Cabinet Shuffle: Kerry and Hagel

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Tony Hymes

The election season now well behind us, a newly inaugurated Barack Obama begins his second and final term as President of the United States. His first term was widely praised for having successfully handled foreign policy thanks to the strong team in place since 2008 including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. With the transition to the second term comes a reshuffling of the cabinet. But like every occasion in modern American politics, the Republicans are putting up a fight, this time attempting to block their comrade Chuck Hagel from being appointed the country’s Secretary of Defense.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY

official secretary of state photo john kerry

Courtesy: Wikipedia

John Kerry was a powerful Senator who achieved national prominence during the failed 2004 presidential campaign against W Bush. In 2009 he rose to be the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He had been a senator for nearly 30 years before assuming the role of Secretary of State on January 29th, 2013. He was a shoe in, and only 3 votes of 97 dissented.

Kerry’s international chops are well known. He received three Purple Hearts during his service in Vietnam, and is well respected on both sides of the aisle. It was no wonder that nearly all senate Republicans supported his nomination, but perhaps not entirely for genuine reasons. Kerry’s national fame and high position meant that the Democrats had an immovable obstacle at the head of the senate. His influence extended far. Now that he has left the legislature, the Democrats are essentially down a man; there are few other Democrats as powerful as he was (and still is, but not on a lawmaking level).

For the country, he is undoubtably a solid pick in his new role. His anti-war stance during the 2004 presidential election — reinforced by his heroics in battle — means that the country will enjoy leadership that knows the consequences of war firsthand. Interestingly enough, he is the first Secretary of State to be a white male since 1997.

CHUCK HAGEL’S APPOINTMENT UNSURE

Courtesy: Wikipedia

Conversely, and somewhat uncharacteristically, Republicans have decided to focus their energy on blocking Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Republicans have already been successful in preventing one of Obama’s early nominees, UN Ambassador Susan Rice for Secretary of State from gaining office. Now the fate of Hagel’s nomination is uncertain at best.

The primary opposition to Hagel’s nomination comes from Hagel’s criticism of the Iraq war and its consequences. By 2005 he had become very outspoken, mocking Dick Cheney and comparing the war there to the war in Vietnam — something he knows a lot about during his combat experience there and two Purple Hearts. He opposed W Bush’s move to send a surge of 20,000 more troops to Iraq, claimed that Guantanamo Bay is ruining America’s image abroad, and all round referred to the W Bush presidency as: “the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus—almost every area.” He has our vote.

But the real reason does not come down much to ideology. There are many in the Republican Party who disagreed with W Bush but still held to his tight approach to national security, including supporting the Patriot Act like Hagel did. But Hagel took it a step further and in a sense broke with the party in 2008 during John McCain’s failed attempt for the presidency. Hagel did not endorse McCain; he did not support McCain’s handling of foreign policy. Now that it is Hagel who must face the Senate voters, guess who “questions” Hagel’s foreign policy chops?

The shame is that Hagel understands the consequences of war just like McCain does, but Hagel never got to the highest levels of the Republican Party where supporting everything that W Bush did was mandatory for party cohesion. Alas Hagel is what the Republican Party needs more of: free thinkers who demand smart defense that parallels the ideals the nation was founded upon.

Obama’s Second Inauguration: A Great Time To Not Be Republican

Posted on January 22, 2013 by Tony Hymes

On a brisk Monday in our nation’s governmental node, a vast crowd of people gathered on the damp mall, waving flags and cheering the second inauguration of President Barack Obama. After an extremely hard-fought, expensive, and divisive campaign, the result was finally made official as President Obama swore the oath of office. Considering his level of success on advancing social causes like healthcare and equal rights, the nation can look forward to four more years of expert stewardship. There has never been a better time to root for the left.

president obama sworn in for second term

Hope is back

While the tone was much more subdued than the fervor that surrounded his first inauguration, Obama did not disappoint. For the first time in history in an inaugural speech, the President mentioned gay rights, and likened their path to that of other civil rights movements. He heavily pushed the cause of collective good. And, most importantly, he affronted the conservatives.

