Americans should spend more on our veterans

Americans should spend more on our veterans. My latest piece for The Week.

The Democratic Party's Constitutional Ambivalence

The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. July 28, 1795.

From the standpoint of his above quote, George Washington would not be happy with today’s Democratic Party. It’s hardly difficult to understand why. Following his revolutionary victory, in order to establish an American government checked by balanced of power, Washington turned down the opportunity for absolute personal power. Washington understood that in order for American democracy to survive the ages, the various mechanisms of our government would have to operate in respectful equilibrium. In response, the founding fathers gave us the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party has become the standard bearer of Constitutional absurdity.

First, let's look at the Judicial component.

Taking Democrats at their word, you’d believe that their judicial philosophy has an overarching, unifying objective- the pursuit of core public interests and the protection of individual freedom. But this isn’t the case. Instead, for many Democrats, Constitutional interpretation has become a fundamentally subjective venture. Just check the record.

This Supreme Court session, considering two relevant cases, the Justices will decide on a major Democratic priority- 1) whether gay couples have a Constitutional right to marriage and/or 2) whether they have a right to the same benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. Generally, Democrats believe that the government has no right to grant or deny rights on the basis of moral judgments concerning intimate, adult relationships. Recognizing the Constitutional right to equal protection under law, I support this understanding (at least as it relates to the second case).  However, Democrats are far from consistent when offering their legal support for individual freedom. For one example, consider gun rights. As decided by the Supreme Court in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), the Second Amendment grants an incorporated right to all Americans, to possess handguns in their homes. Unfortunately, in their present pursuit of bans on all semi-automatic weapons (including handguns), imposing stringent magazine capacity limits (ten rounds or less) and requiring prospective handgun purchasers to submit fingerprints, many Democrats are actively challenging established Constitutional rights. While many conservatives (myself included) recognize that gun rights are not absolute, the boundaries of the law are clear: American citizens have the right to possess (at least some) semi-automatic weapons, without suffering excessive government obstruction.

It isn't just guns though. Consider the Democratic Party position on government power re- private conduct. When, in 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government’s right to impose taxes on individuals who fail to buy health insurance, Democrats were overjoyed. Yet, as exemplified by their infinite outrage over the 2010 Citizens United ruling, Democrats also apparently believe that the government has the right to gag political speech. Under this  warped Constitutional theory, government can seemingly compel both consumer purchases and political silence. 

This is a legal framework without credibility.

 Ultimately, there is no Constitutional logic to a judicial interpretation which resides upon inconsistent, subjective whims of the moment. This is anathema to the Constitution’s existential purpose. The Constitution doesn’t exist as a kind of political ‘phone a friend’- a tool for difficult situations, but one to be ignored when so desired. It requires lasting respect.

Sadly, it’s not simply case law where Democrats are ridiculing the Constitution. 

Consider the on-going interactions between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Before he entered the Oval Office, Senator Obama railed against President Bush for putting ‘more and more power in the executive branch’. However, since then, he's had a change of mind. Whether concerning Libya, executive privilege, energy policy, immigration, or now guns, on various critical issues, this President has no qualms ignoring congressional authority when he so desires. Not a great record for a former Constitutional law professor.

In the context of their previous complaints about Bush's executive, you might have expected at least a little hesitation from congressional Democrats over Obama’s executive reach. Conversely, congressional Democrats have become subservient allies to Obama’s expansive executive. A good example? The evolving battle over the March debt limit. Faced with congressional Republicans who understandably want entitlement reform in return for debt limit increases (without reform, we will continue our proud, national dive into the fiscal abyss), Democrats have offered a unique three-part alternative to honest negotiation.

 First, to demagogue against Republicans for not capitulating to the President’s demands. This first element is particularly bold, considering that former House Speaker Pelosi felt entitled to her own abysmal (really worth checking this link!) foreign policy during the Bush Presidency.

Second, change the rules.

Finally, if all else fails, ignore the Congress and its Constitutionally granted power of the purse.

Sidestepping Congress, what do Democrats suggest in return? Proposals, which are so utterly ludicrous, they appear to be the product of Monty Python movies. Suggestions of $1 trillion coins and intoxicated readings of the 14th Amendment are not acts of proud Democratic legislators; they are the product of a delusional deference to executive power. This is the obsessive pursuit of power as an end in itself.

