Frustrated with My Generation

It has taken me some time to draft this response to the previous two posts because, although each one is a rebuttal of my Feb. 7th argument, I believe Mike and Kevin are making different points.

To deal with Mike's post first: I was not implying in my first post that it is not possible to support Obama over Hillary Clinton's. I fully understand that voters might prefer Obama's health care plan to Clinton's, though I personally like her mandates. I am also not insane enough to suggest that John McCain is anything but a policy wonk. But I don't understand how a voter can--on policy grounds--prefer them BOTH to Clinton.

For example, a voter who likes Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq must a) support withdrawing AND b) support the particular timetable on which he plans to do it. In a choice between Clinton or McCain, that voter should logically pick Clinton because she fulfills criterion A, even if she has a different timetable. McCain agrees with Obama on neither point A or point B.

I should add that it would be equally illogical for a Clinton supporter to pick McCain over Obama, but I haven't heard of any that say they would.

This brings me to Kevin's argument: if voters are picking Obama as a first choice and McCain as a second, then they must be picking them on something other than the specific numbers/dates in their platforms. That is not to say that they are choosing on flimsy grounds, but rather that they, like Kevin, believe character/authenticity/the MEANS by which a candidate will achieve policy are more important, and less flimsy, than the minutiae of legislative proposals.

Obama's platform is essentially a vision about changing people's relationship to government: it's a vision about process. Clinton's platform is a shopping list of things government should do: it's a vision exclusively about product. It's the difference, in historical terms, between JFK and Teddy Roosevelt, both great presidents but in different ways.

I am a Clinton supporter because I believe that voting for the candidate whose policy proposals you like is a way to exercise the ultimate democratic power, to directly influence policymaking. Even if, as Kevin points out, the campaign platform rarely becomes law, it usually provides the starting point when the new President faces Congress. Compromises and political expediency may alter the final result, but at least as a voter you have shown your support for the bill you think they OUGHT to be compromising about.

Secondly, and this is the point I really wanted to make, every tech geek who has written a book in the last 10 years about how the Internet will change society has predicted that the new generation would swing to the product end of the product-process pole in politics and I have largely believe them. What I really wanted to ask is why were all the technology wonks wrong?

Obama-McCain '08!

Let me first start off by saying, this is exactly the type of conversation this blog was created for. Back-and-forth is what makes it interesting. So let’s try to do more of that in the future.

Now for my own contribution to the discussion. I must say that I strongly disagree with Maha’s implication that it is illogical to support both Obama and McCain, but not Clinton. Although Maha is correct in insisting that the policy positions of Obama and McCain are very far apart, her claim that campaign policy positions should be the paramount concern in selecting a candidate is misguided. What really matters is whether a candidate, once elected president, will be able to deliver on those policies. In the case of Hillary Clinton, there are serious concerns that her presidency could be dead upon arrival due to her incredibly divisive rhetoric (aimed mostly, but not always, at Republicans), as well as her abnormally high public negative ratings. Also, she does not seem to have a solid overarching policy vision. Does Hillary want to simply fix mistakes made by Bush or does she have a new path for the country in this new century?

It can be argued that Barack Obama and John McCain, on the other hand, would be much more effective presidents. This is because they both have significant appeal across the aisle. Specifically, there has been talk that Obama Republicans might be the new Reagan Democrats, and McCain’s dalliances with Democrats are well documented. Perhaps more importantly, both individuals have very clear policy vision and are not lacking in believability or authenticity. It is thus not hard to envision both men leading the country along with them into a new generation of politics and policy.

But similar arguments have already been offered—very effectively I think—by Kevin in his response to Maha’s initial post on the subject. I am in complete agreement with him that policy offered on the campaign trail can hardly be used as a barometer of what positions the candidate will take once he/she wins the general election (with Clinton and Romney being the most suspect in my view), let alone what he/she will be able to actually get done. What I do not what to do though is concede the policy debate. Implicit in Maha’s last post is—and she can please correct me if I’m wrong—her quick assumption that people are voting for McCain and Obama solely based on character and not on policy. As I said above, I support Barack Obama because I believe he will be able to use his powerful communication skills, willingness to negotiate, and clear vision to lead the legislature (and country) to enact change. But it is also clear to me that many of his policy positions are more intelligent than Mrs. Clinton’s. Three quick examples:

Is Hillary really serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and curbing global warming if she rules out constructing more nuclear power plants on U.S. soil? With today’s new Generation IV plant technology, safety is no longer the concern it once was. Every serious environmentalist and national security realist should be supportive of nuclear technology. Barack Obama is, she isn’t.

On the war on terror, many dismissively assert that Obama has little experience compared to Hillary Clinton. Without getting into the laughable trainwreck that was Clinton-era counterterrorist policy (which Hillary ironically claims as her own, though she probably had nothing to do with it), it is Obama who has in fact shown the best judgment on the issue thus far in the campaign. Hillary Clinton ridiculed Obama late last year for calling for more NATO troops in Khost province of Afghanistan and suggesting the U.S. Special Forces do more in Waziristan and Baluchistan, Pakistan. Of course, given that we now know Al Qaeda Central has wholly reestablished itself in these provinces since late 2006, Clinton rarely brings this up anymore.

On health care, Hillary Clinton’s plan includes mandated coverage for all Americans, whereas Obama’s plan focuses on bringing costs down for everyone—including those who already have health care—with the effect that more people will be able to afford it. Considering that the vast majority of American’s already have some form of health care, and considering Canada’s experience with mandates (ask Canadian politicians and businessmen why they have all been coming to the States for medical treatment…), I am inclined to think Obama might have the better idea.

As for John McCain, it is just as unwise to dismiss him as heavy on character and light on policy. I’d suggest that anyone who is unfamiliar with his not-Iraq foreign policy proposals read his acclaimed op-ed in an issue of Foreign Affairs this past summer. Next to Hillary Clinton’s own op-ed (which appeared in the same issue), it was a breath of fresh air and surprisingly specific in its suggestions. Hillary’s, on the other hand, was ridden with clichés and empty campaign rhetoric.

In sum, both Obama and McCain appeal to voters because they have the vision and broad-based appeal to enact real change upon taking office. At the same time, their policy proposals are far from inadequate, as some would suggest. It should thus come as no surprise that many voters would consider supporting either McCain or Obama over Hillary Clinton, despite their widely differing policy positions. Or, at least it doesn’t come as a surprise to me, because I’m one of them.

Character over Policy

In this post, I hope to diffuse the worry that fellow contributor, PreppyMcPrepperson, articulated in the second half of her most recent post. As a self-described Democrat, registered-independent, and new citizen of this country, my voting preference is exactly the same as the college-aged voter that PreppyMcPrepperson read about on the New York Times blog: Obama over McCain, and McCain over Clinton. While I have no way of knowing the rationale behind this anonymous college-aged voter, I can share a glimpse of my own thought process in making the same set of preferences and justify why my rationale--that character and authenticity is ultimately more important than policy proposals--is the right way to vote.

First, why is policy position less important? For those of you who think that voters who vote on policy basis are more "intelligent," "knowledgeable," and "informed," I contend that policy position is less important (not NOT important) is because the proposals that candidates put forth on the campaign trail are rarely the same proposals that end up being passed when the candidate does become president. I am in no way critical of this process because I champion the careful and scrutinizing deliberation process of our country's legistating procedures. It is important for any policy proposals to be discussed, rewritten, discussed again, and rewritten again, to make sure that the end product brings the greatest benefit for the great number of people in the country without outright notion of discriminating against minorities. Policy position should only be been as a more concretized version of a candidate's political philosophy, not what he or she can actually get done in the White House. Therefore, it is naive to place too much emphasis on policy positions when a voter chooses a candidate because the promises that candidates' make are rarely delivered without modification if not a complete makeover. And voters should not criticize candidates for this either because law-making is a complicated process that needs to please a lot of people before a bill can become law. It is more important to evaluate whether the president has the authenticity and ability to work with and persuade legislators to pass bills that are closest to the president's original proposals. In order to make this evaluation, voters must pay more attention to the candidates' character.