Baffled at their own demise, Republicans have been grasping at anything that even resembles an opportunity to make it seem like they are still doing anything at a national level. Obama’s speech rebuked the conservatives and particularly the puddle of the agitated far right from where the likes of Paul Ryan spawn. John McCain hypocritically whined that Obama didn’t talk enough about working together. However, no one in the nation believed the Senator, because no one heard him.

TO THE LEFT

The noise of the right was drowned out by the hopes of the left. Obama, who stayed too far to the center for the preferences of many a liberal, might buck the trend of past Presidents going into their second terms. History states that a President tends to gravitate towards the center the second time a nation elects him. With the Senate set (today) to vote on changing the rules of the filibuster, Obama might take the opportunity to move to the left instead and push through reforms on gun control and immigration.

If he succeeds at pushing through major legislation on these points (which seems probable considering the attention some in the Republican rank are getting by promoting reform), by the end of his second term and eight years in office he will have reformed healthcare, gun control, and immigration. But perhaps the most exciting part of his inaugural speech was his frank mention of climate change, and what the US must do to counteract it. This was a breath of fresh air (pun intended). It could mark the beginning of a substantial national shift in energy policy towards renewables for which many have been waiting decades.

Whatever your viewpoint, it is clear that despite the contrary claims, hope is alive and well.

Governor Cuomo Advances Gun Control

Posted on January 17, 2013 by Tony Hymes

The national sentiment after the Newtown tragedy is currently being harnessed by the left to push through measures to increase gun control. As we wrote earlier, it is a surprise opportunity for President Obama and the left to modernize the archaic system guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Now Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo has just completed the first step in curbing the effects of gun violence.

Let’s make this country safer

Though the measures are rather small, including better monitoring those with a history of mental illness and reducing the number of bullets carried in a cartridge, it is the first action of what will become a national trend. President Obama has already stated that he favors using executive action to limit the places where guns can go, who can buy them, and to tighten the process of purchasing a firearm. The nation supports him.

Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done under current law. Most courts nationally support the Second Amendment to the letter (except for the “well-regulated” part which we will get to below), meaning that limiting the places where guns can be carried is nearly impossible. Some around the nation even advocate for everyone to bring a gun everywhere, though these people should probably be included on Cuomo’s mental health monitoring list. The hypocrisy is enormous, especially when looking at the Republican National Convention in Tampa last year where speakers and attendees proudly defended the second amendment while being forced to leave their guns outside of a no-weapon zone. The entire country should be a no-weapon zone.

Action from President Obama should come swiftly, and should focus on the acquisition of guns, one of the few areas where the government has any control. Considering that there are already nearly the same amount of guns as people in the US, it’s not hard to get your hands on a gun. But if you’re not trained to use a gun, it should be hard to get one. The Second Amendment clearly states a “well-regulated militia.” While the rest of the Second Amendment gets pointed to in defense every time a psycho wants to re-enact Grand Theft Auto, the well-regulated militia part is purposefully discarded. It is simple: trained soldiers can have guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment does not guarantee the rights of crazy people to kill as many schoolchildren as they can.

Finally, for the first time since the Revolutionary War, we are seeing progress.

One Year From Now: The End of The American War In Afghanistan

Posted on January 14, 2013 by Tony Hymes

President Obama has made one thing abundantly clear throughout his tenure in our nation’s highest office: Afghanistan will be done by 2014. Well, 2014 is now less than one year away, and the President is not shying away from his objective. Social media posts have gone out which announce the President’s goal and carry the message “One year from now we will be out of Afghanistan.” Just check the President’s Facebook page for more inspiring images and quotes.

