Lackluster Leadership
With the end of the cold war America found itself in a unique position of being able to do almost anything it wanted to do in the world with little opposition from others. Unfortunately we seem to have lacked the vision, leadership and the willpower necessary to lead. I would argue that since World War II there have been only a few examples of enlightened leadership on the part of America’s leaders: The Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program) under Harry Truman would surely qualify; Dwight Eisenhower’s calling for an Interstate Highway System transformed the productive capacity of the United States from a rural, agricultural based nation to an urban, industrial nation almost overnight (But this was an unintended consequence – he justified it on military expediency grounds); John F. Kennedy’s stance and restraint during the Cuban Missile Crisis (He could have invaded Cuba, but he chose diplomacy over war.); Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights advances (Certainly the Civil Rights advances during LBJ’s term in office could not have taken place had it not been for the assassination of President Kennedy.); Richard Nixon’s opening of relations with China (Had any other President tried to open China he would have been tarred and feathered and run out of Washington by the right wing, but since Nixon was their champion he succeeded.) ; Ronald Reagan’s hard line stance against the Soviet Union ( Reagan was the first President, since Kennedy, to really stand up diplomatically to the Soviet Union, and he was successful.); and, Bill Clinton’s addressing the national deficit (He could have reduced taxes as most Presidents would have done as a political expedient, but he elected to do what was in the nation’s best “long-term” interest instead.) come to mind .
But even those were mostly isolated events in otherwise somewhat lackluster administrations. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush have little to remember them by. Carter made his mark after he left the presidency and was even awarded the Nobel Piece Prize in 2002 for his years of trying to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
Among the post-World War II presidents, perhaps Bill Clinton has come the closest to becoming a “great” president, but as we all know, that opportunity was blown (pun intended)1. John Dean says: “Ostensibly, Clinton was impeached and ….. tried for lying about a sexual liaison. If truthfulness about extramarital affairs had been a requisite for everyone in Congress to hold their seats before they voted to oust Clinton, neither the House nor the Senate could have formed a quorum2.”
Following World War II America was, for the most part, looked up to as the way of the future: We were the beacon of light for all those who were oppressed around the world. The United States was a place where everyone wanted to live or at least the United States represented a life style people wanted to emulate in their own country. Many who could afford it sent their children here to go to school, hoping they would learn from us and then return to their homelands to implement what they had been taught. Even many of those who currently oppose us with violence attended college in the United States. While many still have positive feelings about the United States, changes have taken place that have tarnished our image both at home and abroad3.
This negative view of the United States started, I would argue, as a result of World War II and the resultant industrial buildup that was necessary to defeat the Germans and the Japanese. Followed rapidly by the Korean conflict and then the protracted Cold War, the United States was thrust into its world leadership role perhaps, at first, reluctantly but none-the-less a role our elected leaders eventually seemed to covet and cultivate. Oftentimes, however, we have not performed this role in a manner consistent with our heritage or in a manner that was always in our best interest. We have so alienated major segments of the world’s population (including our so-called friends) that it has been easy for demigods to stir up enough negative sentiment to foster the current wave of anti-American terrorism acts. And of course our “holier-than-thou” attitude has culminated in the unprecedented invasion of Iraq by the current administration. This quagmire we are in is similar in many ways to the quagmire we faced in Vietnam over 40 years ago. We simply did not learn, or we forgot, our lesson from that experience. Come back America, …….come back.
We should neither prop-up and support corrupt governments (as we did in Vietnam) nor attempt to overthrow corrupt governments (as we did in Iraq). No matter how bad these governments are, it is the responsibility of the people of those sovereign countries to change their governments: it is not the responsibility of the United States to impose our will from afar. Yet we often do so because we think (or convince ourselves) or are pressured to think it is in our best interests to do so. Where does that pressure come from? In many cases it comes from the multi-national corporations based in the United States.
President Eisenhower in his 1960 farewell address to the nation4 warned us of the impending Military Industrial Complex. He said:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Unfortunately too few Americans took him seriously! But his words have turned out to be very prophetic. Instead of being the beacon of light and hope for the world, we have become the bully of the world. Eisenhower also warned us about this in his farewell speech. He said: “…America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”
But we failed to heed his warning here as well. For the most part our bullying of other countries, I would argue, stems from corporate pressure on the President and Congress to take actions that are in what the corporations’ see as their best interests, not in the nation’s best interest or for that matter in the corporations’ “long term” best interests.
And I doubt even Eisenhower foresaw the actual capture of the top levels of government by corporate heads such as occurred when Dick Chaney became Vice President in 20015.