Liberals like to claim that conservatives are to blame for our national political dysfunction and I’ll admit, we have to share some blame. However, in substituting cartoonish surrealism for the Constitution, Democrats are attacking the basic essence of American democracy.

Our country faces profound national challenges. It's understandable that difficult political dynamics will burden our efforts to find solutions. However, the Constitution should never be treated as a casual partisan tool. Over hundreds of years, our balanced system of government has guided us through the pain of civil and foreign wars, the misery of economic depression and the strife of great social upheaval. While Democrats played a crucial part in this national journey, the journey isn’t yet over. We still need the Constitution and it continues to deserve the Democratic Party's respect.

 

Syrian Rebel Victory - Taftanaz, US Entertainment Industry and Free Speech

1) Syrian rebels have seized a major Assad air base in the north of the country. Their victory (assuming they are able to hold the base) represents another step towards Assad's ultimate defeat. In specific terms, the capture of the Taftanaz base offers a number of key strategic opportunities for the rebels. First, being proximate to Aleppo (about 15 miles), the facility provides a forward operating base from which the rebels can now launch operations against government forces in that city. In addition, Taftanaz is located next to the main Syrian M45 highway (have a look on google maps) or in military terms, MSR. As such, the base also offers the rebels the prospect to dominate the direct route south to Hamah, Homs and ultimately Damascus. Finally, the capture imposes another psychological blow on the Syrian regime. Apparently the Syrian Army abandoned its position during the battle for Taftanaz. This does not inspire confidence in the regime's ability to motivate its forces. (Though the regime's elite units are ideologically conjoined to Assad).

            What can we expect now? For one, further government defections in the coming weeks. Also, increasing desperation by Assad and his allies in the Lebanese Hizballah and Iran (and Russia). On the Iran/Hizballah front, it's possible these two might attempt to create an incident that distracts international attention away from Assad. One note of caution however, the group that seized Taftanaz subscribes to a Sunni extremist ideology and is regarded by the US/EU as a terrorist group. One of the reasons why I support arming Syrian rebel nationalists, is so that these elements can counter-balance the extremists. Both now and after Assad is gone. We do not want a 2006 Iraq style sectarian bloodletting in post-Assad Syria.

2) The news that entertainment groups are meeting with VP Biden's gun control task force concerns me. The Federal Government has no place pressuring the movie/tv/gaming industry to self-regulate the content of their products. The entertainment industry caters to demand - if people don't like a movie or a computer game, then they won't purchase access to that product. Fortunately, we have the First Amendment. We must ensure that we don't follow the European route of limited free speech.

Hagel, Obama re-Afghanistan, Free Speech, Gun Control, China

1) I was wrong in my earlier support for Chuck Hagel. After re-considering my 'capability, knowledge and character' test (the framework I use when deciding whether to support cabinet nominees), I now no longer believe that Hagel meets the 'knowledge' requirement to be America's next Secretary of Defense. Put simply, his positions on the major issues of national security are deeply troubling to me. They indicate a world view that I believe to be misguided. This isn't about his Israel comments - it should be obvious to all that US-Israeli interests will sometimes diverge (though the anti-Semitic tone Hagel used was unpleasant). However, I cannot understand how Hagel honestly opposes sanctions against Iran. I cannot understand how he can be so openly comfortable with the notion of additional cuts to defense (further cuts on top of Obama's $450 bn/ten year cuts). Mainly, I have serious issues with Hagel's position on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hagel referred to the Iraq 'Surge' as the ''most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.'' When in fact, it was an audacious policy of great success. Hagel has also signaled a comfort with  Obama's increasingly ludicrous Afghanistan policy (see point 2). Taken together, these positions present a concerning picture about the advice and leadership that Hagel would provide as SecDef. Like other conservatives, I also worry that Obama intends to use Hagel to put a Republican face on major defense cuts.

2) Obama's policy towards Afghanistan has always been a disaster. First, he couldn't make his mind up about whether to support McChrystal's strategy. Second, he announced to the Taliban that the US would withdraw on a timeline. Third, he has systematically entertained the notion that his domestic spending priorities outweigh this key concern of national security. Fourth, he allows his policy to be driven by the shifting tides of US domestic politics, rather than by the advice of his senior military/national security leadership. Obama must not burn our Afghanistan successes in a misguided rush for the exit.