Turning our backs on them

While that may give the American soldiers, their families, and the rest of our nation a nice fuzzy feeling that after more than a decade of war America will finally be free of major conflict, Afghanistan is little better than it was in 2001 when America invaded. The Taliban never went away fully, and most realistic scenarios involve engaging with the Taliban and bringing them in on a governmental level once America leaves. Which means that America pummeled a “terrorist” group for almost 13 years, spent countless lives and dollars, and in the end, that group still has a say in the government, women are second class citizens, and not even the closest American allies can be trusted.

Are there a few new schools? Sure. Are there areas that are much safer than they were before? Of course. But does Afghanistan have a culture that demands western-style democracy over central asian style tyranny? Do the people of Afghanistan want Karzai or a different warlord? How quickly will Afghanistan revert back to what it has always been: a tribal territory with different factions that has ignited at various points of friction essentially continuously since the Mongolian empire?

What the war failed to do was create enough value and security in Afghanistan for the quality of life to measurably improve. War by definition destroys, and there is no structure in place to rebuild the rumble like Germany after World War II. Afghan businesses are not very international, so they rely on domestic demand, many on a hyper-local level. Because conditions have not improved, business has suffered dramatically, almost to the point of no repair.

ROOM FOR HOPE?

The only bright spot in this sea of black holes is mining. The surface of Afghanistan might be rocky, arid, and not suited for much agriculture, but underneath the barren rocks is a treasure trove of minerals. Some experts have estimated the value of various elements to be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Being able to tap this resource and funnel the profits to governmental programs like social assistance and education would vastly accelerate the pace of change and development. And since the value of minerals and raw metals — particularly for electronics — is only increasing as supply in other countries wanes, a strong mining strategy should pay off heavily in the long term.

Yet historically, mining is one of the most corrupt industries. Extracting minerals is very capital-intensive, dangerous, and slow. In a place like Afghanistan, where opportunity is rarely presented, the chance to siphon off money would be too tempting for some, to the point where western governments (that should in theory bankroll these projects) might withdraw their support. A lack of infrastructure to deliver materials from mines to ports, security threats from rogue soldiers and extortionists, and zero immediate positive social impact are the main reasons why this hasn’t happened already. It’s not going to get better anytime soon, but the alternative to not creating a plan is worse.

In the absence of a strong national conviction to adopt a western-style culture of equality, any progress is going to be difficult to come by. If there was a sustainable solution, it would’ve been found years ago. Now the best that the US can do is throw in the towel and leave some security experts for an indefinite period of time to try and consolidate the central government’s reach by keeping malicious forces at bay, at least for the near term. It sounds horrible, because unfortunately, it is.

The State of the Gun Control Debate

Posted on January 11, 2013 by Tony Hymes

The tragic events at Newtown at the end of 2012 were a horrendous reminder that we, as a civilized nation, have made no single stride towards curbing the rampant violence of having an armed population. No matter the arguments for gun ownership or control, the culture and national environment have never come close to shifting towards a more responsible, modern, and sustainable society. That is, until now.

Will we finally see progress?

When schoolchildren get massacred, tempers flare higher than usual. Not many shed tears when an armed drug dealer is gunned down in the streets (we do). But when helpless and innocent children become the target of a sick shooting spree, the nation naturally looks to find a way of preventing another such tragedy. It’s how we evolved. We adapt to situations to continue the pace of time and ensure our own survival.

The pressure for change is on. Gun control groups are finding unprecedented national support for pressing the government to do something. Obama, who was hoping to wind down Afghanistan and make his mark on immigration reform in his second presidential term, has an unexpected challenge and opportunity. The left has been begging for tougher restrictions on gun access and the places where people can legally carry them. Many on the left viewed Obama’s first term as too centrist and not progressive enough. Nothing was said about gun control during the 2012 election. But now Obama — and particularly Joe Biden — are pushing for at least a symbolic move to stem the free flow of guns through our population.

