A Republican Era? (Part One)

It has now become almost cliche to say that the United States has entered a republican majority political phase. In the past, political scientists have identified 3 or 4 decades of party supremacy followed by a realigning election. A classic example of a realigning election is 1932, the year in which Democrats swept every single (political) branch of federal and state government. Traditionally a realigning election has displayed very clear across-the board change from the local dog catcher to the White House. Before I stated three or four decades, but some claim a more exact figure: 36 years, which seems an impossibly accurate. But the logic is compelling:
1786-1824: Nation's founding to birth of Jacksonian Democracy
1860: The Republicans come to power only four years after their birth as a party, ending Democratic dominance.
1896: McKinley defeats Brian, in an election that changed not the party in power, but the ideological emphasis of both parties.
1932: Rise of the New Deal Democrats
This list is not without controversy. Some consider 1800, for just one example, to be a realigning election. It is important to consider whether realignment is even a legitimate concept at all. These dates may just be artificial benchmarks to give some shape to history. But any disagreements over those debates pale in comparison to the controversy over modern elections. Following the bizarre 36 year pattern, the next realignment date would seem to be 1968, followed by 2004. Indeed, many have suggested that 1968 was such an election. But the supposed Republican backlash that year did not manage to gain control over any part of government besides the Presidency. A good measure of a party's relative power is the five part measurement, looking at not only the Presidency and the two houses of Congress, but the governorships and control of state legislatures. 1980 and 1994 have both been suggested as other possible realigning years, but it was not untill 2002 (excluding a small time in 2001) that the Republicans actually had a majority or control in all five of the bodies of power previously mentioned. When looking through the long view, Republican claims seem less plausuble. The question remains though, what has happened in the last three decades?
-To Be Continued-

The Thoughts of a Soldier

An American soldier wrote this while stationed at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. I can not claim to speak for either him or the United States military. I realize that no one individual, be it Donald Rumsfeld or a soldier on the ground can speak for the United States as one voice. I encourage you to consider his reflections.

1) This is not Vietnam. Here, we don't call 'em "gooks" but haji.
2) U.S. Army and Communism
-you wait in line for everything
-they listen to your phone calls
-you're not rewarded based on merit
-it's a hierarchy; it's about who you know
-you're a number
-the system screws you
-you are not trusted, they are not trusted
-freedom of speech is censored.
Zogby has just released a poll of United States military personnel in Iraq. The poll shows that only 23% felt that they should stay "as long as they are needed." Perhaps support for the war is not as uniform in our military as the pundit class would have us believe.

Where Neo-Conservatism Errs

In recent years the idea of conditional sovereignty has come to play a significant role in the foreign affairs of the United States. Roughly put, the State is not legitimate if it does not meet one or more of the following criteria:
-The State does not follow the rules which govern international bodies
-The State poses a threat to other nations
-The State violates the fundamental rights of its people
These actions, in the view of some, constitute a violation of the conditions surrounding sovereignty akin to a violation of the Social Contract. Case in point: the invasion of Iraq. Long after the "imminent threat" rationale for the war has been debunked, its supporters still continue to justify it upon humanitarian grounds. And whether or not they admit it, this argument troubles most American liberals. They recall Mogadishu and Belgrade, and wonder if perhaps their aversion to the imperial venture in Iraq might be nonexistent had another man been President. This of course leads to the vexing moral question: Why shouldn't it be acceptable to intervene in other nations to support the principles which Liberalism so avidly defends at home? Those who oppose Bush's neo-welcoming foreign policy have no trouble attacking its failures, but what should be proposed instead?
The non-partisan organization Freedom House recently released an interesting report entitled How Freedom is Won which reaches some interesting conclusions. To encapsulate, the report explains how grassroots, non-violent civil disobedience is the best method for replacing a tyrannical regime with a free one. A regime change that uses violence, unsurprisingly, "is significantly less likely to produce sustainable freedom."
Does this suggest that the best course for the United States in promoting Democracy is to in effect completely remove itself from world affairs? By no means. Instead, it means looking to avenues other than the US military to help spread human rights. The State Department and NGOs can do much more to help human rights around the world. And on an individual level, there is much citizens of the free world can do. Think of the worldwide effort to end apartheid in South Africa. Our government could do tremendous good by ending the double standard which props up states like Egypt and Pakistan while preaching of the virtues of Liberty. And most of all, remember that the most powerful leverage the United States has is still its economy.
So, my message to President Bush is this: soft power isn't only for sissies. The dollar can speak much louder than even a supersonic fighter jet. And you're a lot less likely to get someone hurt.