3) The growing complaints over video game/movie violence are pathetic and to me at least, also exceptionally annoying. We live in a free society. The First Amendment protects the right of professionals in the entertainment industry to shape their creations as they so desire. This is simple. If games/movies exceed the boundaries of social acceptance, then those productions will cease to gain consumer support and their producers will go out of business. In this context, at the margins free speech regulates itself. America must not follow the European course on free speech. A route typified by highly destructive wars against freedom.

4) Alex Jones is a delusional moron. He loves the sound of his own voice and he doesn't have a clue. But if Jones is a representative of American conservatism, Stalin was a democrat. Piers Morgan is trying to improve ratings on his show and I expect that he is succeeding. On a more serious note, there's one major question that I have for aggressive gun control advocates. If access is the key, why is gun crime highest in highly restrictive gun control locales like Chicago, DC, LA and Detroit?

5) In the long term, China will not sustainably replace the United States as the world's sole superpower. Consider China's absence of basic freedoms, failure to respect human rights, entrenchment of wealth and power in an unelected few and endemic culture of corrupt political patronage. These social challenges portend storms over the horizon.

Welfare states are unfair states

Welfare states are unfair states. My latest piece for The Week.

Pakistan-India, Hagel for SecDef, Assad speech, China threats, UK in EU, Debt Limit

1) The killing of a Pakistani soldier by the Indian military, illustrates the continuing tensions in Kashmir and beyond. I primarily blame Pakistan for this dynamic. Until the Pakistani intelligence service ends its support for anti-Indian terrorists, opportunities for a relationship of greater trust will not be forthcoming. It isn't too good when you have two states who a) hate each other, b) live next to each other, c) are both armed with nuclear weapons. Sadly, it doesn't seem to bother the Pakistani Government when their forces are killed by domestic extremists. Because they don't care, we must. 

2) I wouldn't pick Chuck Hagel to be my Secretary of Defense (for one, I think he was wrong to oppose sanctions against Iran), but I'm not the President. And if Obama wants Hagel for the role, I don't believe that Senate Republicans should oppose his nomination. Certainly, AIPAC's opinions of Hagel are irrelevant. Instead, a candidate's selection for this critical cabinet position should be made on the basis of three considerations: capability, knowledge and character. I believe that Hagel meets these standards and I don't believe that his nomination is worth another partisan battle (especially when he's a Republican anyway).

3) Assad is delusional. He still thinks that he has the power to survive. But he is running out of time. His regime is increasingly surrounded and is suffering defections and a dwindling supply of money. The only interesting part of Assad's speech came when he thanked China and Russia for supporting him. Those two states should be ashamed of their positions on the Syrian civil war. As I argued last week, Putin's Russia is a gangster state.

4) China is engaging in increasingly threatening behavior towards Japan. This follows further Chinese belligerence against other regional states like Vietnam. Obama must ensure that we stand firmly with our Pacific allies. And those around the world who hold fashionable anti-American views should also take note. China is no ally to international freedom. Western romanticism over China's economic rise must be tempered by reality.

5) The British Government is looking to fundamentally re-shape their relationship with the EU. This desire stems from two motivations. First, the UK has had to cede sovereignty to the EU and the UK Government now wants these powers repatriated. This is especially relevant in the field of Judicial issues. Second, with the UK economy still struggling, the Conservative Party needs an issue that can galvanize voters to support them. Because of public dissatisfaction with the EU, pushing for reform in this area is seen to present a political opportunity.

6) The Democrats are freaking out because they know that Republicans are going to push for major entitlement reform come the debt limit negotiations in March. As a conservative, for me this issue is simple. While I supported the fiscal cliff deal, I did so in large part because of the need to show conciliation as a foundation for future compromises from the President. Now, if the Democrats refuse substantial spending cuts/entitlement reforms in return for new revenue and a rise to the debt limit, the GOP should simply refuse to raise the debt limit. Again, this is simple. The American people have seen Republicans newly willing to make tough compromises for the sake of the national interest. Americans also understand that major spending cuts are necessary. So, if the Democrats want to be obstinate and refuse such cuts, then that is their prerogative. And their political risk. In such a situation, the Democrats will bear ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe that would stem from a default on the national debt. (Oh... and the 14th amendment debt argument/ platinum coin argument that some Democrats are throwing out... are totally absurd. I will be writing about the 14th issue in more detail next week.)

