The GOP 'civil war'

As evidenced by the heated Karl Rove debate, the GOP is struggling with continuing internal discord. Conversely, the Democrats possess a relatively stable party unity.
 
From my perspective, there are two main reasons for this dichotomy.

First- social policy. Where Democrats have a pretty consistent foundation of alignment on social concerns (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice etc), Republicans are riven by division. Some believe that life begins at conception and must be protected with absolutist government action. Others are pro-choice. Some support gay rights, others stand in unrepentant opposition. Others are somewhere in between. But, because of the deep importance of these issues, concerning as they do, notions of freedom, equality, tradition, history, religion and life itself, Republican disagreements here are often profoundly emotion. As a result, conflicts over social issues are able to burrow into passionately held and often personal disputes over other political concerns. In essence, if you believe that your fellow Republican endorses rape or on the flip side, endorses murder, finding common ground on any issue is difficult. For my views on social policy, see this Week piece. 

The second reason? Contrasting understandings over the role of government. Here, while Democrats believe in the active growth of government power and the notion of government as a mechanism for good, Republicans are less sure. Some GOPers support government power in certain fields, for example on defense. Others, Rand Paul for example, believe in a government that is not only smaller, but also less active (both at home and abroad). Again, because of the importance of these considerations; foreign policy, taxation and spending etc, these disputes hold a viscerally ideological quality. A quality that spills into a deeper distrust of the opposing voice.
 

When it comes to social policy and government power, a stable party comfort or at the very least, reciprocity of respect, is crucial for a party's unity and external appeal. Presently absent of that unity, the GOP is struggling to break free from a political sectarianism that regards disagreement as treasonous stupidity. And without a coherent internal polity, Republicans are naturally unable to persuade external independent voters what we stand for. And why they should vote for us. Personally, I believe that we must stand for freedom.

The realist in idealist clothing - The confused foreign policy of President Obama

 The next Presidential debate will cover foreign policy. In advance of the debate I wanted to outline some of my thoughts about Obama's foreign policy.

Taking his recent UN speech at face value, you would think that the President's foreign policy pursues the advance of global freedom as its central raison d'etre. This is not born out in reality. Ultimately, for this President, the idealist 'freedom agenda' takes a back seat to a more traditional realist approach to international affairs. My concern is that this approach lacks a broad narrative of clarity and sacrifices long term interests in pursuit of vague, short term objectives.

After only a few months in office, President Obama faced an Iranian protest movement angered by endemic electoral fraud. While protesters demanding freedom were brutally suppressed by ideological extremists, Obama remained quiet. In the President's words, he did not want to be seen as 'meddling'. For Obama, the pursuit of an improbable detente with Iran's leaders was more important than the protection of basic individual freedom. It was evident that freedom had suffered a serious relegation in American foreign policy.

Another example of the declining importance of freedom was seen in the President's early policy towards Egypt. Just prior to the aforementioned protests in Iran, Obama addressed university students in Cairo to offer his support for eventual Egyptian democracy. Taken alone, Obama's words suggested a bold idealist narrative in his foreign policy. In fact, the reality was far different. The same year as his Cairo speech, Obama cut Egyptian democracy aid from the US by 60% and Civil Society/NGO support aid by 80%. For the President, words provided a cheap alternative to substantive assistance. Indeed, when Egyptians later revolted against the Mubarak government, Obama only shifted support to their revolution when it became apparent that Mubarak was doomed. For the President, Egyptian democracy was preferable only so far as it was cheap, easy and uncomplicated. As the recent embassy protests illustrated, Egyptian democracy has been far from uncomplicated. With words as well as action, Obama should have supported Egyptian freedom from the start.

The confusion in Obama's foreign policy has been most pronounced in his administration's variant responses to the revolutions in Libya and Syria. Where (under European pressure) Obama reluctantly signed on to the overthrow of Gaddafi's relatively weak regime, in Syria, US policy has been very different. Faced with Assad's military power and his alliance with Hezbollah and Iran, Obama has been reluctant to provide either direct or indirect military aid to the Syrian rebel movement. Obama's short term realist hesitancy has restrained American policy. The President could and should be taking greater steps to help Syrians win their freedom.

The President's realist sympathies are also evident in his conduct of grand power politics. Where a major element of President GW Bush's Russia policy was focused on support for eastern European democracy, Obama has instead favored a 'reset' designed to balance US-Russia relations into greater stability. Although this effort seems to have produced little tangible success, Obama has recently suggested that he would make even greater compromises to Putin if he wins re-election in November.

What about counter-terrorism policy under Obama?

In 2008, the President campaigned on a platform to close Guantanamo and reform the CIA's interrogation program. However, today's reality bears little resemblance to those now distant words. Under Obama, predator drone strikes against suspected terrorists are being authorized at unprecedented levels. Guantanamo remains open and military commissions have been re-authorized. Rendition remains part of the CIA tool kit. While I personally agree with the President's decisions in these areas, I also believe that they indicate the distance between 'Obama the liberal idealist' and 'Obama the realist'.

Considering Afghanistan, while during the 2008 campaign Obama called Afghanistan 'the right war'  that he would win, the President has now decided that Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting. Although recent gains towards greater local security and local political sovereignty have been achieved, Obama has decided that Afghan freedom must be subjugated to domestic political expediency. The 'right war' worthy of continued sacrifice is now simply the war that will 'end on schedule'.

    Since January 2009, the President's idealist narrative has acted as a cloak for a traditional, short term realist rooted foreign policy. For me this is problematic. In a world where competing forces are struggling for freedom and justice, American foreign policy needs a sustaining clarity. Without such a clarity, America's enemies are emboldened and our allies (both real and potential) are alienated and discouraged. American foreign policy should never just be about navigating difficult storms abroad. Instead, it should be about bold ideas and confident resolve.

Obama tax announcement

Obama is about to start another pointless fight today. He will call for a one year renewal of the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or less. He is doing so for political reasons - IE - To pursue his campaign narrative that Romney is the candidate for the rich and that conversely, Obama is the honest servant of middle-low income Americans (Obama isn't). There is one central problem with the President's plan. In calling for a $250,000 cap, Obama is again illustrating the absurdity of his debt reduction platform. The longer America's debt crisis remains unresolved, the more likely it is that the markets will force a solution. In this event, low and middle income americans would bear the brunt of the negative fall out (higher income americans would be able to shelter their assets more effectively). By claiming that his tax plan balances debt reduction with economic necessity, Obama is behaving disingenuously. His plan offers no chance of substantive debt reduction. As such, if enacted, today's announcement would simply add a further tax burden in the context of an already confused tax system that is helping maintain a stagnant, rudderless economy.

I still believe the Ryan plan (which Romney has endorsed) offers a far better (and far more honest) approach to address our economic needs.

Spring Breakers on Politics

This video goes some way to explaining what is wrong with America at the moment. We are intellectually lazy and we think that it's cool. We should praise intellectual success alongside praising sports stars. The world doesn't begin and end with gas prices and boob jobs. Put simply, we need a kick in the ass.