Please Don't Do This

Well, the polls are clear. It seems almost certain that the Democrats are going to nominate another surefire loser in 2008. One thing pundits, voters, or even candidates themselves never seem to get is this: A Senate seat is a terrible springboard to the Presidency. There are numerous theories for why this is so, (nature of parliamentary leadership, voting records, etc) the the fact of the matter remains. Just look at the evidence.
US Senators who have obtained a popular vote victory in the race to the White House:

Warren G. Harding

Those who have tried: (Only in the general election, and who were Senators at the time!)

DeWitt Clinton
Rufus King
Henry Clay
Daniel Webster
Hugh Lawson White
Henry Clay (again)
Lewis Cass
John Bell
Stephen A. Douglas
Rutherford Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
Warren G. Harding
Robert LaFolette
John F. Kennedy
Barry Goldwater
George McGovern
Eugene McCarthy
Walter Mondale
Robert Dole
John Kerry

And who are the top four contenders for the Democratic Nomination?
By averaging together polling data, Wikipedia has come up with this list:
-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
-Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
-Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
-Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
It is not that none of these Senators can win, it is that it would be difficult for any of them to win. There are exceptions. John McCain (if he could win the primaries) is supposedly untouchable, and Barak Obama (in a few years time) would make a great candidate. But by and large, the Senate is the stepping stone into obscurity. Democrats hoping to take back the White House might be better advised to look to Eliot Spitzer in a few years. Albany has been a proven training ground for excellent candidates. (It gave us four Presidents, including both Roosevelts)

Mediocratic Media Morons

Once again, the West has shown its miraculous unfailing ability to misunderstand the Muslim world. This time the issue at hand is the supposed "clash of civilizations." In its latest reincarnation, the "clash of civilizations" is over a series of cartoons that would be unremarkable were it not for their tasteless depictions of the prophet Mohammed. With no context provided, it would seem to the casual Western observer that the entire Muslim world has erupted into irrational fury over a series of images that would be unremarkable had their subject been Christ, and their location the Museum of Modern Art. Let me be quite clear:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT A SERIES OF DRAWINGS
Yes, these drawings were a proximate cause, but they were really just a small match which ignited a powder keg of abuses and frustrations built on top of one another. Had the Muslim world been reacting solely to an intellectual exercise in free speech in an obscure Danish publication, these protests would have ocurred months ago back when the cartoons were published. Most residents of the Middle East live under some of the most venal, tyrannical, and incompetent regimes on the planet. Daily life for Muslims world over is an exercise in frustration, sheer frustration as tangible as hunger or thirst. By all rights the oil-rich Middle East should be the wealthiest place on the planet, but instead it is one of the most wretched.
Under the circumstances, claiming that these are caused by cartoons is absurd, equivalent to saying that people leave a burning theater because they were offended by the play.

I Really Shouldn't...

I really shouldn't do this, but I can't help myself.
Ahem,
"President Bush did not learn for several hours that Vice President Dick Cheney was the shooter in a hunting accident in South Texas on Saturday afternoon that left a prominent Austin lawyer and Republican campaign supporter wounded by shotgun pellets in the neck, shoulder and chest, the White House said today."
NY Times, 2-13-06
I'm sorry, but did he mistake 78-year old Harry Whittington for a small bird? The article goes on:
"Mr. McClellan was questioned intensely by the White House press corps today about why the White House never released the information itself and why it was left to a private citizen to report to the world that the vice president of the United States had been involved in a shooting. They also seemed frustrated that Mr. McClellan could not tell them exactly when Mr. Bush learned that the vice president himself had shot Mr. Whittington."
I can just picture the way this will play out.
NY Times: February 16th, 2006
"Democrats on the hill today sharply attacked the administration for alleged failures regarding the Whittington affair. 'Cheney is a complete idiot.' Said Minority Leader Harry Reid. Mr. Reid continued 'he's also bald and ugly.' Karl Rove, in a speech to a group of Republican pollsters, responded that democrats are 'really big losers. They think they're cool, but their clothing is old, and nothing they say is funny. Their donkey mascot is also really lame' Howard Dean later called Mr. Rove 'a douchebag,' and said that the Republican elephant obviously 'is morbidly obese'"
NY Times: February 28th, 2006
"The Senate has begun closed door hearings over whether or not the Republican Elephant is or is not morbidly obese. John McCain (R-AZ) has joined Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) in a bipartisan call for candor on the part of the president on this all important issue. 'Is he or is he not obese Mr. President?' Thundered John Kerry during a speech yesterday... "

Again, I apologize, but this really was such an easy target.

Premier Posting

This blog is, for anyone interested in knowing, primarily political. As an American Liberal I espouse the philosophy of the United States Democratic party. At the same time, however, I hope to bring a unique perspective to the political discourse. Chances are that at least 50% of my opinions are wrong anyway, so I can afford to express unorthodox viewpoints. The name of this blog refers not to any lack of boldness or excess of reasonable thought on my part, but to the fact that a political journal with virtually no readership is a lonely voice in the wilderness indeed.
Wish me luck.