Friday, October 22, 2013 marked the Fiftieth Anniversary of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. So respected and so loved was JFK that his murder traumatized a nation to the point almost everyone who lived through the tragedy has very distinct memories of the days surrounding the events. Even as we have learned more and more of President Kennedy’s personal faults, his status a legionary leader only grow stronger. I think part of this comes from Kennedy’s approach to government: “ask what you can do for your country,” i.e. support society, while using government as a tool to serve the interests of the disenfranchised, i.e. make government effective and ensure it plays its proper role in society.
It is also important to remember this was a time when Americans were just learning to distrust government and recognize the hazards of the self-serving influence of special interest groups. Although it is pivotal to understand and address negative aspects of government, there is a lesson in trust. No trust equals no support for government and no government means the good government does, which is often taken for granted, goes undone. When dealing with our nuclear dealings with Russia, the US embraces the motto: “trust, but verify.” I think we should embrace a more Kennedy era faith, but get more involved in our democratic government to ensure government is serving our interests. Just on the Tuesday before this Friday Anniversary, the Anniversary of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech was also marked. Another well-respected and beloved leader, Abraham Lincoln respected States rights, but also acted to preserve our society and defend the disenfranchised. In many regards, President Lincoln and President Kennedy have much in common, including the support and faith of the American People. For democracy to be successful, the People must support government and our leaders enough to seek their leadership and pursue our interests through the powers garnered by government. It is absolutely essential to call our leaders out on their bad behavior and policies that undermine our interests, but we also need to actively support and encourage our leaders when they do what they should be doing and seek to inspire us to be more.
Comments
Senate Democrats finally voted away filibusters for Presidential nominees, excluding Supreme Court Justices, on Thursday, November 22, 2013. Republicans, of course, view the move as a form of corruption, though both sides are hypocrites as their views often change with which Party is in power. According to Senate Leader Harry Reid, half of all executive and judicial nomination filibusters throughout the history of the US have occurred during the Obama Administration. Unfortunately, today filibusters have been used to shutdown government in a time when government needs to be more responsive.
In many ways, removal of the filibuster for nominees is an experiment. Filibusters exist to modulate the inherently erratic nature of the more democratic House and reduce the damage caused the whims of the day’s politics, or at least goes the theory. The main charge of Republicans is the elimination of the filibuster creates a situation where the minority has no power. Clearly, a majority vote is still needed, but our two-party, deeply polarized system makes it difficult for the minority to resist the majority rule without a filibuster. If we had a multiparty system and if our parties were more fractured, the need for a simple majority would be enough to block an unpopular majority effort. Even though this is currently not reality, Congress is still divided and Senators are elected in staggered terms, so differences in the House and Senate will continue to help minimize the power of the majority. Meanwhile, removing the filibuster tool may well encourage internal fracturing of the parties on issues key to constituents, new alliances, and an overall shakeup in our political system. Besides, what really stops the majority from acting against the will of the American People is an engaged populous. That said, what may come is unknown; we will just have to wait and see. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Claire McCaskill have made it their mission to address the growing problem of sexual assault in the US military by each offering their own amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act. Both bills would curtail the role of Commanding Officers in sexual assault cases. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has also moved to block changes. The ability of Commanding Officers to veto judicial decisions or ease punishments should be eliminated. (See “Rape in the US Military” http://voices.yahoo.com/rape-us-military-12153606.html?cat=17 for a more detailed discussion on the subject by this writer.) As such, Republicans should allow this vote to go through and all members of Congress should focus on supporting some meaningful reform.
Unfortunately, President Obama has decided to continue his campaign style push for the Affordable Care Act. The truth is that such a campaign will do nothing for Obamacare, except give everyone something to joke about. At this point in the healthcare reform process, the legislation has been passed, i.e. the reason for a campaign, and we are waiting for the results. People experience, or will soon experience, the benefits. Where there are faults in Obamacare, such as the faulted Health Insurance Marketplace website, we need to see continual improvement. We do not need to hear why the Republicans are to blame for any failures in the effort; we need to see cooperative legislative efforts that can bring about additional reforms.
