A New Feature

With this posting I inaugurate a new feature to the blog: The Occasional Review of Books. As the name suggests, I will write about a significant political book from time to time, but by no means on any sort of schedule, and only occasionally. Today, the work in question is Niall Ferguson's Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire.
If anything is to be said of Ferguson it is that he has a remarkable candor. The man is a unabashed proponent of a liberal empire, and he believes the United States is the only world nation currently able to fill this role. Ferguson seems to have a degree of nostalgia for the bygone days of his nation's empire. In chapters of the book he argues something that for the past few decades has been unthinkable in mainstream thought, that former colonies of the third world would be better off if they were still colonial possessions. Other comments of Ferguson are equally taboo. He essentially advocates for gutting the welfare state to bankroll American neo-Colonialism, but unlike fellow supporters of a militant Pax Americana, Niall Ferguson says what he means and means what he says. A passage that really came as a shocker to my sensibilities was this:
"There is undoubtedly something perplexing about the apparent lack of American combat-effective troops... [I]f one adds together the illegal immigrants, the jobless and the convicts, there is surely ample raw material for a larger American army... Reviving the draft would not be necessarily unpopular, so long as it was properly targeted." (292)
Even Dr. Ferguson realizes in the end however that the United States is unlikely to live up to his image of a great and terrible new imperium. The part where the reader is supposed to be alarmed, the "fall" in the books title, is when Ferguson informs us that Americans simply lack the correct character to invade and subjugate foreign nations. And I am relieved to say that I agree with Niall Ferguson. I for one would much rather see the United States as a sort of benign Santa Claus figure than Darth Vader with an American flag lapel.

Europe's Last Dictatorship

As expected, the recent elections in Belarus were a sham, returning the incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko to office with over 80% of the vote. The problem in Belarus is that it is virtually impossible for the opposition candidates to have an effective campaign at all. The state-owned media gives virtually no coverage to the opposition, and the opposition has been essentially prohibited from campaigning. It is expected that international observers will soon call the election unfair. The international community can not stand by and let this Orwellian shadow of democracy suffice once again for the people of Belarus. It is important that the United States considers punitive action against the government of this nation. Soon we will find out if President Bush truly supports freedom for all peoples everywhere, or if, as the case of Pakistan and other "allies" suggests to many, the United States only supports liberty when it is convenient, not when it is right.

Part Three: One Thousand Little Battles

What I am talking about is actually quite simple, when it boils down to it. Controlling a branch of government can be all well and good, but when we talk about control, who do we mean? The Democratic party? The usual answer is yes, but it is not because we like the neat mascot. No, it is because the party represents liberalism, at least for the time being. This may not always be the case, nor has it been in the past. The Democratic Party is a political instrument, no more, as is the entire system of government by professionals the liberals of the past set up. No, in the future, it is prudent to often bypass the federal government entirely. This is why I urge democrats not to put much faith in 2008. Firstly, because it seems unlikely that any individual from the left side of the isle can capture it. Secondly, when it comes down to it, they wouldn't be able to do a heck of a lot anyway. I can think of only two men who have that special personal power which distinguishes the Great from the mediocre. Men who, in this era of stalemate, could actually be somewhat effective presidents. Neither are Democrats. Great people do come along, but I certainly don't think Hillary Clinton is one of them. At the Federal level, Democrats should mainly act as a stopgap, aligning with more States Rights and Libertarian Republicans to prevent right-wing reactionaries from imposing Federal will on the States and on individuals, whether this entails stopping odious court appointments or repulsive Constitutional amendments. Progress should be made in a thousand little battles, not one large one. It is time for Democrats at the State and local level to take control of their own destinies, whether it be through the State Capitol or the local union.
And as for 2008? Working under the presumption that the Democrats are bound to lose,* 2008 should be a time to go out with a bang, advocating for issues. My own suggestion would be to nominate Russell Feingold, a surefire loser, but a great man, unlike most of the other scumbags in the Senate.

*There is the possibility that they might win. If the Republicans nominate Bill Frist, Jeb Bush, or Newt Gingrich (manna from heaven all three) my pencil sharpener could win.

Part Two: The Quagmire of Freedom

Further indication that Republican gains are transitory and rather small are evident. 1936, the year of Roosevelt landslide re-election, saw a Senate elected with 75 Democrats. By contrast, when Bush eked out a second term by the smallest margin in history, the balance of power after 2004 was shifted from 52 Republicans to a mere 55. To give some context to the events of 2004, consider the history of the past decade. Republicans saw their power continually decimated until 2000, a year which showed almost perfect division within the electorate. The advent of global war allowed the Republican party to gain a small line of support. Now, looking at 2006, it seems as if Republicans small gains may be eroded once again. Party identification has been shifting towards the GOP over the decades, but the Democrats still have a six point lead over Republicans. While the Democrats are unlikely to take Congress, a highly plausible net change of 4 governorships would put a majority of those into Democratic hands. I think it is fair to ask a quite simple question:

What is going on here?

Two adjacent Presidential elections being this close, control of Congress being so narrow for such a sustained period. These are phenomena most pundits have dismissed as mere anomalies.
But what if they're not? Here is a hypothetical: what if Democrats do well in 2006 and congress is back where it was two years ago? What if in 2008 the electoral map is virtually identical to that of 2000 and 2004?
The years after the end of the New Deal Democrat era have seen no major changes in the nature of government. Any bold new initiative has been shot down. Think Clinton's (or Nixon's or the US Congress's in the 70's) health care plan, think Bush's social security scheme. Even Ronald Reagan, probably the most effective President since Johnson, was able to do little more domestically than cut taxes and temporarily reduce domestic spending by a small amount. The last three decades have seen only one Amendment to the US Constitution. (A fairly technical and ineffectual one at that)*
Here is a crazy thought: Americans have become too good at politics. We have done the unprecedented in this nation, turned the exercise of Democracy into a multi-billion dollar industry. Perhaps no single politician or political party can gain enough traction for any long enough period of time to make a sustained impact on society.
What this means is that we are, in fact, fighting a costly yet bloodless trench war in this nation, a quagmire of freedom. In the coming years, should no one party gain control over the goverment, something will have to give.
Yet both parties are preoccupied with fighting the next battle instead of winning the war. We have become stuck in the biennial mindset. I have heard much musing over the coming elections in 2006 and 2008. But what about 2010? What about 2014 or 2018 for that matter? It will take long term thinking to escape from the quagmire of freedom. So, what exactly does this entail? I shall give some examples in my next posting.
*Granted, the purposes of the 27th (preventing Congress from raising its pay between elections)are noble, but in practice the Amendment is often circumvented through "cost of living adjustments."