So, in terms of character, why is Obama better than McCain, and McCain better than Clinton? Beginning with Obama, no one has anything bad to say about him. Fox News rarely portrays him in any negative light and believes that he is genuinely a good guy. When the New York Times endorsed Clinton right before the South Carolina primaries, half of the endorsement editorial was actually about Obama, justifying that the endorsement is not a criticism of Obama in any way, but for one poorly-substantiated reason or another, the paper decided to endorse Clinton. Obama's records in the state legislature in Illinois speaks volume to his ability to get tough, controversial bills passed in the way he has envisioned because he has the ability to listen and take into account the concerns of others, to rise above partisan politics, to champion practicality and common sense over ideological confrontation. Obama isn't just likeable because he is a talented speaker who arrived late on the scene and therefore has relatively little baggage. From both his speeches and his records, he has demonstrated a consistency of principle, character and authenticity that is just what this country needs to be united once again.

On McCain, I agree that his positions are very different from that of Obama's. So if I like Obama, how can I like McCain? Because McCain has also demonstrated a consistency of principle, character and authenticity that will allow him to work with a what is expected to be a Congress with an even larger majority of the Democrats. His past legislative records has shown a strong commitment to working across the aisles (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy), and delivering common-sense politics, not partisan politics. So, even though his policy positions are less aligned with my political views (which is why Obama is my first choice), I have great faith that McCain can and will work with Democrats to produce sound pieces of legistations that will benefit the American people in all aspects of their life.

Now finally, on Clinton. I would like to first stipulate that I have great respect for her as a person and as a strong candidate that has given gender equality new meaning and new hope, while frankly receiving a lot of bullshit from the media and punits on superficial and irrelevant issues, like her dress-style, her smile and the color of her necklaces. However, I do have problems with her character as a politician, which places her lower than Obama and McCain on my voting hierarchy. She has consistently been seen as the most divisive, partisan candidate in the democratic pool. She has demonstrated no appeal beyond a portion of the Democratic core, which as of Super Tuesday consists of mainly older white women and Latinos. The very scenario of Clinton being the Democratic nominee means all Republicans and many Independents will unite to keep her away from the White House. Staunch Republicans are already voting in the Democratic primaries for Obama to keep Clinton away. Even if in the odd chance that she does become the president, very few if any of her policy proposals will be passed because she does not have the character and authenticity reach out to Republicans and even fellow Democrats who disagree with her to pass major legislations. Republican Senators will do all they can to filibuster her proposals until all the phonebooks, recipe books, and car manuals are read. Clinton campaign's anything-goes dirty politics (mainly engineered by Bill) and its lack of success in the fundraising department (Clinton loaned her own campaign 5 million dollars in January) are already reflecting voters' and potential supporters lack of faith in her character to accomplish what she claims to do, no matter how wonderfully progressive her policy proposals sound.

To wrap up this longer-than-intended post, character is the most important components that voters much evaluate when choosing their candidate. And this evaluation does not rely solely on the candidates' rhetorics, but on their records as well. Unlike policiy proposals and political positions, character is not something that can be changed or manipulated overnight to suit the electorate (see Romney). Therefore, I hope our fellow contributor is no longer disllusioned and skeptical about the younger voters of today. We do not value character because we are duped by rhetorics and "prize rhetorics over action." We value character because we believe it is sound, authentic character that can deliver real action that is needed for this country to progress and prosper.

Web 2.0 and "Authenticity"

Anyone who knows me knows that I am the ultimate Web 2.0 enthusiast. It's what I read about, think about, and write about and most of the time, I have positive things to say about new technologies and the rising generation who lives by them.

This election has me questioning myself.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

Let's begin by reviewing the conventional wisdom about the Internet and young voters. Firstly, there's the fact, as I've chronicled on my other blog, "Instant Cappuccino" that the Internet places added emphasis on being authentic and truthful. Voters can cut through bull shit with a quick Google search. Secondly, as I explain in this column, the generation raised on linkability and viral connections is less loyal to party binaries, so we gravitate to mavericks and moderates: Michael Bloomberg, John McCain, Barack Obama.

In theory, these two trends should combine to yield a politics in which truthtellers triumph, partisan anger-bashes end, and we can talk honestly about how to solve real policy challenges. Right?

In another column I expressed my disappointment with the CNN/YouTube debate formats that let voters submit questions online. Given the chance to connect directly to leaders and force them to be truthful, voters didn't ask any of the hard policy questions. The debate was the same woolly dialogue about values and character we've heard six times before.

More recently, I was alarmed to read on an NYTimes blog that a voter who identified himself as college-aged would vote for McCain over Hillary, but Obama over McCain. If he stopped for five minutes to compare their policy proposals, he'd realize that Hillary is clearly closer to Obama's views than McCain is, but of course, this voter isn't voting on policy at all. That is not to say that it's impossible to back McCain or Obama on policy grounds, but rather that to agree with them both on policy grounds is more or less impossible.

Maybe I was naive but I thought that combining authenticity with the drive towards moderate voices would yield authentic dialogue about moderate policies. Instead, authenticity was a code word for old style character-voting, and moderation an excuse for not taking a position at all. I hate to admit it, but the crusty old folks who say young people prize rhetoric over action are starting to sound convincing. Someone, please redeem my faith in youth.

What do the Europeans think about our election?

Not that it matters I guess. But the American presidential election (even the nominating process) is by far the most covered, most discussed political festivity in the world, and paying some attention to what our European counterparts think of it wouldn't hurt. The Economist composed a revealing summary of the various responses that major European newspapers offered after the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries.

One thing struck me as I was reading this article: just how infatuated are the Europeans with the exoticism of race in electoral politics--something they clearly don't have in their political contests. Sure the Europeans have been, in a sense, ahead of the Americans when it comes to purifying its politics of sexism and letting women assume the highest office of the nation (see Thatcher and Merkel), high-level appointments of women have been commonplace in the U.S. A parliamentary system also has a different political dynamics and set of political tactics associate with it, and the ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi effectively matches the accomplishment of all her fellow female European PMs (being the leader of a party that holds the majority in the legislature). But when a non-white political figure is enjoying legitimate success and popular appeal that transcends racial lines, the Europeans can't seem to handle the situation and frame their reaction beyond the racial label. Race has rarely been the defining topic of discussion in this election, and Obama deserves a lot of credit for successfully running as a canadiate who looks beyond race and orates a message of hopeful change and unity that many Americans can relate to and yearn for. Although he has received sporadic criticism from black leaders who accuse him of purposely ignoring issues that are important to African Americans, his belief and platform have been able to rise above the typical racial politics that had been characteristic of previous black presidential candidates. The tremendous support he received in Iowa and New Hampshire--where voters are predominantly white--is testament to not only Obama's appeal but, more importantly, how far the people of this country have come to able to look beyond skin color and appreciate a person for who he or she is and what he or she stands for. Respecting a black condidate is not just about pretentious political correctness, but a true commitment to non-racial politics and genuine evaluation of the merit of the candidate; that's why Alan Keyes doesn't get invited to the debates.

I am frankly disappointed at the Europeans' superficial analysis of the emergence of Obama's candidacy as an exotic phenomenon and their failure to extract themselves from cynical tradition and colonial prejudices. I am proud of Americans for becoming to be more and more inclusive of minorities in public life, and whether or not Obama wins the Democratic nomination/presidency, his campaign and candidacy is a welcoming movement that will give this country many years of vibrant public debate.

