Addendum

The media has begun to pay more attention to the upcoming conference than I would have liked. There was an article dileneating Bush's optimism in the New York Times, several op-eds in publications across the country, and significant coverage on the radio. We'll see how this pans out within the next couple days.

Odd Optimism

You may not have heard this, and you probably don't care, but the time for the lame-duck US administration to hold an Israeli-Palestinian peace conference is once again fast approaching. But this time around, I am cautiously optimistic because, so far at least, no one seems to have noticed. The plan this time around is for talks to begin in Maryland this Tuesday. The news media in the United States is paying little attention. The Iowa caucuses are in little over a month. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, several other crises have been distracting the reactionaries on both sides. The saber-rattling going on between Tehran and Washington comes to mind. While the world’s attention is turned towards Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria are quietly contemplating participating in the talks. But most importantly, no one has any expectations of success. The few reports on the talks focus on their likelihood of failure There is absolutely no way that anyone could be disappointed with the outcome, so there is no pressure to stage a dramatic break-off, as happened in 2000. The situation in the region seems so dismal at the moment, that the idea of progress seems laughable. Of course things could change. A slow news day leading up to the conference could tank everything. Personally, I’m hoping for Ahmadinejad to throw another fireball sometime this weekend. At any rate the bottom line is this: keep a cautiously optimistic eye towards Annapolis this week.

You Should Know Who This Guy Is

David Addington is not the sort of fellow to seek out the limelight. From his perspective, this is definitely a good thing. Unlike Bush’s man Rove and Libby, Addington’s predecessor as Cheney’s Chief of Staff, the media has largely let him do his work in peace. Unlike Rove, and his boss Cheney, the media never constructed the evil advisor narrative for Addington. In fact, they never constructed much of anything around Addington. As a consequence, despite the fact that many of his deeds are more egregious then those of anyone else in the administration, and his power greater than that of most cabinet secretaries, he is under no scrutiny form the administration’s opponents.
Who exactly is Addington? A succinct definition is that he is Cheney’s Cheney. He has been close to the VP since his before his days as Secretary of Defense for the first Bush. During the transition period in 2001, Addington helped set up a single executive office, instead of the traditional and separate office of the VP. More specifically, he is a lawyer specializing in intelligence. Back in 2001, he was the brainchild behind Bush’s executive order establishing military commissions dictated at the discretion of not Congress or the courts, but the Secretary of Defense. And as for Presidential signing statements, who else but David Addington? Addington comes from the counterintuitive school of thought that proposes the President’s power has been in decline for the last several decades, and it is time that his authority be restored. And while his legal views may not make much sense, in the twighlight of the Bush years, with much of the administration discredited or impotent, he is a figure to watch for. At least until January 2009, the Bush vision of security at all costs will prevail. Addington has Cheney’s ear, and Cheney is clearly a man who has the President’s ear. While that may not count for much, it still counts for something.

Albert Gore, Kingmaker?

So the Nobel committee has seen fit to select Gore and the IPCC as winners of this year’s peace prize. And the question in minds ‘cross the land is: will he run?
Probably not.
He doesn’t really seem to want it badly enough to go through the hell that is a 2008 Presidential campaign. (Which is probably a good indication of his sanity) But he now has the ability to, if he choses to do so, exert heavy influence on the primary process. Gore’s prestige among democratic primary voters is probably now greater than that of any other individual, save JFK brought back from the grave. An endorsement of Hillary Clinton would probably mean the effective end to the contest. Throwing his weight behind Obama would effectively turn this contest into a two-way race. The question is, would he? Most likely not just yet. No one has quite forgotten his 2004 Dean endorsement. I doubt he wants a replay of that situation. At the same time though, my guess is that what Gore cares most about nowadays is the environment. If he feels that he ought to endorse a candidate for the sake of the planet, then so he shall. He’s a post-politician now. I think Gore was in the belly of the beast for so long that he’s realized that sometimes, just doing what’s right isn’t a bad idea.