Chaney sits on the Council on Foreign Relations and has ties to the Carlyle Group6 as well as being a former Senior Fellow at the prestigious “right-wing” think tank, American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Chaney’s wife, Lynne, is a Senior Fellow at AEI. Curiously, Chaney reportedly continues to draw a $1,000,000 a year paycheck from Halliburton while serving as Vice President7. Apparently he sees no conflict of interest between taking this money and leading the decision-making process that allocates billions of dollars worth of bids to Halliburton as a result of the Iraq War! Furthermore, Chaney has been described as the most influential Vice President in history8. John Dean of Watergate fame calls Vice President Dick Cheney "the architect of Bush’s authoritarian policies," and deems Bush "a mental lightweight with a strong right-wing authoritarian personality9."
While it is unrealistic to think we can do away with the “Military Industrial Complex” there are and/or should be ways in which the government can mitigate its influence over policy decisions both in the White House and in Congress. Certainly an immediate and necessary step would be to eliminate completely all contributions by corporations to candidates and elected officials, including trips and other gifts10! As a nation we should go further by outlawing the acceptance of “paychecks” or money by any other name by elected or appointed officials from firms, corporations and/or individuals associated with corporations and firms who are dependent upon the military for contracts. We should require them to recuse themselves (or at least disclose their relationships-- past or present) from any decision-making related to firms they have, or have had, contact with.
Unfortunately, this emphasis on corporate interests has had a spillover effect on domestic policy as well11. The perception is that our rich keep getting richer while the poor get poorer12. At the same time the middle class struggles to keep their heads above water. Families fight, even with two incomes, to get ahead. According to a recent Gallup survey, fewer than four out of ten think it (the economy) is in “excellent” or “good” shape, compared with almost seven out of ten when George Bush took office13. Every measure shows that, over the past quarter century, those at the top have done better than those in the middle, who in turn have outpaced those at the bottom. The gains of productivity growth have become increasingly skewed14.
In the meantime children with both parents working (assuming a two parent household) are left to fend for themselves and the result is they often get into trouble due to lack of parental guidance.
Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm
And:
Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm
The situation is exacerbated when it comes to low income families. More often than not they are female headed single parent households.
Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm
When you examine children living in poverty it is even worse.
Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm
Not surprisingly almost half of the children living in a female-headed household live in poverty.
Source: Virginia Commonwealth University, http://www.commed.vcu.edu/Teaching/Child%20Health/CHPt2.htm
Not only do the children not have two parents at home, most lack a positive male role model. For many drugs and crime are the immediate results.15 According to The National Drug Control Strategy: 1997 “an estimated 12.8 million Americans, about 6 percent of the household population aged twelve and older, use illegal drugs on a current basis (within the past thirty days). This number of "past-month" drug users has declined by almost 50 percent from the 1979 high of twenty-five million -- a decrease that represents an extraordinary change in behavior. Despite the dramatic drop, more than a third of all Americans twelve and older have tried an illicit drug. Ninety percent of those who have used illegal drugs used marijuana or hashish. Approximately a third used cocaine or took a prescription type drug for non-medical reasons. About a fifth used LSD.” But in the long term lack of proper education and preparation to become productive citizens may take more of a toll on our future population.
On the domestic front then, immediate steps need to be taken to right the ship of state. We are the most powerful country in the world and as a result we have certain world-wide obligations. But we can never be successful on the world stage unless and until we address our own problems at home. Until we do, we will not be able to right the international ship of state. Our failure to right the international ship of state will cause us and the rest of the world to sink into deeper despair and continued strife.
Certainly President Clinton made some strides on the domestic front during his two terms in office. More jobs were created under his administration than under any previous administration in history; we saw the longest economic expansion in history; unemployment dropped to its lowest level since 1953; we had the highest homeownership rate ever recorded (66.8%); and, the lowest poverty rate since 1979. Perhaps his most notable accomplishment was his ability to deliver a balanced budget and even reduce the out of control federal deficit16. 
Source: PPI | Front & Center | October 18, 2004, Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index
By Robert D. Atkinson and Julie Hutton
Unfortunately, personal peccadilloes and the unprecedented attention and focus on them by right wing, religious Republicans17 and the press prevented him from making greater efforts to accomplish greatness and right the domestic ship of state.
However, despite setbacks, we have made some strides forward: This even while the nation continues to be divided and polarized. I would argue this division and polarization is a result primarily of the intentional actions of a few right-wing, religious zealots. It would seem that if you oppose them you are un-American, non-Christian and worst of all “liberal!” They even go after fellow Republicans who do not share their political platform. As John Dean notes, they (a significant percentage) want to follow an authoritarian dictator18. Dean notes that empirical studies show that authoritarians are regrettably, “enemies of freedom, anti-democratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral”19. Unfortunately the leaders of these “conservatives without conscience” now occupy the most powerful positions in the world: President and Vice President of the United States of America.