Why a Republican Will Win the White House if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee

There has been much talk in this presidential election cycle (as there was in 2004) of “electability”—that is, the likelihood that a certain candidate can win the general election. Often, electability as it pertains to the general election differs greatly from enthusiasm for a candidate during the primary process, whereby a candidate is nominated by the partisan base of his or her party. We saw this in 2004, when Howard Dean—anointed frontrunner status by the media early on due to his successful energizing of the Democratic base—was ultimately routed by John Kerry because of concerns for Dean’s appeal to voters in the general election. John Kerry was believed to be more electable because he was a war hero and the Republicans were using the war on terrorism as their trump card.

Now midway through the 2008 election cycle, we are in much the same position, with the exception being that it is not just the Democrats selecting a nominee this time. On the Democratic side, the two viable candidates are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Republican side there are four viable candidates in Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. As in past cycles, one of the chief questions being discussed is which candidate on each side will have the most appeal in the general election. Hillary Clinton argues that she will appeal to voters because she has the experience to make change. John McCain assumes his national security background and straight talk will be enough to get him elected. And as for Mitt Romney, he speaks of his distance from Washington and his success in turning around companies and the Olympics. However, while all these theories might hold some truth, they need to be matched against the hard reality of the unique mathematics of the American presidential election. What is crucial to remember is that the president is not elected by popular vote, but by the Electoral College. Let’s look at a map of the Electoral College results in 2004.

In 2004, George Bush won 286 electoral votes versus John Kerry’s 252. Even if Kerry had won both Iowa and New Mexico—which he ultimately did not despite a close vote—he would have lost the election. In addition, a number of Kerry’s wins were exceedingly close scrapes (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Oregon were all within three points). By contrast, only Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico presented close wins for Bush. What we can glean from this is that, despite there being a clear path for either party’s nominee to win the general election, it is much more of an uphill climb for the Democrat. Certainly, recent reports have suggested that dissatisfaction with the Bush administration might lead the populace to be more likely on whole to vote for a Democrat in the next election. However, I contend that a number of factors will negate this trend, among them increasing dissatisfaction with the Democrat-controlled Congress, significant progress in Iraq, and the Republican candidates’ purposeful disassociation with President Bush. Ultimately, on election day, I suggest that the Electoral College, with its hardened red states and blue states and entrenched party affiliations, will prove more important than most assume. This election is not just a matter of selecting the Democratic nominee, who will then go on to inevitably win against the Republican. In fact, I believe the inherent bias of the Electoral College makes a Republican more likely to win the presidency than a Democrat in 2008.

Despite this bias, there are still two ways a Democrat can win in November: first, if he or she fundamentally shakes up the traditional balance of blue to red states and, second, if the Republicans nominate an individual who scares away part of the general electorate. Let’s look at each candidate individually in the context of the Electoral College, starting with the Republicans. Take Mike Huckabee. Here is a candidate who likely cannot win the Republican nomination regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. Due to his evangelical social conservatism, states like Iowa, New Mexico, Arizona, Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, and Missouri would all come back into play, which would benefit the Democrats. Similarly, his policies do not even appeal to most Republicans—i.e. the fiscal conservatives and the national security conservatives. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would put up a healthy fight against the Democratic nominee, as his business sense and outsider status would open to contention such blue states as Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire, etc. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain would be even more unstoppable (depending on the Democratic nominee), potentially contesting every single state in the union outside of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The difference in candidates on the Democratic side is even more dramatic. In particular, I do not believe it is at all possible for Hillary Clinton to win the general election (except perhaps against Mike Huckabee). Looking again at the 2004 electoral map, Hillary Clinton likely cannot win a single state that John Kerry did not win. In fact, I would argue that she would perform considerably worse than Kerry. Significantly, there has never been a candidate for president with a higher negativity rating than Hillary Clinton. Conservatives will be motivated en masse to go to the polls to vote against Clinton, regardless of who the Republican candidate is. In fact, in my own moderate town of Hanover, Massachusetts (51% voted for Bush in 2004, making it slightly more liberal than the national average), most Independents and a considerable number of Democrats I have spoken to despise Clinton and say they would vote Republican—depending on the Republican nominee—if she were the Democratic nominee. I predict that Massachusetts as a whole will vote Democratic in 2008 regardless of the candidates, but what I’ve witnessed here will certainly translate into a devastating loss for the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire (among other traditional Left-slanting states), which is a must win for her in November. In all, I would estimate that Clinton has the least likely chance of winning the presidency of any candidate from either party except for Mike Huckabee.

The other leading Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, is an entirely different story. Despite being more to the Left on many issues than Hillary Clinton, his message of hope and change has inspired not just Democrats, but also the majority of Independents, and even some Republicans. In fact, again using the example of my hometown, Independents and many Republicans are just as enthralled with Obama as are Democrats, with some Republicans saying they would vote for him in the general election. This corresponds with several conversations I overheard when attending various rallies in New Hampshire, where self-identified Republicans confessed support for Obama. This pattern shows up in national polls as well. Obama has the potential to fundamentally upset the Electoral College by turning conventional wisdom about red and blue states on its head. For example, Obama would almost certainly win New Hampshire and Ohio (alone enough to win the presidency), but he would also seriously contest states with high ratios of black and Hispanic voters, such as Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. He would also likely win Iowa, New Mexico, and West Virginia, along with all of the traditional blue states. In fact, I think the only Republican candidate who would give Obama a run for his money in November is John McCain.

For all these reasons, it is truly baffling to hear Democrats talk about supporting Hillary Clinton for her electability. To be frank, she is about as electable as Mike Huckabee, and that’s saying something. If the Democrats want to win in November after eight long years of George W. Bush, they should stop supporting Clinton and ride the Obama wave to the White House, because that’s where it’s headed if he can only pull off the Democratic nomination. Otherwise, I—along with millions of other Independents—just might be casting my vote for John McCain ten months from now.

Who Dropped the Football?

This blog has foundered somewhat this fall as the writers have been sidetracked into organizing conflict resolution workshops and writing theses. Apologies for the lapse in internationalism.

This week, however, international affairs assumes priority number one, given the alarming imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan. It's especially scary for me, as I've got family and friends there, but the security situation should be of concern to all conscientious observers of international politics. This is a nation with significant and complex ties to its regional neighbors; this is a region of vital importance to the global war on terror and to the global economy; this is a nation on the brink of real democracy taking giant steps backwards in development.

I've read and seen lots of American media coverage this week that tries to figure out how this happened and who in Pakistan screwed up--Musharraf, the army chiefs collectively, the lawyers, the civil leaders, the religious right. But instead of trying to figure out who IN Pakistan dropped the football this week, I think we ought to be realizing that Pakistan WAS the football and it's the West that dropped it.

Musharraf came to power because the United States and our allies were interested in Pakistan as a key base point to go after terrorists in Western South Asia. Musharraf seemed to be the man for the job--a general but, unlike much of the army, with a secular, pro-Western approach. We pumped aid into Pakistan to ensure his support and turned a blind eye to his authoritarian rise to power. Pakistan was our football, Musharraf was our quarterback and we felt more or less confident that he would follow the playbook.

This year, we tried to do better than manipulate a dictatorship in the service of anti-terror, pro-democratic foreign policy. We tried to turn that dictatorship into a democratic ally--we encouraged Musharraf to take off his green jacket, we endorsed his move to bring back a liberal leader--Benazir Bhutto--and to announce elections for January. What we didn't do was ensure that any of these proposals would succeed.

The United States alone had the inside links to military and intelligence forces in Pakistan to supervise the transition from October to January so that this would not happen. Instead, we assumed, as we've done throughout the 20th century that the dictators we appoint or endorse (think Castro, Pinochet, Saddam) will play by our rules. In each of those earlier cases as in this one, we are learning that quarterbacks sometimes ignore the playbook and run in their own direction.