The Golden Age of Poverty

I wonder if the pundit class, sometime between now and November 2008, will begin to realize how inequality is the driving force behind all the lesser issues on the shopping list of political concerns. From immigration to healthcare to terrorism, the issues of our time arise from extraordinary disparity.
The conventional wisdom was that globalization would allow for the gap between the rich and poor to dwindle, but precisely the opposite has occurred. For the first time in human history, we are all connected, and yet global inequality is greater than it has ever been. Not even in the darkest periods of serfdom could it be said, as a study last year by the World Institute for Development Economics Research found, that an adult in the global top 1% had, on average, 13,000 times the assets of the average member of the bottom 10%. What elites have never been able to do in thousands of years through conquest, coercion, and slavery was done in a few decades thanks to modern technology and trade policies: today’s inequality would boggle the mind of the most oppressive czars, who lived like kings, but never dreamed of living like gods.
We all know the identity of our deities. Names like Gates, Walton, and Murdoch come to mind. Men so wealthy that luxury is an afterthought. Men who, through their fortune, have the ability to define their universe. But then, who are our dispossessed? They are young people, anonymous, who have lost all hope and all fear. The face of my generation is not YouTube or MySpace, rather it is manifested in the images we see of teenage boys throwing a stone at a tank, or young refugees behind a wire fence. It is the dispossessed, products of modern inequality, who will shape most of the issues of the coming years. Because while the global economy features increased inequality, it also features a lack of protection from the effects of it for those of us who were once removed from the poorest of the earth.
Even among the Democrats, there seems to be a feeling that inequality, in its truly global sense, is not our problem. Maybe that position was tenable several decades ago, but no longer. The resentment of the youth who make up the largest part of the underclass was once manageable, but no longer. It has crept to our own shores. The September 11th attacks amply demonstrated that the young and disaffected (with the help of some wealthy Saudis) can wreak more destruction than most conventional militaries. This new generation, from unemployed residents of France’s impoverished suburbs to the children of undocumented workers in California, finds itself in an unprecedented position: they are both powerless and supremely powerful. As a group, they are the poorest and weakest assortment of persons on earth, and yet for this same reason, the rest of the world fears them.
Granted, the young will always be a volatile crowd of characters. It is in the nature of youths to revolt. Upheaval almost always comes from the young. And as Jefferson would say, a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. But I fear that the inequity of the current system has become so inhumane that any correction would be closer to a global version of la Terreur than the daisy chains of 1968. I guess I’m a Burkean at heart. But how, then, should candidates address the specter of inequality? Global disparity is a devilishly complex phenomenon. Dealing with a challenge like inequality makes other policy issues seem relatively simple. Even measuring its precise extent is a daunting task. It would be easy to say that the issue is just structural – make a few adjustments in trade policy and poverty would vanish. But the causes of disparity are far more fundamental. Inequality exists increasingly within nations as well as between them. Look at the supposed successful growth models of China and India. I know that growth in inequality usually accompany economic growth. But if Louis XVI tried to explain that to the mob outside Versailles, I doubt they appreciated the message. To be honest, I don’t think anyone knows the answer to this conundrum. Economic distribution patterns are pretty far out of control by any one government nowadays. The forces at work are too complicated, and too numerous manage with much success. The problem is, who’s to blame? I fear that in their search for an answer, we’ll just find another scapegoat.

A Break With Tradition

I don't normally post links, but this article from The Nation has a spot-on assesment of the Richardson campaign. Granted, Richardson has made his fair share of mistakes in this campaign, the "homosexuality is a choice" incident at the Logo debate comes to mind. His lack of attention to the foreign aid issue is also regrettable. (But what candidate is talking about global imbalances?) But, by and large, it seems to me that Richardson is articulating an effective message, particularly on the war issue. Of course, whether he, or anyone, could overcome the tremendous obstacles still facing the second-tier is another matter. These coming months are going to be decisive.

An Brief Update on Craig

It now seems possible that Craig may decide to stick on after all. While I cheer his hesitation to resign over a personal matter, I sincerely hope Craig reconsiders some of his stances on gay rights in light of recent events. I don't care whether he officially comes out of the closet. Deep down, he may still be in denial. But that's his decision, and ideally, none of us should really judge him by it. However, after going through so much humiliation, he surely at least must be able to appreciate the discrimination that so many Americans still face. Should Craig manage to stay in the Senate, there will be a thousand voices ready to cry hypocrisy at his actions. With that warning in mind, I wish Mr. Craig the best of luck in his efforts to complete his term.

An Exercise in Futility

I did not watch Bush’s address, because his announcement of a 5700 troop reduction has already been revealed. Bush will have his reduction, Congress will do nothing, and the war will continue on regardless of what the President or his Democratic opponents say tonight. I also know that the US will probably leave Iraq (Kurdistan excepted) within two years, regardless of whoever wins in November, and whatever they are saying now. No candidate will be willing to assume that political liability for very long. Iraq will be weak and dominated by its neighbors, and then another strongman will inevitably emerge. Give the nation a century, their oil will dwindle into insignificance, and Iraq, with some luck, will become more prosperous and democratic. This war is so uncontrollable, so fluid, that no one can change its course. Iraq's anarchy, and the President's stubbornness have combined to produce a situation with a dynamic as alterable as a natural disaster. Iraq will run its bloody course. I only hope that 10 years from now, we have the sense of moral obligation to spend as much on foreign aid to Iraq as we did on their occupation. A paragraph is an insult to a nation we have so wronged, but this war has exhausted the army, the United States, and the world. The time for talk has passed. We will hear a lot of rhetoric in the coming days, but it will only be noise to cover the incredible, insurmountable inertia which has overtaken both parties in Wahsington on this issue.