Not only did Clinton miss a great opportunity on the domestic front, another great opportunity was missed by the second Bush Administration after September 11th to right, at least, the foreign portion of our Ship of State. We had the sympathy of nearly the whole world along with their support following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon20. Unfortunately we had an administration in office that was hell bent on starting a war in Iraq and imposing their ideology on not only the United States but on other countries around the world rather than doing what was right21. The opportunity of the century was lost by our invasion of Iraq. In my estimation, George W. Bush and his administration have single-handedly set the United States back at least 50 years with respect to global relations and trust and respect from the people and nations around the world.
In getting ready for the mid-term 2006 election and more importantly the 2008 elections, the Democrats have attempted to come together to develop a strategy to take control of Congress and eventually the White House22 from the Republicans. So far, their ideas are mostly a rehash of old tired policies and rhetoric that didn’t work well in the past and, so far, offer nothing new for the future. They have yet to energize even the Democratic faithful, let alone the vast number of voters in the middle of the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton23, perhaps the leading Democratic candidate for President at this juncture, attempted to strike a slogan that would resonate with the voters by paraphrasing her husband’s successful 1992 slogan “It’s the economy, stupid” by claiming that in 2008: “It’s the American Dream, Stupid24.”
The Republicans, on the other hand have been captured by the religious right and since they are in power, see no reason to change their strategies or policies. Those centrists Republicans either cannot wrest control from the right-wing faction of their party or are afraid to attempt to take control. They continue to concentrate on “non-issues” that are what many refer to as “values issues” – issues designed to elicit strong feelings among voters, especially those on the extremes: stem-cell research, flag-burning and gay marriage. Surprisingly however they do not seem to be working for the right wing extremists.25 Time will tell if this trend holds; yet the Center and even the Left seem frightened to death to touch these “hot button” issues and do the “right” thing. Perhaps the best hope for the right-wing, extremist Republicans are their ability to raise more money than the Democrats and the continued apathy of the center. The centrists Republicans seem to be willing to bide their time and wait for another day.
Likewise “left-wing” Christians have started to organize26 to push back the right wing ultra conservatives who claim that God is on their side. Reuter’s reporter, Thomas Ferraro notes that they are intent on ending the war in Iraq, easing global warming, combating poverty, raising the minimum wage27, revamping immigration laws, and preventing “immoral” cuts in federal social programs. Some argue that the religious left is becoming more active than it has been since the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other clergy were key movers and shakers in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements of the 1960s.
But they have just begun and have a long way to go to secure a balance between the so-called “Christians” in the United States. No one seems to be much concerned or care about the other religious groups in the United States, let alone those that have given up on organized religion altogether. As Ferraro noted it clearly was the strong efforts of the religious right in 2004 that made the difference for President Bush. By bringing abortion28 and gay marriage to the table they whipped up enough fever amongst the extreme right to push Bush over the top. Can they do it again? Time will tell, but as Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) says if the left leaning Christians don’t make an effort to counter them they will be successful again.
1 Dean confirms what many felt to be true: The impeachment of President Clinton was a “payback” by the right-wing conservatives for the Impeachment of President Nixon earlier. Dean states that: “Several Republicans (members of the House and Senate) told my that this was payback to the Democrats for what had been done to Nixon, and when I pointed out that Republicans had been part of that undertaking, a typical response was, ‘Yeah, but they weren’t conservatives.’” Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, page xxix.
2 Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, page xxi.
3 I recently returned from a trip abroad and found several expatriates who volunteered that they moved out of the United States in the past few years because they were ashamed to admit that they were citizens of this great country. I have also met several who still live in this country who, if given the means, say they would leave as well. Likewise when I talk to my circle of friends around the world (Europe, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, India, Mexico, Latin America, South America and Australia), almost to a person they tell me they love America and Americans but they hate the current administration and cannot understand why Bush and Chaney and their operatives do the things they do. I am at a loss to try to explain their actions to my friends as I do not understand it either except for the reasons I have tried to outline in this paper.
4 The full text of his farewell address is attached.
5 Not only did he serve as Secretary of the Defense Department under President George Herbert Walker Bush, he also served as Chairman and CEO of Halliburton Energy Services! In addition he served as White House Chief of Staff under President Gerald R. Ford.
6 For many years now, with almost no publicity, the company has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians - including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defense firms.