Problematically, we're finding, there's not much a coach can do once he's written the plays. Having made Musharraf so central to our foreign policy in the region, and having failed to make allies with the rest of the country (think of a coach who relies on one star player), we can't afford to punish him by withdrawing aid because he might stop collaborating on terror. We also can't support his removal, because the rest of the army underneath him will likely be hostile to the United States government. The liberal civil leaders who might have been natural allies we've managed to alienate in the last decade with our support for the army.

What we ought to be doing now is assuming some responsibility and stepping in to untangle the situation. Instead, it seems the Bush administration is fiddling while Rome burns.

The World Awaits a Reborn France

NOTE: This article was originally written on May 7, 2007 for the Brown Daily Herald summer issue, but it was never printed. Rather than let the article go to waste, I think it appropriate to post it here now, especially since the subject matter is still quite relevant.

SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, WHILE SWITCHING between classes at Sciences-Po in Paris, I was startled to nearly run headfirst into Nicolas Sarkozy. Apparently, the French Interior Minister and presidential hopeful was visiting the school for a debate in advance of the election. At the time, I couldn’t help but be both amused and impressed by the energy and confidence exuded by this tiny man, and I remember thinking, ‘how appropriate for a candidate who wants to instill those very characteristics in the mindset of his country.’ Well that was a few weeks ago; today he is President of France.

It is hard to overstate the impact Sarkozy’s election will have within France. The new leader’s policies mark a tidal shift in matters of both economics and society, as he is an avowed economic liberal whose campaign has been based on the idea of making the French value hard work again, and he takes a hard line when it comes to security. But the potential domestic impact has already been analyzed. What is less discussed is the international significance of a Sarkozy presidency. In this respect too, France has been entirely reborn.

First considering economics, Sarkozy’s proposals will have a scope that far exceeds the territory of France. Europe, namely, is in the midst of a difficult process of self-definition, with some countries – principally Britain and Germany – arguing that the E.U. should be driven by a liberal economic model, and others – led by France – partisans of a more socially-minded system. Indeed, one of the main reasons the French recently rejected the European constitutional treaty was their perception that negotiations ceded too much ground to the neo-liberals.

Now, with Sarkozy as President, France is set to join Britain and Germany in permanently enshrining free-market economics in a revised European Constitution. Indeed, only last week at a rally in Bercy, Sarkozy enthusiastically called for a France in which the world can “invest, create, endeavor, innovate.” His economic plan is set not only to energize GDP growth and reduce anemic unemployment in France itself, but will, in so doing, reestablish the historical power as an economic engine for Europe. It is no wonder that economists from London, to Berlin, to Krakow are so excited.

As for the political changes Sarkozy will bring, it is useful to first examine what he is not. Primarily, Sarkozy is not his predecessor Jacques Chirac, whose condescension towards Eastern E.U. members led to growing disillusionment with Europe in those countries, and whose relationships with three German leaders were frosty at best. In fact, it is said that Chancellor Kohl disliked Chirac’s character, Schroeder his ego, and Merkel his politics.

Sarkozy, on the other hand, breaks with this trend. As the European project tries to refind its footing after the constitutional disaster and two unwieldy enlargements, only a remade Franco-German partnership can push through the necessary institutional reform. And for the first time since the Mitterand-Kohl partnership, it appears that the leaders of these two crucial European powers are on the same ideological page. Sarkozy has pledged to work closely with Merkel in charting out a future for Europe, and has said he will ram institutional reform through the French legislature, leaving a more wide-ranging referendum for the future. With Sarkozy in power, as he himself stated the night of his victory, “France is back in Europe.

Looking beyond the E.U, it is equally clear that Sarkozy is not his Socialist rival in the 2007 election. Indeed, if there was anything Ségolène Royal understood less than how to generate economic growth, it was the intricacy of international relations. Royal’s campaign was fraught with gaffes, including such embarrassing moments as praising China for the swiftness of its judicial system, telling a Hezbollah MP that she agreed with his party’s analysis of the U.S., and – perhaps most strangely – insisting that Iran not be allowed to develop a civilian nuclear energy program.

Besides simply avoiding careless slipups, Sarkozy subscribes to an ideology that is strikingly different than Royal’s. Rather than excusing Chinese behavior, for example, he insists that France criticize the Communist state for its flagrant abuses. Also, during his first remarks as President-elect, he indicated an about-face in relations with the U.S., assuring Americans that “France will always be next to them when they need us.” And on Iran, Sarkozy will be tougher than the vacillating Chirac on insisting that the theocratic state not obtain nuclear weapons, though he maintains the right of every country to a civilian nuclear program.

In essence, Sarkozy’s foreign agenda will be defined less by moral equivocation and more by placing French republican values – principally human rights – at the heart of its policy. Under this ideology none are spared: neither radical Islamism, which Sarkozy chastises for its intolerance and disrespect for minorities, nor the genocide taking place in Darfur, which the new president has promised to address through concrete action. According to Sarkozy himself, France will now “stand next to those who are persecuted by tyrants and dictatorships.” This marks a sharp contrast with policy under Chirac, who was known for his cultural relativism and his practice of making personal acquaintances of African autocrats.

Of course, at the end of the day, rhetoric is not enough. In the coming months, Sarkozy will be judged on actions not words. But at least now the possibility of change is certain. If the new president successfully implements his proposals, the European project will be reanimated, relations with the United States transformed, and human rights afforded a staunch defender. And this change could not have come at a better time. As the United States now prepares for its own presidential election, with the real possibility of electing a president who is more receptive to the international community, there is great potential for the consolidation of the transatlantic alliance, to the benefit of more effective world leadership. Sarkozy has finally lifted the great French nation off its knees, and the world awaits its first steps.

Michael Scott Robinson ‘08

Bloomberg for President?

On Tuesday, the New York Times printed on its front page that NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg might be running for President. Bloomberg of course vigorously denied having White House ambitions, and the story, if you look closely, relies mostly on his aides' comments about how good he could be. By this afternoon, I found activists all over Manhattan seeking signatures to get Bloomberg's name on the ballots nationwide. Meanwhile, glowing profiles of Bloomberg appeared in both BusinessWeek and Time magazine. Yesterday, opposition to a Bloomberg candidacy found voice in Bob Herbert's New York Times column, in the same paper that originally suggested a Bloomberg run.

Given that, I'd say his candidacy is not likely to come to much more than a talking point for political junkies, but in that realm he has great potential to show us the contours of a future political landscape.

My first reaction is to note the role of the press: whatever complaints they voice about their losses to new media, the old boys of the newspaper press still have the power to create a buzz.

My second reaction is to see the buzz as indicative of a larger political shift. The pundits never tire of discussing the silent majority of swing voters and moderates. But as the Wall Street Journal correctly argued last week, moderates come in many forms. The gap between moderates like Bloomberg and moderates like Joe Lieberman is as meaningul as the gap between Democrats and Republicans. In fact, it may be time for our political parties to realign around the first divide since the second one no longer fits neatly.

I argued after the 2004 election, that the Democrats were at a crossroads--they have been defined since 1933 by their support for New Deal social services, but most of those programs are no longer sustainable in their current forms. I also compared the Dems' position to that of the Republican party after the stunning defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Forced to rethink their identity, the party came up with neoconservatism, an ideology undone and undermined by the foreign policy choices of the last 5 years.

Which means both parties now need to redefine their ideals. In doing so, they may find that the groups they represent no longer have much in common. Without their belief in American exceptionalism and the evangelizing power of democracy, what do social conservatives share with war hawks and big business? Without their faith in big government and the welfare state, what do first-generation blue-collar immigrants share with intellectuals and academics?