Obama - Suggestions of imperfection

Obama teleprompter trouble

Major protocol fail with our closest ally

Obama's visited all 57 US states

Polish death camp

Special Olympics joke

Private sector is 'doing fine'

Three words

'You didn't build that'

Middle America is made up by gun crazy, racists who cling to religion

English Embassy

Export more jobs

Generally, I just don't think that the President is as up front as he thinks he is.

 

Credit: AP/Shep Fairey

Hezbollah scared, Arabs annoying posh London, Bombing in Iraq, Israel West Bank operation, Chicago violence

1) Hizballah is freaking out because their buddy Assad is screwed. By allying themselves with his regime, Hizballah is suffering serious damage to their brand. IE - The group is suffering from a profound degradation of their carefully cultivated (albeit false) image as a cross-sectarian liberation force. Nasrallah understands that when Assad falls, Hizballah will not only have lost a key ally, by supporting his brutal crackdown, the group will be politically weakened in Lebanon and beyond. I expect that Hizballah will attempt to increase tensions with Israel in 2013, in an attempt to reconstruct their 'defender' image. Regardless, in the long term I believe that the organization will share Assad's fate. By using murder and intimidation as primary political tools and by supporting authoritarians who deny basic freedoms to their people, Hizballah will find it increasingly difficult to win legitimacy and corresponding popular support. True, Hizballah retains strong sympathy among poor Lebanese Shia, but in order to maintain its considerable power base the group must attract a wider base of interest.

2) Posh Londoners are upset because Arab playboys are driving super cars late at night. Although the noise might be annoying, I'm going to venture that these visitors make a rather positive contribution to the UK's economy. But I guess its a question of priorities - posh Londoners getting relaxing sleep, or poorer Londoners having jobs (in the clubs, bars, restaurants and stores that the playboys visit)... Ah the complexities of the British class system!

3) Around twenty people were killed in an explosion in Iraq today. The cause - a terrorist attack that was probably conducted by the Islamic State of Iraq. This organization is attempting to ignite sectarian war in the country. An ISI strategy that has elevated in momentum over the past year. As I argued back in July, the US must provide the Iraqi Government with the intelligence support that it may need in order to confront the terrorists. We must not allow extremists to erase the security successes that our military worked so hard to achieve in Iraq. Having said this, we also need to pressure PM Maliki to build cross-sectarian consensus in his country.

4) Chicago is suffering the impact of a terrible gang war. As in many American inner cities, the Democrats have failed Chicago. Conservatives can and should re-engage with these citizens to offer solutions.

5) Unless the Israelis were A) seriously concerned about leaks, or B) had imminent actionable intelligence, their raid on a West Bank apartment was a serious error. These kind of actions make President Abbas look weak and delegitimize his leadership in the eyes of Palestinian voters. The Israelis should be working to empower Abbas and isolate HAMAS, not vice versa.

Vive la France?

France has some major problems.

1) Crime

Violent crime in France is increasing in both frequency and ferocity. As the new years eve Apple store robbery illustrates, the French Government is seemingly incapable of restraining armed gangs from terrorizing businesses across the country. This problem is multiplied by the incapacity of the French Police. An incapacity that is partly because of corruption, but primarily because of absent capability. The French Government urgently needs to establish dedicated counter-robbery units in the form of the UK's Metropolitan Police SCD-7 and the FBI's Americas Criminal Enterprise Section (ACES). The current police effort is obviously woefully insufficient. French Special Forces - RAID, GIGN, GIPN are excellent, but they're not investigative units.

 

2) Economy

The French President has a problem. His 75% tax plan is in trouble in the courts and in practice. In the 21st century, human capital is movable - and if people can avoid paying exorbitant taxes then they tend to do so. Further, although it suffers from many ailments, the main problem with the French economy is found in the restrictions which suck the life out of its labor market. Employers need to be freed to hire and fire and employees need to work longer.

3) Freedom

France is now pressuring Twitter to ban free speech. This isn't just a French problem, as I have recently argued, it's also a UK problem and to a lesser degree a US problem. This area is one in which US conservatives have a real opportunity to stand up in support for freedom. The excessive restriction of speech is an enemy to free ideas, an ally to extremists and a cancer on society. Anyway, Twitter's response to the French Government should be to say this.

Why the fiscal cliff deal is good news for conservatives

Why the fiscal cliff deal is good news for conservatives. My latest piece for The Week.