Rethinking the Farm Bill

This month, the 2002 Farm Bill is set to expire. Very few pieces of legislation Congress considers this year will have a much larger impact on the basic lives of millions of people. Farm bills are all-encompassing pieces of legislation that dictate virtually every aspect of the government’s policy regarding that most basic of commodities: food. Everything from livestock to food stamps to ethanol is covered in the bill. But perhaps one of the most important questions of all regarding the Farm Bill is that of subsidies. The House version of the bill continues the subsidies with basically the same structure. It is my sincere hope that the Senate realizes the need to make radical reforms to our system of farm aid. As it currently stands, our price-supports system only helps big-time US agribusiness while hurting poor farmers in the United States and around the world. By spending billions annually on subsidies, the United States government encourages overproduction. This glut of agricultural products has to go somewhere, and this somewhere is more often than not a country that really would be better without it. The subsidies in other Westernized nations are usually as bad or worse than those in the US, so these products are mostly going to nations in the developing world. These governments can't afford to dole out billions to support their own farmers, and as a consequence local agriculture often can't compete with imports from wealthy nations. Meanwhile, back in the United States, the family farm is not doing so well either. And while there are many factors contributing to the decline of the small farms, price supports play a big role. In a 2006 article, the Washington Post reported that "between 1989 and 2003, the share of federal payments for those farms jumped from 13 percent to 32 percent while the share going to small and medium-size farms -- those with $250,000 or less in sales -- dropped from 63 percent to 43 percent.... the shift in subsidies to wealthier farmers is helping to fuel this consolidation of farmland. The largest farms' share of agricultural production has climbed from 32 percent to 45 percent while the number for small and medium-size farms has tumbled from 42 percent to 27 percent." Subsidies artificially drive up land value, which makes it even harder for small farms to compete with large-scale operations.
So what changes should be made in the Farm Bill? Well, much in the way the Estate Tax only covers assets above a certain value, price supports should be cut off above a certain benchmark of farm revenue. This would allow some system of support to remain in place for small farms while eliminating one of the government's worst corporate subsidies. It is also much more politically palatable way of reform for politicians worried about their careers. Our agricultural system is an overlooked wonder. Food in this country is cheaper and more plentiful than anywhere else in the world. Let's hope the 2007 Farm Bill is beneficial for the farmers of the United States and the world.

The Bush Administration's Second Worst Decision Ever

In one respect, the governments of the United States and Iran are similar. These two very different systems share a peculiar feature. When the government takes an outrageous position, or provokes international furor through some action, there is a good chance that the "official line" is far from the consensus opinion of a sovereign state's government. Take yesterday's news that the State department may place Iran's Revolutionary Guard on the list of terrorist organizations. An Iranian might conclude that America's government is irreconcilably hostile to his nation. In fact, he is just witnessesing a ploy for power by a single ideological stratum within the Bush administration. But how would he know? Americans are similarly unable to identify who is truly responsible for any number of international incedents provoked by Iran. Who ordered the capture of British troops in disputed waters several months ago? Ahmedinejad? Unlikely. The Supreme Leader? Who knows? Perhaps just a more radical sect of Iran's armed forces acting independently. But in this latest incident in the three decade long comedy of errors, we can squarely put the blame mainly on Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney. The two are rightly frustrated with the lack of progress regarding Iran's nuclear program, but they don't seem to understand that they have just made the situation much, much, worse.
The Revolutionary Guard may not be equatable with, say, the Salvation Army, but classifying them as a terrorist organization belies our commitment to take organizations like Al-Qaeda seriously. There are serious complaints about the guards activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Iran is also playing a constructive role in these two nations. Remember, in both nations the US replaced Sunni regimes that were mostly hostile to Iran. The fundamental pillar on which the concept of terrorism rests is that a terrorist is a criminal, not a soldier. He can be arrested, put on trial, and convicted for his crimes in a a court of law. (Of course, the administration doesn't really seem to understand that either) But a soldier is not a criminal. In a just legal system, one that respects internaitonal law, he is not put on trial for the act of taking up arms for his nation. What signal is the administration trying to send by classifying Iran's armed forces as a criminal organization? How can Iranians of any political stripe, regardless of what they think of the Revolutionary Guards, see it as anything but an affront to their sovereignty? If President Bush is prudent, he will disbause anymore notions of this silliness before it gets out of hand, and we once more go to the brink with Iran.

