating news outlets have consistently blurred the line between where they report on facts and when they give opinions. Gone are the paragons of television reporting like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow who distinctly said things like "that's the way it is" when reporting facts, and carefully discerning their own opinions from these facts. It seems that many mainstream news sources today are concerned with only presenting opinions before carefully approaching known facts. This is another change in today's world.

Hope?

With the decline of local news sources, there are still some accessible news outlets that operate independently of the large, dumbing-down tendencies of the large media groups. However, some of these sources prefer radicalism and the preaching of disillusionment instead of actual progress.

The greatest hope I see for this kind of situation is Americans that wish to be informed is to diversify the news sources they read and to actively discern between rational fact and possibly irrational opinion. There still exist many credible news sources available, it's just slightly harder than plopping down on the couch and whipping out the universal remote.

With that in mind, I would like to believe it's possible to overcome the worrying changes evident in the presentation of mainstream information. Otherwise, it may take some cultural shock from the course of world events in the future to make many Americans come to terms with the insular attitudes that have begun to develop among them.

America's Energy Future

Continuing on the strand of citizens fulfilling their expected role in a contract with government, I'm planning on focusing on energy policy. This has always been a particular interest of mine (though I'm probably not especially informed on it), and I have an interest in pursuing it in the future.

Today's Energy Debate
Having just finished judging some summer camp debate rounds on the convoluted, barely-ekeing-through-the-House (219-212) Democratic-sponsored energy bill that deals mostly with a cap-and-trade policy, I have become convinced that as with many things politicians do, the energy debate has become sidetracked from a purer vision of America's energy future both in the short and long term context.

Ideological supporters of a fresh energy policy seem to be very good at thinking with their hearts on the issue. Many environmental advocacy groups propose radical solutions for the fear that global warming will end us as surely as the upcoming movie 2012 predicts apocalypse at the end of the Mayan calendar. Meanwhile, energy traditionalists seem content and complacent with our tried-and-true energy policies that the American economy has been reliant on for at least a century. When these two sides clash, both accuse the other of wanting to destroy America. This is sadly predictable of ideologues in the age of cable news. So how about (my view of) an honest and not sidetracked assessment of the contemporary energy debate.


There is no doubt (outside of those who fall to the right of the Heritage Foundation) that global warming is leading the global environment down a path towards unpredictable and increasingly inhospitable conditions for mankind. There is also no doubt that moving towards sustainable sources of energy for our power grid will require a painful transition from coal and natural gas. The American Coal Council estimates job loss in the coal and other related industries to occur in terms of millions. Finally, there is no doubt that alternative and sustainable energy sources are a long way from total viability. The American Enterprise Institute cites that renewable sources of energy (not including hydroelectric power) had only a 2.3% American market share in 2007.

So considering that global warming is a problem, nonrenewable energy sources by defintion cannot be used indefinitely, the transition from these sources will inevitably hurt, and that there is a long way to go for viable alternative energy sources - where do we go from here?

Nuclear Power
This is the only non-fossil fuel that has a sustained presence in the American energy market, satisfying 20% of our domestic demand. However, nuclear power also happens to be extremely divisive and cliched in discussion. For example, try to carry on a reasoned discussion about nuclear power without mentioning Chernobyl.

In truth, nuclear power is a safe and reliable source of energy when properly maintained. However, it is enormously expensive to ensure that such standards are met and all insurance against potentially apocalyptic nuclear meltdown occurs (cue aforementioned environmental groups). So let's say for now that nuclear energy is not the easiest way out of our current energy situation.

Energy Efficiency
There are few issues out there that consensus can exist so readily on, and I firmly believe energy efficiency is one of them. However, as with reducing obesity costs in healthcare, it requires individual initiative.

The magazine National Geographic reported in depth on energy efficiency in March 2009. Simple electricity savings in the American home can include reducing usage 8% alone by turning off electronics instead of leaving them on "standby". Further savings can come from using energy efficient appliances and refitting homes with efficient windows and doors to minimize heat loss. However, most Americans polled for the magazine indicated they would not prioritize energy efficiency, especially when disposable income is harder to come by.

To the rescue comes everyone's favorite American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or as you probably have seen referred to ad nauseum in your nightly CNN/MSNBC/FOX watching as "the stimulus package" (or "Obama's Marxist lovefest" for the latter station). But how effective will the ARRA be for energy efficiency? The D.O.E. reports that $2.7 billion in grant money was allocated from the $787 billion total to encourage local government projects in energy efficiency research. So basically, more bureaucracy en route to our true goal.

The political speech poster boy town of Greensburg, Kansas has made huge strides in building a model community of energy efficiency in the wake of a tornado. Such moves are possible by the individual American. Undoubtedly, it will be costly. However, considering buying highly rated appliances, thinking conservatively about gas usage, and even turning off the "standby" electronics can make a dent (just as healthy lifestyles in healthcare) in American energy usage. As a result, we buy ourselves more time in finding practical and effective solutions for energy futures.

International Cooperation
All of this is well and good until the rest of the world comes into focus. Rising powers like China and India seem intent on plowing ahead with fast-paced industrialization. Pressures from conventional powers to reduce emissions and energy usage are as offensive to these countries as it would have been if a large authority came in and asked the United States to stop the Industrial Revolution for a somewhat more intangible higher purpose. Their reluctance is understandable. The climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark this winter will be a key collision of opinions for a chance at future global energy policy.

If diplomats pull the right strings and the right political avenues are taken, the United States could be in a good position to make things happen in the realm of global energy responsiblity. Otherwise, more of us just might accede to the Greenpeace view of an unchecked world future.

Way Down the Road
Time to bring out the 3-D glasses and other trappings of your Back to the Future 1950s culture when considering the mysterious sci-fi nature of future energy solutions. In anywhere from decades to centuries, after all of the current energy situation debate is put to rest by the march of time, some pretty cool things could happen in the providing of power. Among them is nuclear fusion, which is a current government research initiative. Undoubtedly, solutions will arise in the future and will become the accepted permanent solution to energy needs, just as coal must have seemed to people like Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan. However, on the road to that inevitability, we must accept current truths and look forward with a sense of practicality and purpose.