The smarter pundits on both sides have already identified these breaking alliances and they are beginning to push for new party platforms. What interests me is how much they agree on the new lines of demarcation. Thomas Friedman sees the new Left as made up of the education middle classes, pro-business, pro-globalization, and pro-environment. He calls this "Global-Green." David Brooks agrees, though he calls his new Left opponents "bo-bos." Brooks sees the new Right as a party of the lower-middle class, social conservatives who are pro-local, skeptical of authority--business, federal and international. In their foreign policy, the new Left are multilateral, and thus non-interventionist when allies cannot be had. The new Right are isolationist, but when foreign involvement is necessary, they'd rather America go it alone.

Mike Bloomberg does not fit neatly into either of the old categories, which is why he has vacillated between them. But on the new playing field, he is decidedly left of center. Which is why Bob Herbert is right to call him a Democrat at heart.

The problem is that the Democratic party isn't savvy to the new identity of the Left. Mike Bloomberg, who relfects the new American left, can't run except as an independent, and independants have a less than inspirational history in the States. In a New Left party he could give the Democrats the White House.

Given that, I'd say his candidacy is not likely to come to much more than a talking point for political junkies, but in that realm he has great potential to show us the contours of a future political landscape.

Days Before French Election, Candidates Debate

For posterity's sake, here are two interesting videos of analysis of the French Presidential debate between UMP candidate Nicholas Sarkozy and Parti Socialiste candidate Ségolène Royal, one from BBC and one from France 2. The full 2 1/2 hour debate can be found on YouTube, which I decided not to post here in full for obvious reasons.

To briefly summarize the debate, both candidates did well. Royal, who had been suffering from the perception that she was too soft, tried to adopt a more aggressive tone, and Sarkozy, who had been alternatively criticized for his aggression, tried to play it cool. Both Sarkozy and Royal succeeded in this respect.

On the issues, Segolene displayed a mastery of environmental and educational policy. She also raised some legitimate concerns about Sarkozy's controversial handling of the country's social problems. However, Sarkozy clearly proved the superior in matters of economics and foreign policy. Royal's economic ideas betrayed a lack of knowledge on basic economic principles, and several of her foreign policy positions were uninformed. For example, she called for a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and argued that Iran should not be allowed even a civilian nuclear program, which is the right of any signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Following the debate, Sarkozy recieved an immediate bump in the polls, which was later revealed to be the effect of centrist voters (who had voted for UDF candidate François Bayrou in the first round) shifting support away from Royal, despite the fact that Bayrou himself announced he would not vote for Sarkozy.

On the eve of the election, it appears that Sarkozy will win. This can only be a good thing for France, since his tried-and-tested liberal economic policies are set to reenervate French GDP growth and lower the unemployment rate. Moreover, an economic upturn will positively impact the social situation in the country, since unemployment among immigrant communities and illiberal employment practices have been exacerbating an already tense situation by disenfranchising non-white French youths.

Here are the videos I mentioned about the debate, which was Socialism vs. Liberalism at its finest! Vive le libéralisme!

BBC


France 2 (English subtitles)

On Rosie, Pelosi, and the Divided Government

After watching the Youtube clips of the View that the previous post provided, I cannot help but think that I just wasted 20 minutes of my life that I can never get back. Hearing her point of views is quite appalling. Rosie is by no mean an expert in foreign policy or international politics in general, and to issue such a strong but obviously ill-informed set of opinions is indeed dangerous to the American public, espeically the female population among whom Rosie may indeed a certain level of respect and credibility.

Free speech is a wonderful thing. It is a privilege that most of the world's population still do not enjoy today. But I firmly believe that free speech in private and free speeech in public are two separate domains that command two separate levels of scrutiny. If Rosie were to have said the exact same thing on her show during a dinner conversation, I would be perfectly fine with it, and I certainly hope there would be some one more informed at the dinner table to teach her a few things. But when you are on television, addressing the public, you already command a certain amount of credibility simply because you are on television; otherwise the audience wouldn't watch you in the first case. In this scenario, when your opinion is assumed to be correct at least on a factual level, you better make sure you got your facts right because if you don't, you are cheating your audience and that is indeed wrong, dangerous, and almost criminal. Rosie obviously got a lot of her facts wrong, as Michael has accurately pointed out, and her action, in my mind, is indeed enough to revoke her right of free speech in the public domain.

I hope Rosie does not present the current situation of the American Left. Extremism is indeed perilous no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on, which Michael has argued effective, so I will not dwell on this point any longer. However, one thing I would like to emphasize is the specific damages that shows like, the View, may do on the female population of America in general. I have high hopes for women in politics. I believe women, with their natural dispositition towards compromise and negotiation, in combination with the proper academic training, will provide a much needed moderating force in politics around the world, which is dominated by men. However, with the vast majority of the audience of these type of shows being women, I am deeply concerned that the female population are not receiving the information that they need to become responsible American citizens and to exercise their political responsibility effectively.

Unfortunately, the current situation of politics, with a divided government, stubborn president, and emboldened Democratic Congress, has produced the perfect environment for ill-informed, emotionally-charged, over-simplified, yet rhetorically-appealling opinions to flourish in the media and influence the public. The deep division in the government is clear. Speaker Pelosi's current swing in the Middle East and her controversial visit to Syria is a clear example. Having met the Speaker personally once, I am quite fond of her, especially her deep committment in improving the human rights situation around the world. But with all due respect, Madame Speaker, you have no business meddling in foreign policy and relations with other nations. There is another perfectly qualified woman, aka our Secretary of State, who has had much more experience in dealing with these issues. Her visit, which directly contradicts the Bush Administration's policy towards Syria, simply further divides the country and send out a strong signal to the world that there is essentially no clear leader in the United States. That is not a good message to send. Pelosi is a powerful woman. She can exert much pressure on Bush in matters related to foreign policy but directly participating in the policy making process at this point with a nation like Syria is a poor move. While there are certain political incentives for both the Democratics and the Bush Administration to adhere to their respective platform and continuously attack each other to gain the political high ground, they must demonstrate their ability to work together within the framework of American politics itself and not extend this division on to the world stage.

Iran has just officially announced its release of the British prisoners today. While its motivation is still not clear and deserves further analysis (I expected the stand-off to last much longer), it certainly looks like Iran wants to avoid prolonged diplomatic confrontation with the U.S/GB coalition that is separate from the nuclear issue. I even have a hunch that the Iranians do suspect that this incident may indeed give the US/GB an excuse to go to war with Iran, which has led to the release in order to avoid armed confrontation, even though the scenario will be just as bad for Iran as it is for the US/GB. However, these thoughts are still speculations and I certainly wouldn't form any informed opinions until I have my facts straight.

The Ignorance of America's Far Left

Attending Brown University, one of America's more left-wing colleges, I am very familiar with the liberal discourse in this country and might - given the application of enough pressure - even admit to counting myself as an adherent to the ideology. Though perhaps not as liberal as most of the Brown students I know, I do share many of their views, especially the belief that the radical far-Right is generally more dangerous than it's counterpart on the Left. After all, time has shown that right-wing extremism rarely holds up to historical or even present-day scrutiny; just take a look back at the ideology of Nazism, or jump forward to present day with that of Islamism. History, it is clear, favors the gradual leftward march of the political spectrum. To argue this point, a right-winger might of course cite communism under Stalin, but the comparison would be disingenuous. Stalinist communism - indeed all the communisms of the former Soviet Union - may have followed a leftist economic ideology, but in fact the political ideology was decidedly rightist, little different in practice from fascism.