Quite frankly, focusing so heavily on Obamacare demonstrates a lack of priorities on the President’s behalf, as well as our Legislators. Unfortunately, the divisive issue is certain to further polarize Democrats and Republicans, thereby undermining other legislative efforts. We live in an environment where our leaders do not put aside their differences for the greater good of the Country. We live in an environment where politicians take a hardliner, all-or-nothing approach. Consequently, over focusing on the politics of Obamacare decreases the likelihood we will avoid a government shutdown and Debt Default in early 2014. As the United States tries to seize upon a potential opportunity to address the Iranian nuclear crisis through diplomatic efforts with the more moderate Rouhani government, Israel hardens its position against any deal with the long-standing antagonist of the Middle East. For some, the mere fact that the US is willing to talk with Iran undermines the US-Israel partnership. Pundits have even gone so far as to say Israel’s new best friend is French President Francois Hollande, due to his efforts to avert a bad deal over Iran’s nuclear program.
Quite frankly, the United States is just trying to resolve an ongoing conflict in a very unstable region to help bring some stability and success to the Middle East. It is certainly fair to criticize the negotiation process when the results will not actually solve the underlying problem, but the US cannot be faulted for speaking with Iran as the world must make progress with Iran, eventually. On the other hand, Israel also a right to disagree with US policy and vice versa. In many ways, pundits like to frame the US-Israel relationship as one of lovers who are supposed to constantly agree with each. Because we dissented, Israel is flirting with France to bully the US into agreeing with its position. Like any romantic relationship, it is perfectively health for both parties to have their own views, unless one is truly the puppet of the other. That said, Israel’s ongoing threats to take military action must be heeded. Should it appear as though the world is nearing an agreement with Iran, which Israel does not like, the Netanyahu government may well take action, i.e. bomb nuclear sites in Iran, before it is “too late for action.” In doing so, Israel may well start a war that could draw the US in as Israel likely cannot finish a war without American support. To be blunt, the American People do not want to go to war, thus the current environment makes it very unlikely that the American People would support Israel military action. If we are actually on the verge of a nuclear deal with Iran, America’s broader regional and global interests would be severely undermined by supporting Israel’s proactive strike. As such, any military intervention in support of Israel would have be secretive, unpopular, and a PR nightmare at a time when the Obama Administration cannot afford it. Unfortunately, military action by Israel would probably force the US to distance ourselves from our close ally. Certainly, America does not want to do this, but US power is now predicated on our ability to balance our interests with the interests of as many countries as possible. If Israel attacks without a fully legitimized reason for doing so, i.e. a preemptive strike, it will put the US in a position where supporting Israel would severely undermine American interests. Meanwhile, the disparaging rhetoric of pundits and people like Prime Minister Netanyahu accusing the Obama Administration of betraying Israel truly does undermine the US-Israel relationship. Either the US looks like the puppet of Israel or we anger pro-Israel supporters by refusing to cater to Israel interests. Besides, no one likes being told what to do by someone who is constantly stabbing them in the back, especially the US President. Consequently, it has to stop. Furthermore, fervent supporters of Israel need to know when to deescalate their rhetoric as constant, overly aggressive reactions are costing them their legitimacy. Israel has legitimate concerns, but the legitimately of taking action against Iran hinges on a lack of nonviolent options. If the US and the rest of the world will not give Iran an honest chance to pursue peace when a potential opportunity arises, those who take military action against Iran become the aggressors. If Iran refuses to follow a reasonable course, military action by Israel and the US becomes more and more legitimate as well as more and more likely. What the US must avoid is a bad nuclear deal where fundamental Western and regional interests, including Israel’s interests, are neglected and Iran is able to reach its goals. In short, Israel has the potential of making itself “the bad guy” by continuing to react to a potential nuclear deal with Iran in such a heavy handed manner while the world must be careful not to appease Iran as Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon or continue its other rogue behaviors. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|