Change will not come easily. The NRA wants its members to keep selling guns, and its other members to keep buying them. In response to the Newtown tragedy, they famously recommended putting armed guards at every elementary school. Completely ignoring the fact that an assailant could arm himself with assault rifles, snipe the guard from a distance, and then manage to kill as many children as his bullets will allow, the underlying motive was clear: the answer to guns are more guns. Why the nation still pays any attention to the NRA is itself a big discussion point now after so many sensible people realize that the NRA only cares about themselves, even at the expense of the lives of our children.

The marginalization of the NRA has been happening naturally but their insensitivity and clear greed have accelerated it. The people want to be safe, safe from guns, and one does not feel safe when everyone around them has a gun. Life is too tenuous to allow people to carry devices that could effortlessly extinguish it. The current possibilities toward increasing gun control might be merely symbolic, but like the Affordable Care Act, it is a step in the right direction, and must come before the steps after it. If Obama and Biden can leverage the national outrage into action, it might be the beginning of the end for the second amendment’s ridiculous application.

Republicans Bring Down Susan Rice

Posted on December 14, 2012 by Tony Hymes

The onslaught was immediate. After jihadists attacked the American embassy in Benghazi Lybia, the Republicans followed in their tracks and continued the offensive. Presidential candidate-at-the-time Mitt Romney’s criticism came immediately. Since Obama had no major foreign policy gaffes or missteps throughout his first term, the Republicans needed to find something to draw attention to as a fault. At the center of the controversy, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Obama’s top choice as the next Secretary of State.

republicans stop susan rice because of benghazi attack controversy

It’s not right

It was the comments around what happened in the attack in Lybia that lit the fuse. Confusion over whether the attack was a protest gone awry or an organized strike by a terrorist group caused a period of time when information went back and forth. The real problem was completely ignored: the question of the safety of America’s officials who work overseas. The issue that came up was how the State Department talked about a rapidly unfolding event with little outside information.

While it is the duty of officials to present accurate information to the people who elect them, in the world of counter-terrorism information is very hard to come by. When a few individuals act with the complete element of surprise, it is natural that it takes some time to get any sort of bigger picture. Under normal circumstance, the nation would unite against the attackers. Susan Rice is a target only because the controversy managed to stick.

Republicans are desperate for some sort of victory, and Susan Rice just handed them one when she formally withdrew her candidacy for Secretary of State. It is a shame, since Rice is a highly educated and experienced diplomat who spent many years outside of the United States. She is in every way qualified and deserving to go through the application process to be Secretary of State. Instead, Republicans, who dislike the UN anyway, wanted to show that they could still impact national politics. Since nearly every opinion poll shows the Republicans on the wrong side of the table on almost every issue, it was really their only option. It is unfortunate for the nation as a whole, but if predictions come true and Senator John Kerry is tapped, it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

The End Of The Majority

Posted on December 6, 2012 by Tony Hymes

It is predicted that in 2042, the White Non-Hispanic majority will no longer be an actual majority, but rather merely the largest minority. Hispanics will nearly triple their numbers by 2050, meaning that nearly one in three people will be hispanic. Texas, a Republican bastion, could turn blue if Republicans don’t adjust their stance on immigration. Losing Texas would effectively eliminate any chance of a Republican winning the presidency.

Here are some quick projections:

DEMOGRAPHIC DECEMBER The Wrong Wing | Infographic

Demographics December

Posted on December 6, 2012 by Tony Hymes

The Republican party is scattered like seeds in the wind, blowing aimlessly in different directions by contrasting convections. Within the right of the political spectrum are the extreme conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, and some moderates. The cross section changes by the day, and while different elements may contrast with each other, there is one overlying fact that cannot be ignored: demographics.

Shifting demographics have already made an impact on national political campaigns, and white people are no longer an absolute majority. All of the centuries of treating those with different skin colors as lesser individuals has finally caught up to Republicans, and they are getting rebuked at the polls by pretty much every demographic that’s not purely white.