That said, the ideology of the far-Left is certainly dangerous in its own right, namely because the application of its principles inevitably fails to produce a stable, functioning system, be it on the state or community level. For example, with the Soviet Union, one saw that it took a far-Right political structure to reallocate resources towards a far-Left economic goal (a goal that was, moveover, economically not viable to begin with). Equally problematic, the leftist student anarchists of the 1960s and 70s provided no proper alternative to the existing system, and eventually came to realize this themselves by the 1980s (hence the general conservative backlash). Thus, taken together, both the far-Right and far-Left are dangerous in their own ways, the first tending towards violence/repression and the second towards fatal inefficacy. Given the choice, I - along with most of my fellow Brown students - would prefer the latter, though of course neither is ideal.

In less abstract terms, what this means very simply is that I find myself often openly confronting extremist right-wing arguments while more silently opposing those of the far-Left. But then, every now and then there comes a time when I hear a liberal say something that convinces me that they are just as ignorant, and perhaps just as dangerous, as conservatives. Case in point, as much as Sean Hannity plays havoc with my cringe reflex on a daily basis, Rosie O'Donnell's rant on the daytime television show the View the other day left me reeling. For an entire segment, she offered her "informed" opinion on the topics of Iran and the 9/11 attacks, which, it turns out, was not informed at all but rather reminiscent of the madrasa-inspired rantings of an 11-year-old jihadist marching through the streets of Islamabad. I would usually take solace in the fact that it's just Rosie O'Donnell making the radical statements, not a politician like Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean, but apparently Rosie's rant resulted in a measurable spike in visitors to 9/11 conspiracy-theory websites across the internet. Personally, I'm all for free speech, and Rosie has her role and occasionally makes good points, but spewing falsehoods about subjects as important as 9/11 to millions of impressionable minds on television strikes me as not only irresponsible but dangerous. And what's even more dangerous is that every time I hear such stupidity issuing from the Left I start to think perhaps it's a good thing we have the Right. So please, Rosie, shut up and let me continue living under the illusion that liberals have the intellectual high ground.

Clips of Rosie on Iran 9/11 (Parts I and II)


Specific Problems I have with Rosie's Analysis:

1. She states without reservation that the British seamen were in Iranian waters. This is still uncertain, and - from GPS evidence coming out - is likely not the case. Also, Iran initially gave a location of where it found the British seamen, which it later revised after it was clear that this location was well within Iraqi, not Iranian, waters.
2. She claims that Britain (in collusion with the U.S.) purposely sacrificed it's own seamen in order to instigate war with Iran. Never mind the fact that it is far-fetched to think the British government would resort to such measures, Rosie also is ignorant to the fact that the United States and Britain are in no position to wage war on Iran given the current mess in Iraq. Military advisers and intelligence officials are keen to avoid war at all costs because they know Iran has considerable agency in Iraq.
3. She claims that the Iranians are saying they will let go of the British hostages if only Britain admits they were in Iranian territorial waters. In fact, Iran is also demanding the release of Iranian counter-insurgent agents detained by coalition forces in Iraq.
4. She claims that Iran has a "supposed" nuclear enrichment program. In truth, there is no disagreement over the fact that Iran is currently enriching uranium. The debate is over whether Iran will use this enriched material to manufacture offensive weapons.
5. She thinks that calling the war the "War on Terror" is propaganda and is demeaning and dehumanizing to terrorists. In my opinion, it isn't the label "terrorist" that dehumanizes these people, rather it's their barbaric actions.
6. She claims that the U.S. wants to go into Iran "for the money." The U.S. is having enough trouble financing two wars, fighting three would bankrupt the country. Also, the U.S. military is already deployed to capacity.
7. She claims that on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7 was demolished by explosives because "fire can't melt steal," and moreover that these explosives were planted by the government to hide evidence from the Enron scandal. First, she is right that normal fire can't melt steel, but jet fuel fire can. And, frankly, the government had more important things to worry about on 9/11 than hiding Enron evidence.

Better Confused than Close-minded?

Every once in a while I feel incredibly guilty that my posts on this site are so infrequent. Then I realize I'm running about par for the course--where have the rest of you gone?

I'm going to skirt the whole China space debate because I don't know enough about it to contribute meaningfully, and stick to what I do know, the politics of culture, or the culture of politics, depending how you see things. Anyway, this all began as a Herald column I was vaguely thinking about writing on how this election (2008) has become the identity election--what kind of President are we ready for--woman, black, Mormon, Jew etc. At the time (early January) this would've made a fresh and interesting essay--then the New York Times, followed by every other paper, began covering precisely this angle of the election story, so I gave the idea up.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F70611F8355B0C728DDDAB0894DF404482

Then, as I was researching a column about religion in politics, I found myself brought back to this identity angle, as the thing that irritates me most about US politics, because it seems to lead us away from policy into abstractions and platitudes--"hope," "opportunity," and "equality" as words that sound nice but mean little in terms of facts and figures, these words seem to grow directly out of religion, race, class and gender as the categories that lead us to be concerned with the hope for equal opportunity.

http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2007/03/02/Opinions/Maha-Atal.08.Religion.Distracts.From.The.Real.Issues-2754513.shtml

Somewhere in the midst of writing this column, I was chatting to some British friends about this business of identity politics and one of them said, "it's weird. I think the reason you guys [americans] have that problem is that you're not sure who you are. we don't have an identity crisis so we don't have identity politics."

I doubt this kid thought this statement through fully, because I don't think he's politically aware enough to have come up with anything so damn true. Identity politics is not only about defining the identity of the candidate but also about defining the identity of the nation--wondering if America is ready for a black president, for example, is also wondering if a black candidate is "American" enough. If we were sure on that question, we'd perhaps have time for policy questions, but we can't talk about what should be done for America till we decide who America is.

So far, my British friend has my agreement. But he meant this comment to be snide and derogatory. He meant to be smug about how convinced the British are that Britishness means white, Protestant, middle-to-upper-class. Not that others don't live here, but those people--the poor, the immigrants, Jews and Muslims--are never really "British" in the nation's eyes and for the most part they don't stand for office. That question of identity settled, the British, meaning the rich white men who run government have plenty of time for policy. And indeed, political debate here IS more substantive than America's as I never tire of observing to my American friends, but after years of complaining of how fluffy our politics is, now that I realize why, I don't know if I really want to see America go the way of the Brits.

http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/11/07/Columns/Maha-Atal.08.A.Load.Of.Hot.Air-2443912.shtml

Our national identity is vague, undefined and problematic, yes. We don't have national myths set in stone as the Brits do. We don't agree on our history. We're not sure if 1861-65 was the civil war or the war of independance. But this lack of definition, the way what it means to be an American can change over time means that in accomodating and expecting and even valorizing change, America accomodates difference in a way the British don't. Identity politics, debating whether we can handle the minority President, is sad sometimes, in that perhaps the answer should be "yes" wth less hesitancy than we tend towards. But if you spend some time a society where that question isn't asked at all, our debates take on a different color.

http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/12/01/Columns/Maha-Atal.08.Eternal.Beginners-2517051.shtml
http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/10/11/Columns/Maha-Atal.08.Lost.In.The.Time.Zone.Conversion-2343203.shtml

My problem now, having identified why this we have identity politics (its part of accomodating new groups) and why the Brits are so sure of their identity (because they fixed it as closed and exclusive a long time ago), I'm stuck. Am I actually willing to sacrifice substance for social inclusion? Or is there some way to have the best of both worlds?

China Makes a Mess in Space - Part Trois

I appreciate Anti-aryan's response to my comments concerning China's anti-satellite missile launch, however I am not convinced that we are on entirely different pages with respect to the issue. It seems that we both acknowledge the long-term motivations that went into China's decision to launch, as well as recognizing that the timing might have a great deal to do with the impending Beijing Olympics in 2008. That said, it also appears that we wish to emphasize one or the other time frame. In that respect, I do still hold by my conviction that China's missile test was simply the culmination of a decade-long process, during which Chinese scientists steadily progressed towards the ultimate goal of testing an anti-satellite missile. Given this context, the general timing of the launch makes perfect sense; American and European space observers first predicted that China would attempt a launch several years ago, and were waiting for it to happen any day.