7 http://www.sourcewatch.org. Whether he does or not, in 2005, the Cheney’s reported their gross income as nearly $8.82 million. This was largely the result of exercising Halliburton stock options that had been set aside in 2001.
8 Ibid.
9Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, by John W. Dean. According to his findings, a vast majority of Conservatives are drawn into the Leader/Follower archetype, where the Leaders are considered infallable, and the loyalty of the Followers is completely unshakable. About "23% of the populace falls into the follower category" said Dean. "These people are impervious to fact, rationality and reality. And their numbers are growing".
10 Congress and especially the House of Representatives have been very reluctant to put curbs on lobbying activity and giving to political campaigns. Following the highly publicized lobbying scandals and misuse of charitable organizations, such as that by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Congress gave lip service to lobby reform. However it barely touched the surface to get at the root causes of corporate influence on Capitol Hill.
11 Among other things Chaney, for example, has strongly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, is anti-abortion, supports prayer in school (All right wing hot-button issues) and has taken the lead with the Energy Task Force, setting energy policy for the Bush administration.
12 According to The Economists, “The gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country…..” They go on to say: “But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker – the one at the very middle of the income distribution – have risen less than 1% since 2000. In the previous five years, they rose over 6%. If you take into account the value of employee benefits, such as health care, the contrast is a little less stark. But, whatever the measure, it seems clear that only the most skilled workers have seen their pay packets swell much in the current economic expansion. The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.
13 The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them The Economist print edition
14 Ibid.
15 President Clinton in his National Drug Control Strategy: 1997 noted that “Nonetheless, we are deeply concerned about the rising trend of drug use by young Americans. While overall use of drugs in the United States has fallen dramatically -- by half in 15 years -- adolescent drug abuse continues to rise.”
16 The national debt is the net amount of debt held by the federal government ($3.9 trillion in 2003). It increased under both Clinton and Bush (in today’s dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.
17 President Clinton was impeached in his second term and that process consumed most of his and Congress’ attention.
18 Conservatives WITHOUT Conscience, by John W. Dean
19 Ibid., page xii
20 As reported by CNN: “Many countries introduced tough anti-terrorism legislation……and took action to cut off terrorist finances (including the freezing of bank accounts suspected of being used to fund terrorism). Law enforcement and intelligence agencies stepped up cooperation to arrest terrorist suspects and break up suspected terrorist cells around the world…..The attack prompted numerous memorials and services all over the world. In Berlin 200,000 Germans marched to show their solidarity with America. The French newspaper Le Monde, typically critical of the United States Government, ran a front-page headline reading “Nous Sommes Tous Americans”, or “We are all Americans”. In London, the U.S. national anthem was played at the Changing of the Guard…..In the immediate aftermath, support for the United States’ right to defend itself was expressed across the world, as expressed in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368. The reaction to the attacks in the Muslim world was mixed. The great majority of Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks – virtually the only significant stand-out was Saddam Hussein, the then president of Iraq.
21 See Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Thomas Ricks
22 Among other events was the Democratic Leadership Council meeting in Denver in July, 2006.
23 See her entire speech to the Democratic Leadership Council. Attachment 3
24 Clinton told the centrist Democratic Leadership Council that: “Americans are earning less while the costs of a middle-class life have soared.” She continued: “A lot of Americans can’t work any harder, borrow any more or save any less.” She said President Bush and the Republicans had “made a mess out of the country’s finances.”
25 A recent poll conducted for National Public Radio in the 50 most competitive House Districts found that on the question of which party would do a better job on “values issues,” like stem-cell research, flag-burning and gay marriage, Democrats prevailed by their biggest margin in the entire poll: 51 percent to 37 percent. “And when we list values issues like stem-cell research, flag-burning and gay marriage, these are the issues that Republicans took the initiative, used their control in Congress to get on the air to be voting on, to be talking about,” Democrat Stan Greenberg says. “What this says: By 13 points, voters say they are more likely to vote Democratic because of hearing about these issues. Which suggests that the strategy of using the Congress to get out the base in one that’s driving away a lot of voters.” On other issues like the war in Iraq, or the state of the economy, Democrats have a smaller advantage. Only on the issue of illegal immigration are the parties tied – in the view of likely voters in the most competitive districts.
26 Reuters, July 25, 2006 Religious left gears up to face right counterpart. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has said it is imperative for Democrats to seek to counter the influence of the religious right. He said: “If we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway”. See complete article in Attachment 2.
27 The minimum wage has not been raised in 10 years.
28 I believe abortion should be a decision entirely between the woman and her husband, her God and her doctor. Government has no business intervening. Likewise, I feel government has no business controlling stem cell usage for research.
No comments:
Post a Comment