There are many other major causes for the permanent decline in the Republican party and their influence. The waning sway of the church, the liberalization of young people thanks to access to information, the increasing amount of wealth in our nation, and the loss of a key voting bloc: the elderly.

For this politiblog, it is worth exploring all of these points in extended detail, to outline exactly how the forces of progress will always prove too much for all of the energy spent trying to keep things the same.

It is fitting after Obama thumped Romney that we take some time to explore why the Republican party today is crippled, and why they must change their platform to better reflect America. If they dont, they will go the way of the Whigs.

Look for articles this month on The Wrong Wing that focus on why the decline of the Republican party is not temporary, and how the nation’s political future will be determined.

UN Passes Resolution Naming Palestine A State

Posted on November 30, 2012 by Tony Hymes

In the most recent flare up in violence between Israel and Palestine, things looked set for a ground invasion by the Israeli army into Palestine. Luckily, and just in the nick of time, the plan was averted, sparing countless lives and major amounts of damage to Palestinian infrastructure. Then, just yesterday, in a move that has Palestinians celebrating in the streets, the UN overwhelming approved Palestines bid to up their status from observer to a nonmember observer state. It might sound like a technicality, but that word ‘state’ is oh so important.

UN resolution recognizes palestinian state

Some good news in the gloom

The event overall was not a surprise, most countries in the world side with the Palestinian cause. The only nations that opposed it were Israel, America, and the nations that lie well within the American sphere of influence. Surprisingly, western countries like France and Italy also sided with the Palestinians, which may reveal a greater shift in the political approach to the Middle East.

Now, Palestine has greater access to the UN including international courts, and it will use this as bargaining power with Israel. Even in places like America, most people believe the best option for lasting stability is a two state solution. The problem is Israel’s defense. Since many Middle Eastern leaders and people despise Israel for its conception after World War II, returning to the pre-1967 borders probably won’t be satisfactory. In the case, Israel needs distance between them and people that might attack them. This has been the logic since the Six Days War: lock down Palesine to keep a buffer between Israel and other threats.

But you can’t keep an entire population in what is essentially a vast prison because of the threat to your security. The conditions imposed in Palestine by Israel are inhumane, and a solution must be found. The UN’s decision is a major step towards legitimacy, and will hopefully start to change the dynamic between Palestine and Israel, not nearly enough to put them on level-footing (we are decades away from that) but it’s a step up, and a cause to celebrate.

Budget Negotiations Underway in Washington

Posted on November 27, 2012 by Tony Hymes

Negotiations are underway to find a solution to America’s public finance problems. Cuts and tax raises are necessary. Not having to face the nation’s vote again, Barack Obama can afford to lead the charge for tax reform and a return to the tax environment pre W Bush. The pressure is on.

Compromise is the only way forward

With congress basically crippled, Obama needs to act. The loss of moderate politicians who were central to deal making has meant that no bill stands a chance, unless it is something obvious and cross party. The budget is neither. It requires compromise from both sides to even the books. Some of the cuts must be painful, and some of the taxes will have negative effects on the economy. But politicians have to take responsibility and pass a budget.

There is a divide between the two sides on how to approach the balancing. Republicans, ever mindful and beholden to their rich donors, dont want to see tax cuts expire. They also are unwilling to cut from defense. They have proposed closing loopholes as the answer, which would only hurt middle and lower class families who cant afford to pay financial advisors to find loopholes for them. In this strategy, nothing changes for the rich.

The Democrats, for their part, are unwilling to cut from Medicare and social security, two staples of their base. They want to see a return to the tax structure of the 90s, and refocus spending from the defense department.

OPPORTUNITY

There is opportunity here to find a balanced solution that gets us back on track. However, the politicians in congress are playing their own strategy games, and no one wants to have been on the wrong side of a budget deal when re-election comes up. But there are two sides: and in fact they are not down party lines. There is passing a budget, or not passing a budget. Let’s hope they get it done.