Now, the exact timing of the launch is another matter entirely. I agree entirely with Anti-aryan that the launch seemed to be the result of political pressure from the top, as evidenced by the failure to take into account the critical problem of space debris, which the Chinese scientists were undoubtedly aware of. The space debris that resulted from the blast will ironically endanger China's own functioning satellites for years to come. I find it highly plausible that the immediate timing of the launch was rushed in order to send a signal to the U.S. and Taiwan.

Now responding to the second segment of Anti-aryan's post, it is of course true that China did not create the problem of space debris. As he points out, it was the U.S. and the Soviet Union who first cluttered space with anti-satellite tests, spent rockets, and wayward bolts and tools from the ISS. However, it is important to note that the international scientific community discovered the potential problems with "space junk" years ago. And from that point on, the U.S. and the Soviet Union/Russia took deliberate measures to limit its proliferation. China's launch is thus particularly egregious because it is the first such action to be deliberately undertaken with full knowledge of the risks involved. The People's Republic of China should be aware that the world community has already begun to see the rising superpower as both foolish and irresponsible, while it took America decades of unchallenged hegemony to earn such a distinction. This does not bode well for China's ambitions.

China Makes a Mess in Space - Part 2.5

To all readers and commentators, I just want to add one more thing to my critique of China's recent space policy to put the whole issue in a more objective perspective. Michael.Scott.Robinson and I have been critical of China's recent action in space, and rightfully so. However, I would like to remind our readers that the recent explosion of China's weather satellite is no way the cause of the space debris problem. The military policy of targeting satellites began more than two decades ago when the struggle between the USSR and the U.S. carried over into space. The vast majority of the existing debris was produced during the Cold War when the U.S. tested its own anti-satellite missiles, and the Soviets, who failed to develop a precision targeting weaponry launched nuclear warheads into space and destroyed its target simply by exploding near the target and using its explosive shock to destroy the satellite, an indeed very crude method that caused much collateral damage. Therefore, in correction to the title of the previous couple of posts, the Chinese are not the once that made the mess in Space, but their irresponsible action undoubtedly worsened the current condition.

Cleaning up our orbit is no doubt an international problem. Not only should nations refrain from any action that will produce more debris (take note Hu), nations with space capabilities (U.S., China, Russia) and nations with space ambitions (Germany, India, Japan), need to gather up the best of the best of their respective scientists and work together to ameliorate this problem. It will take a long time, but it is worth the struggle.

China Makes a Mess in Space - Part Deux

I have been looking forward for sometime to blog commentator Michael.Scott.Robinson’s response to my post on China’s recent anti-satellite missile test. Staying true to the discussion nature of this blog, I would first like to defend my position on China’s motivation for launching the missile at this particular time, and then go on to addressing MSR’s take on the subject.

I would first like to make clear that I do not at all doubt the analysis of many pundits on the long-term space ambition of China as a catalyst for the missile launch. China’s objectives were made very clear when the nation launched her first astronaut into space a few years ago, which has attracted tremendous attention from around the world and has given the nation’s people much glory and pride, something the Chinese civilization has not enjoyed for more than a century due to internal weakness, foreign imperialism, warfare and political turmoil. Leaving the long-term goals aside, does my assertion of China’s short-term objective make sense? Is launch served primarily as a warning sign for both Taiwan, exiled political dissents and the United States that if they are going to do something radical during the Olympics, no one will protect them? For others who may disagree with my analysis, please take a close look at the timing and the immediate consequences of the launch. Why now? Two main reasons why the problematic window between now and the Olympics could be the key reason in explaining the timing of the launch. First, the Chinese government did not respond to the launch until more than a week after its launch, after foreign nations have been expressing its grievance and objection for quite sometime. Why the wait? It shows that internally, the various departments and ministries of the Chinese government did not fully agree, or are not on the same wavelength when the launch took place, which explains why it took the Chinese that much time to scramble an official statement to tell to the world. If the objective is purely long-term, knowing our ultra-prepared the Chinese are all the time in order to ensure absolutely success and not lose pride or “face” to the nation, such an obvious delay in response looks fishy, unless the Chinese is indeed worried about the possibly of an onslaught by Taiwan and other anti-communist groups, so the officials, at least the military ones, rushed to get display their technology even though the political support is not quite there yet. Knowing the constant internal competition for power of the Chinese government, it is very likely that the more hawkish military commission may execute the launch and force the government into both accepting and endorsing its action. But if you are still not so convinced, please consider the space debris problem that the explosion of the Chinese satellite has exacerbated; it is yet another indicator that the Chinese government rushed to make the decision to launch the missile. From the rapidly advancement of the Chinese space technology and its existing dialogue with NASA, it is inconceivable that the Chinese scientists do not know about the debris problem in the earth’s orbit. But in this launch, it is quite clear that the scientists gave up their prudence and professionalism, most likely due to political pressure, and permitted the launch despite its apparently and potential colossal consequences in expediting the cascade of debris collisions which is due to lead to more destruction than just an worn-out Chinese weather satellite. Again, why the rush? Because the Olympics is drawing near and getting the launch off sooner than later is in the immediate national interest of China. It will take decades to solve the debris problem in the orbit and may need the cooperation of all the scientifically advanced nations, but Taiwan and the threat of the U.S. is more imminent and, in the Chinese eyes, a domestic issue that needs to be dealt with quickly.

Having said all this, I do agree with MSR in his dissatisfaction of the Chinese missile launch. It is a naked display is irresponsibility for a nation that has been trying to become a responsible stakeholder in the international community. Again, national interested trumped global interest, and the impending disaster in space is something we all need to think about. Our everyday life, from cell phone to GPS, has been so dependent on the service of satellites that a domino of destruction to these satellites could literally put world communication in a sudden halt, and may take years to fit. I am indeed disappointed by the Chinese government’s inconsiderate decision-making process. Taiwan is no doubt a hotspot for potential conflict that could bring about a clash between the superpower and the rising power. But recognizing the incredible economic and political leverage China has been building up against Taiwan during its incredibly rapid period of growth, the launch is highly unnecessary at this point in time. While there is no doubt that the launch contains a long-term and short-term component, I believe the short-term implication was the dominant factor. The Chinese may see it as a wonderful New Year firework in space that brings them more pride and confidence, but I can assure them that the firework will not end here.

China Makes a Mess in Space

For the sake of making this blog more discussion-based - and out of my own personal interest - I'd like to respond to the post made by commentator Anti-aryan on January 21 concerning the news that the People's Republic of China tested its first anti-satellite missile.

This development was of particular interest to me, given my long-held passion for space science and exploration. I have been following China's rise as a space power closely for some time now, and am intrigued that the country has come as far as it has in such a short period of time. In truth, I've always welcomed China's entrance into the space business, believing that healthy competition is just what the United States (and the world) needs to ensure rapid, sustained development in low-earth orbit and beyond. However, China's recent anti-satellite test worries me for obvious reasons.

In his post last week, Anti-aryan offered the analysis that perhaps China's motivation for testing its anti-satellite technology had a hidden short-term purpose that was lost on most observers, namely that China wished to make a statement in advance of the 2008 Beijing Olympics warning Taiwan not to take advantage of the event for its own purposes. I find such an explanation highly intriguing. The timing of the test is indeed very suggestive, and we know that the Chinese rarely do anything without carefully considering the consequences. That said, I would not be so quick to dismiss the longer-term motivations that went into the test.