Mayberry Machiavelli: On the Rise and Fall of Karl Rove

Karl Rove is no more. In fact, the idea of Karl Rove has been dead for some time now. There came a time when Rove's hubris and absolute confidence in his own strategies failed to match up with actual results. In 2006, Rove blithely predicted that the GOP would hold on to Congress. If Rove had been right again, his legend would have only grown. But as it was, Rove's confidence now just makes him look clueless. A worthwhile question is whether Rove was ever actually the wizard he has been made out to be. What exactly did Karl Rove accomplish? Looking at Bush's winning Presidential campaign, it seems clear that the answer can only be "not much." Rove delivered two of the narrowest election victories in the history of the United States. His strategy of "polarization" accomplished absolutely nothing for conservatism, and in the long run has only strengthened the hand of the Democratic party. A Bush victory in 2004 was probably better for the Democratic party (though not for the world) than a Bush defeat. After seven years of the "Boy Genius" at work, the Dems are in a much better position than they were when they held the White House. America's political discourse, on issues from health care to the environment to gay rights to defense, has moved substantially to the left in these past seven years. A March poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 50 per cent of Americans identify as Democrats while only 35 per cent say they are Republican. A June NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 per cent of Americans would prefer a Democratic president while only 31 per cent would support a Republican, the largest gap in the 20-year history of the survey. Of course, we shouldn't give Deputy Chief of Staff Rove more credit than he is due. Putting American Conservatism in disarray was a job that could have only been accomplished by a good team effort. So to all of you out there, from the neocons to the theocrats, who showed the USA the wonders of governance form the right, I would just like to send out a heartfelt thank you.

A Return of the Caliphs?

Guest Piece by The Resident Historian
It's been relatively quiet in the Middle East this summer (apart from Iraq, that is). However, the peace is very tenuous and indeed violence could re-erupt at the drop of a hat, just like last summer. I think it crucial, then, to offer this as an idea for the future of that troubled region.

Many academics and religious groups in the Muslim world have called for the restoration of the ancient caliphs (a word that literally means ‘successor’). The practice began with the election of Abu Bakr to succeed Mohammed after his death and continue to spread Islam.

A modern caliph, a supreme religious authority in Islamic society, holds several key solutions to what observers describe as the "pestilences of Islam". Of particular note, such an authority would be able to unify large portions of the Muslim populace. Not necessarily the whole religion, as that would be a far fetch. However, I don't think it impossible to have, say, a Caliph for the Sunnis, who could denounce, and thereby limit support for, Wahabbi extremists or other similar radical factions. A caliph would also create a single source of legitimate evaluation and representation of the religion. This would promote solidarity and prevent internal disputes from further fracturing Muslim society. And while the idea seems to effuse clerical conservatism, it is probably the best way to mollify the more archaic and inhumane practices of shariah law.

It is important to note that the original caliphs’ successions were either deathbed nominations or contentious confrontations (one resulting in the Sunni-Shiite rift), and the following caliphs ruled by appointment or hereditary succession. However, seeing as the modern world requires a more representative administration, it would probably be best if the caliphs were elected popularly, or at least by Majiles of assembled Imams. True, this process would be a bit contentious and undoubtedly spark protest groups to splinter from the mainstream, but that would be to their own disadvantage, and the process would still ensure legitimacy for the general, moderate, popular will of the greater Muslim community.

Another point is that the caliphs of old were political heads as well as religious. However, the modern revival must be clear that today’s caliphs are to have religious authority, but no power in any political form. From Othman to the fall of Baghdad to Mongols, caliphs found nothing but trouble in the political arena. The Umayyad dynasty, a group famed for bringing Byzantine administration to a cohesive Muslim community, saw their entire crumble to less than half of Spain because they dared to rule like “kings instead of caliphs”.
The idea is shaky, but doable if pursued correctly, and the yields could be tremendous along the line of Middle East Peace. Only with legitimate authority can the fringe groups of Muslim society be reigned in and can the open culture that once flourished under caliphate rule reemerge in modern times. A good man for this kind of duty might be King Abdullah II of Jordan – an enlightened, open-minded man who is beloved by Muslims and adored by Western leaders. But the time for this form of action is running out. Who knows how long this peace will last?

Updates

I will most likely be incommunicado until the 26th or so due to traveling. For updates on my travels and other topics, tune in later. This past week I have been in the UK, and politically, it has certainly been an interesting one. On my first day here, (the 27th of June) Blair resigned from Parliament and Brown became the new PM. In the ensuing days, two car bombs were discovered in central London, and, in what seem to be a connected incident, a blazing car was driven into an airport tunnel in Glasgow. Afterwards, another car bomb was found outside the hospital where the driver of the Glasgow vehicle was being held in critical condition. Already the new Prime Minister is talking about an additional expansion of police powers. Now, it may sometimes seem that in the States, the security/freedom balance has tilted a little too far away from the liberty end of things, but Britain is, well, a whole 'nother country. In a given day in central London, I probably make hundreds of appearances on what is called CCTV. In the US, we have a different name for CCTV, surveillance cameras. And yes, we have them, but at nowhere near UK levels. Vehicles are being randomly stopped and searched on the way to Heathrow, an act that would be out of the question (without probable cause) in the US. And Brown may propose allowing terror-suspect detention for 90-days without charge as part of a new series of draconian measures to try and attempt to crack-down. I suppose the Brits do have an excuse. My off the cuff impression at least is that Britain is far more dangerous than the States. We have a nice big country guarded by two huge moats. Getting into this country from overseas is not easy, especially after 9/11. Also, Britain, and Europe in general, seems to have much more trouble with its immigrant relations. We certainly have our fair share of troubles, but in Europe, immigration is this new sort of phenomenon in societies with millenia of history. Naturally, some people are going to have trouble getting along with one another. As Donald Rumsfeld would say, stuff happens. On the other hand, the British do have a much more sensible attitude towards terror. After all, they have much more epxerience with people hating them then we have. After all, the first fanatic who wanted to blow things in this country up was Guy Fawkes, and that was over 400 years ago for God's sake! No one here is going to go bonkers over a couple car-bombs. If the United States ends up playing Bush's imperator fantasy for a few more centures, maybe we can develop a similar attitude. Hey, always look on the bright side!

20 Reasons Why We Like Bill Richardson

1. Bill Richardson is not a Senator. Everyone already knows where this blog stands on the idea of nominating Senators.
2. He's not from the northeast. Face it, it is very difficult for Northeasterners, especially Democrats, to be successful nationally. On top of that, he is from the nation's fastest growing region. Looking at the electoral college, Richardson could open up a lot of contests that would usually be solidly Republican, especially if the GOP ends up nominating Giuliani or Romney.
3. He doesn't have a war vote to explain.
4. He's Hispanic. In 2004, Kerry barely escaped by with the Latino vote. Bill Richardson's support in this key, growing demographic would significantly alter his national averages.
5. He's personable and pragmatic. He's the sort of guy you might have a beer with. Superficial, yes, but important.
6. He has experience in Foreign policy.
7. He actually would get us out of Iraq. Unlike Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, he supports full withdrawal within 6 months.
8. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 4 times.
9. He was our UN Ambassador. Of course, that doesn't mean Bolten would be a good President, but it emphasizes Richardson's worldliness.
10. He negotiated for the release of many American hostages from Iraq, North Korea, and other hostile nations.
11. He knows that fighting terrorism includes fighting nuclear proliferation.
12. He has worked in Congress. .
13. He has experience in the cabinet as Secretary of Energy. Richardson thus has experience in every capacity in the federal government. Except Judicial I guess. Oh well, no one is perfect.
14. He has experience as an executive the Governor's mansion. Really, he is an ideal candidate. He hs both an outsider image and vast experience in foreign and domestic policy. Such a combination should not be overlooked.
15. As Secretary of Energy and Governor of New Mexico, he has made the shift towards requiring more energy to be derived from domestic and green sources.
16. As Governorof a border state, he has had to deal with the complexities of immigration first hand.He can also speak from the unique point of view of a man who spent a substantial portion of his childhood in Mexico.
    
17. He got his state to defeat a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
18. He would close Gitmo.
19. He legalized medical marijuana for those who are terminally ill.
20. He can actually ride a horse. Again, image is key. And Bill Richardson, unlike most of the Democrats that have been nominated in the last 30 years, actually has one that could appeal to most Americans.

We know that this is not the obvious choice, but it is the right one.
-Nkrosse and The Quiet American

The Might of the Popular Front (Guest Editorial)

I have previously noted the lack of guiding ideological principles in the political parties of two-party democracies (i.e. the United States).

However, advanced multiparty systems currently suffer the opposite problem, which is an over-fractured party dynamic. The recent “blue wave” of Europe is not due to sudden public passion for the right wing, but rather the simple fact that the left wing is not unified enough to put up effective resistance. Seizing upon this opportunity, rightist merger parties such as France’s UMP or Canada’s Conservatives. Because of this, we now see either neo-conservative or neo-liberal governments in much of Europe and Canada.

This pattern hearkens back to the days of the 1930s, when most European democracies succumbed to the rightist unity that swept in totalitarian blocs. So perhaps a solution from the 30s may be necessary to abate the current emergence of the right.

France and Spain responded to the totalitarians by setting up Popular Fronts incorporating temporary coalitions of Republicans, Communists, Socialists, and various other left-wing components. These would have probably prevented a right-wing electoral ascendancy from within if the fronts had not been overthrown by foreign intervention.

Leon Blum, France’s PF Prime Minister, noted the important distinction that Popular Fronts were not intended as a permanent governing coalition so much as a temporary resistance movement. And that is what is called upon now. Germany has taken a step in the right direction with the formation of Die Linke (or The Left) to combat the rightward-movement of the SPD.

What strikes me most is the rift between the green and social-democratic parties, which share essentially the same platforms. If these were to merge, economic and ecological issues would be much more easily dealt with.

Perhaps a good starting point for the reintroduction of the Popular Front would be in the depressingly over-fractured systems of African democracies, whose parties are currently centred around small tribes or personalities, and allow for one-party dominance in most cases, if not disastrous coups.
-The Resident Historian

Paris Hilton Syndrome

Yes, I am writing an article about Paris Hilton. I am not proud of this fact. If someone else were writing an article about Hilton, I would attack their intellectual vacuousness and lambast their insistance on beating a dead, rather overexposed horse. But it occurs to me that our national fixiation with this woman and her latest exploits must have some underlying cause. We derive something from our obsession with this poor woman. So I decided to spend some time researching our national punching-bag. In this exercise, some questions crossed my mind. First off, how did Hilton manage to become so mentally... lacking? What excuse does Paris Hilton have for being a high school dropout? How did she become a person so lacking in mental fortitude that a grown woman screams and cries for her mom at the prospect of going back to jail for a short time? (The reason of her departure, by the way, was itchy blankets) How does a species which has produced countless models of brilliance, selflessness, and virtue also produce Hilton? I don't want to attack Hilton, I feel sorry for her if anything. The nature of my question is inquisitive, not accusatory. Hilton represents a broader phenomenon. The superrich, it seems, produce horrendous offspring. This is not a new phenomenon either. The first person that usually comes to mind when I think of Hilton is, in fact, Marie Antoinette. When a child is raised in a condition of absolute opulence, that child has had a form of extreme sensory deprivation. The poor creature has had no incentive to accomplish anything in his or her life. The mind becomes putty. The children of the lower ranks, think Buffet and Gates, seem to be bettewr even at dealing with money. Of course, this is not always the case. Families like the Kennedys and the Roosevelts come to mind. So then, where is the line between JFK and Paris Hilton? I don't really know. To be perfectly honest, the super-wealthy baffle me. From their ranks come a great deal of disasters. Occassionally, though, these families produce figures actually worthy of using the resources they were born with. Only imagine though, what a man like John Kerry could have accomplished if only, alas, his family had been upper-middle-class!

Update

I just found a video contrasting Bush's debating skills in 1994 with those of the present. The video's conclusion that Bush suffers from some sort of degenerative illness is laughable, but the video still provides an interesting study in contrast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVuacSi0kWA

Inside the Bush: A Journey into the Mind of The President

President Bush is not an idiot. President Bush is a smart man, surrounded by brilliant advisers. He has a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, and while he was never at the top of his class he was never at the bottom either. The political class had a laughing fit, when, last August, Press Secretary Snow solemnly announced that President Bush had been reading The Stranger. But should that really surprise us?
Read inside accounts from officials who served under Bush and what comes across (even from the disgruntled ones) is a man with a strong grasp of policy. Nor is President Bush, I believe, a zealot. His conversion to evangelism was, while probably not contrived, not nearly as wholesale as we might believe. This is the man who, after all, joked around after his reelection as Texas governor by giving the camera what he called his “one-fingered victory salute.” He, like most mortals, swears in private conversation. (Most famously when a mike caught him cussing with Blair at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg.) Some have even claimed the man may secretly disdain his fellow evangelicals. David Kuo, a former Bush official in the office of faith-based initiatives, wrote in his recent tell all memoir Tempting Faith that “national Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy.’ The pious, stupid Bush we have grown to know is mostly a construction created by the man himself.
It all began, I think, after President Bush’s unsuccessful 1978 run for Congress. his opponent, Kent Hance, skewered him mercilessly for his fancy degrees and Connecticut pedigree. It was then, I think, that Bush realized that what the American people really value deep down inside is a virtuous cowboy.
But then, who is the real man beneath this persona? Will the real George W. Bush please stand up?
Of course, asking that question begets another question: where is the line separating Bush the man from Bush the icon? With our public figures, the dividing line between personal and political is extraordinarily fuzzy. I doubt very much the man himself realizes much a distinction between the two realms. Unlike superheroes, real celebrities don’t lead a separate life of the alter-ego. In today’s media saturated world, privacy is a meaningless concept for those in the spotlight, and what we get is a persona muddled with a personality until the two are difficult to distinguish.
Still though, trying to unravel Bush is a worthwhile effort. There must have been some point in the man’s life where he decided finally to embark upon a public life. My guess is that it was some point after he realized that business was really not his forte. Perhaps it was during the oil bust of the 80’s. Maybe it was after his less-than-stellar management of the Texas Rangers. The point is that during this key decade, while he languished in obscurity, he saw the success that his father and siblings were having in the political arena.
The effect of Bush Sr. on his son has been often discussed, but this is because it was so tremendous. Imagine George W. trying to eke out an existence in the shadow of the President of the United States. It must have been abysmal. Keep in mind that by the first Bush’s Presidency, George W. was already nearing middle age. And what did he have to show for it? A string of failed businesses. So one factor motivating our friend George W. is probably his father.
However, I do not see George’s subsequent political career as an attempt to mimic his father. If anything, Bush’s career has been a continuation of his entire life: he is the “black sheep” of the family, the rebel. Bush Sr. rose to power banking on pragmatism and expert authority in the bureaucracy, using the CIA as a stepping stone to the vice-Presidency. Bush the Younger has taken an entirely different tack, (after all, he tried his father’s way back in 1978) relying on anti-elitism and personal charm to gain political office. I strongly doubt Bush Sr. would ever have proclaimed a “Jesus Day” in the state of Texas. Or even attempted to run for office in Texas, for that matter.
In the same vein Bush’s ideological rigidity may come less from personal conviction, and more from a desire to be perceived as different from his father. Bush Sr. was a consensus-builder, whereas Junior is a bridge-burner. Bush Sr. was cautious in foreign policy, invading Iraq but then sending the divisions back to Kuwait after the Republican Guard was sufficiently decimated. His son is extraordinarily reckless, invading Afghanistan with essentially nothing but a few special ops teams with air support, hoping (correctly) that the Northern Alliance would use the moment to topple the regime in Kabul. He invaded Iraq with a force far smaller than the one used for a much more limited task in 1991. This risk did not turn out as fortuitously.
Pundits have often tried to determine what President Bush’s ideology is phrases like Compassionate Conservatism have been thrown around. Consider the evidence from his administration. President Bush believes in low-taxes, yet high government spending. He advocates freedom and democracy, but his opponents point to Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, suspension of Habeas Corpus, warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, and executive signing statements. These are not the acts of an ideologue. They are the acts of one who has no ideology beyond the exercise of power. Bush lowered taxes and increased spending not because of some nonsensical “big government conservatism” but because that is exactly what any politician would do to increase his popularity if he had no regard for long-term consequences. President Bush is a fair-weather friend of freedom because that is exactly what suits him: freedom is good when it serves his purposes but useless when it serves his enemies.
If I had to summarize Bush, I would say that he is a Machiavellian without ends. That is, he does what it takes but what “it” is that he is trying to achieve isn’t entirely clear. Well that is not precisely true. Bush wanted to be great. He wanted to be better than his father. But his problem was that he never filled his role with meaning. What I have compiled here is less a description of what Bush is than what he is not. He is not an idiot, not an ideologue, not a zealot, not a visionary. Americans would be advised to listen to President Bush speak. Ignore his twang, ignore his clumsy handling of the English language. Ignore these things and what becomes apparent is the void, the lack of meaning he conveys with these words somebody else wrote for him. Notice how his expressions never seem to perfectly fit the words coming out of his mouth. Then, try and figure out who is the man behind those expressionless eyes. At that point, it should become apparent why this self-styled moarlistic Texan identified with The Stranger and the absurdist views of it main character.

On Second Thought...

Perhpas I was wrong about this being the perfect moment for Gore. There has been some talk of a Nobel Peace Prize for gore this fall, and such a win would, in fact, be the ideal time for him to announce his candidacy.

A Brief Note

I have been trying not to think about the 2008 election in the "horserace" fashion that is so increasingly common. I've elaborated before on my concerns about the early nature of the contest. The announcement several days ago that Barack Obama is to go under Secret Service protection only increased my concerns. But I cannot help making at least one observation form the stands: Al Gore has a new book coming out this month. It's a little below the radar right now, but my guess is once we start getting closer to the release date of The Assault on Reason the media is not going to be able to help bringing up the buzz around Gore again. Expect to start seeing a lot more publicity around a potential Gore candidacy coming soon. If Gore is planning a run, there's a good chance we may find out in the next month or so. The release of the new book will present a window of opportunity Gore, if he is still interested, (which I am uncertain of) would be foolish to miss, especially considering the pace at which the contest is already accelerating.

The Global Economy v. American Education

The Global Economy, we have been repeatedly told, is upon us. The world is flat, quoth the columnists, and their words soon became holy writ to the disciples of the Church of the Global Market. This newfound geographic conundrum has on occasion, surprise surprise, sent members of the Punditocracy into fits of bloviation on the need of our nation's schools to place a new focus on math and science. This is nothing new. Ever since the launch of Sputnik, that Americans are "falling behind" in math and science has been a common refrain in our nation's political discourse. The United States is always thought to be losing out to its rivals. First the USSR, then Japan, and now China and India. I suspect that once again, we are fixated on a paper tiger. But al the same, it is necessary to address the concerns of the latest round of nervous nellies, because it seems possible that they might actually do some serious damage to our nations education system, and yes, perhaps even our "competitiveness," an elusive term which very few politicos seem to actually grasp the meaning or significance of.
First of all, what are the supposed "threats" we are competing against? Well, the particular concern around this latest round of globalization seems to be that India and China are starting to usurp the jobs not only of easily ignored factory workers far away from where the op-ed rangers of the free trade frontier, but workers in sectors far - how shall I say this? - Closer to home. Yes, India and China have software engineers, and they can work for less money than their United States counterparts.
This begs the question, shouldn't we be pleased if relatively impoverished nations can gain a technological leg up like this? For the sake of argument, assume that this "IT gap" is actually an issue. For the sake of American competitiveness then, what should be done about it?
Well, there are certainly measures that should not be taken. One idea that should never have seen the light of day is that somehow, if we just make our educational standards as rigorous as those of the Asian Tigers, our workers will once-again out compete those of the rest of the world. Well, if I might take a controversial stand: education is overrated, at least the type found in most curriculums. For a society as a whole certainly, education for highly skilled professions is advisable and indeed necessary. But it should also be considered that education only goes so far. Perhaps ten years ago when outsourcing mainly affected more traditional "blue collar" jobs, it could be argued that a degree was the key to success in the modern world. But if the global economy is really the ruthless yet dynamic force that so many claim it to be, then the qualities most valuable in this brave new world are something quite different indeed. Creativity and something of an individualistic streak shall be far more important than any paper diploma in this novo ordo. In this sense, the finest specimens of American public education may produce the students least prepared for the workplace. American high schools are training their students for stability, where the most important attributes include an ability to take standardized exams in a world that will be anything but standard or stable. If we are to truly practice what we preach, it shall require a realization that success in the academy does not translate into success outside. The most successful innovators of the capitalist system have never come out of the ranks of the well behaved, the studious. And in today's world, this is true more than ever.

It's On

Barely had the new Congress gotten down to business when the exploratory committees began popping up to announce the pseudo-candidacies of many of the individuals who everyone expected to run since 2004. But the process has become so front-loaded that some have questioned whether anyone but an already established candidate can upset the field. Whatever one's feelings about the disproportionately influential Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary may be, it is important to acknowledge they did do one important thing: maintain the basic dynamic of the nominating process as it has been since the beginnings of the Jacksonian era. Sometimes a nationally established figure captured the nomination, but often "dark horse" candidates would emerge to steal the candidacy from its heir apparent. But this unpredictability, first created by the convention system, then by early primaries in small states, may be coming to an end. What would it mean if this election actually went exactly as the pundits predict it will? The virtues of the American system is that it gives unknown candidates who may in fact be far more capable of governing than the front-runners a window to overcome their disadvantage in fundraising and publicity. The campaign is very much a trial-by-fire, and rightfully so. Paradoxically, by taking the fate of the free world out of the hands of a few partisans in two small rural states, the Union may be worse-off for it. Sure, it may be undemocratic, but under the circumstances, I think we may soon view the days when men and women with global stature had to trek trough the cornfields and brave the icy winters of New Hampshire with nostalgia.