From a strategic standpoint, the United States military owes its "hyperpower" status to its unique space capabilities. The U.S. has long been militarily dominant for a number of different reasons of course - its combined naval and air power (read aircraft carriers) allowed it a strategic advantage in World War II for example - but these traditional advantages only ever allowed the U.S. to be several steps ahead of any other country. The true gap didn't open up until the Gulf War, when America suddenly unveiled some new gadgetry, i.e. satellite-based communications and satellite-guided missiles. As one can recall, Saddam didn't know what hit him. In fact, it was from that point on that the U.S. military began having trouble even fighting alongside foreign troops because of the difference in technological capability. Only the British army at this point is capable of deploying directly with Americans.

Now, what makes this situation considerably more interesting is the fact that, while the American space-based technology has exponentially increased the military capability of the United States, it also leaves the U.S. highly vulnerable. The most powerful military in the world is today wholly reliant on a fleet of satellites orbiting the Earth, all of which are utterly unprotected; a veritable Achilles heel. Steps have been taken in recent years (notably by former Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) to improve U.S. satellite security, but nothing substantial will be in place for at least another decade.

Enter China. The rising power knew that the only way it could emerge from the shadow of the United States military was to threaten it where it was most vulnerable. Hence, the Chinese began developing anti-satellite technology over a decade ago. The recent test was simply the next step in that process, thus not entirely surprising or exciting in and of itself (unlike one would be led to believe by reading the January edition of France's Le Point magazine, which called the event "la spectaculaire intrusion de la Chine dans le domaine réservé des Etats-Unis.") Perhaps the exact timing was made to coincide with the upcoming Olympics, but it also makes sense given the technological timetable begun years ago.

I thus see the most recent test much more as the result of China's longterm goal of military parity with the United States than as an attempt to shake a finger at Taiwan. It was only a matter of time before some state decided to test America's unchecked dominance of low-earth orbit. Actually though, I'm not too worried about the dawning of a new violent space race, as I still hold out hope that some non-violent, healthy space competition could be good for both sides and for humanity in general. What I'm most upset about now is that China's reckless detonation of its weather satellite has created a large cloud of debris that will now be orbiting the Earth at enormous speeds for several hundred years. Initial reports suggested (though it was never confirmed) that the International Space Station was forced to go into emergency debris control shortly after the test. As if space weren't dangerous enough before, now there are a million more bullets whizzing around the planet ready to destroy anything in their path. All I have to say is way to go China. Way to go.

French Rhetoric Meets Reality

Hello everyone, thanks for keeping the blog alive while I settled here in Paris without a steady internet connection. Now, however, my wifi is up and stable, and I plan to post regularly along with the rest of you.

I've only been in Paris for several weeks, so I hesitate to claim any special inside understanding of France and its people, yet for my first post of the new year I'd like to discuss some things I've learned about the culture thus far. Hopefully this will lay to rest some old stereotypes, though it may give birth to some new ones.

First off, I am completely enamored with the French capital. Every corner turned reveals a new Parisian monument or masterpiece, and I've often found myself simply stunned by the impressiveness of it all. In a word, Paris is grandiose, in a way that is entirely absent from any other cities or capitols I've visited (with perhaps the exception of Washington D.C.). It thus is no surprise to me that the French may be a little self-assured than most. After all, their capitol does indeed look like it could be the center of the world.

That said, the character of the French people is an entirely different matter. What I've found perhaps most striking since I've been here is that the French are a veritable study in contradiction and hypocrisy. Granted, that might be a bit harsh, but allow me to explain. Last week during Brown-in-France orientation, we participated in a particularly telling activity, the aim of which was to provide us with greater insight into the French mentality. A recent word-association study was performed comparing the responses of American students (from Brown University) to those of French students (from the Sorbonne) when presented a common stimulus. The first such stimulus was the word "individualism." When asked to write down anything that came to mind when the word was mentioned, American students invariably chose (as did we) such associations as "liberty," "independence," and "freedom." French responses on the other hand were strikingly different, with associations such as "egotism," "anti-social," "and even "moi, moi, moi" from one student. This result was of course not surprising. The French and American societies have long seen the relationship between individuals and society very differently.

The interesting part, however, came when presented with the next stimulus, "neighbors." American responses included such associations as "kind," "helpful," and "friends," while French responses included "noisy," "intrusive," and "should mind own business." What happened to the French emphasis on fraternity over individualistic "egotism"? It seems not to have held up under even light scrutiny.

Also of interest, the test was again applied to the group of French and American students, but this time using a situational stimulus. Namely, the students were asked what they would do if they saw the person next to them cheating on a major test. This time, both the French and American students responded at least partly in common; both groups said they would look disapprovingly upon such an occurrence and few said they would alert the professor. However, what was most striking was the reason cited for disapproval. The American (Brown) students almost invariably cited honesty and integrity, while these were not once mentioned by the French students. Rather, the French were more concerned with competition.

Thus, for all their lofty (and presumably sincere) rhetoric about the sinfully competitive nature of individualism and the need for greater emphasis on society and fraternity, the French are just as hungry as Americans, if not more so, for their own piece of the pie (though not American pie of course).

Since being in Paris, I've also had a few more of my preconceived notions about the French dashed before my eyes. For example, I quickly learned that the the people here do not particularly hate Americans. Before this is mistakenly perceived as a compliment, allow me to specify; the French don't particularly hate Americans because they, in fact, hate everyone. That again might be a bit harsh, but it is surprising how well it holds up, at least in Paris. Be it at a restaurant, a movie theater, a museum, wherever, expect to be treated considerably less than cordially. The concept of "customer service" barely exists here; proprietors and waiters come first, not customers. And what many don't realize is, this applies not just to Americans, but to people of any nationality. Those I've met here include British, Swedish, and French students, and all describe the same treatment. Again, so much for French fraternity.

That said, the French public does indeed distinguish Americans from other nationalities, but in a more complex way than one might assume. Interestingly, I've found it actually advantageous to be an American in Paris. Contrary to their rhetoric, which is indeed anti-U.S., the French seem to have a fascination and veritable love affair for all things American. When we speak English in the Metro or sing along to American songs at a club, French heads turn in admiration. English words are incorporated into French ads and songs to make them more "cool." And the French media seems to be in awe of such uniquely American products as Bill Gates and NASA. Indeed, there is no need to pretend to be Canadian here - as some suggest - since being an American will get you quite far enough.

Thus, once again, one finds that French rhetoric falls apart under real scrutiny. I have no doubt that the French passionately want to believe that the world is better place without American-style individualism, competition, and consumerism, but they are proving to me every day that their unspoken views on these matters are considerably more complex than that.

State of the Capitol

A very happy new year to you. The new year, actually, is somewhat the subject of this post. Though the calendrical New Year began on January 1st, it might very well be argued that the New Year of international affairs began when with the State of the Union Address on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/washington/23bush-transcript.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In my current expatriate mode, I had to miss out on watching it live, which is too bad, because the most fun part of Bush speeches is the garbled pronounciation, and I can't pass judgement this time on his delivery. What I can pass judgement on is the content--this was the speech of a defeated and perhaps irrelevant man. It was mild, it was measured and it was boring. Where were the usual outbursts of nationalism, the crowd-rousing, Providential predictions of future glory? Much as I disagree with most of the Bush agenda, as a writer I've grown increasingly fond of his speechwriting staff. This year severely reduced my admiration.

In his first term, Bush's speeches were choppy, poorly written and even more poorly delivered. His first few State of the Union Addresses were filled with vague language of Axes of Evil and clashes of civilizations. Armed only with rhetoric, perhaps, we went to war in 2003, and it would be unnecessary to recount here the downward spiral in Iraq since.

Yet despite the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Bush was reelected in 2004, with a clearer majority than in 2000, and he appeared to take this "mandate," as he called it, and run with it, but not in the direction expected.

The SotU address in 2006 was surprising in that instead of re-affirming the President's proclamations of the previous 6 years, the speech seemed to backtrack from the traditionally conservative tone of the earlier ones (the conciliatory tone adopted towards Iran, ffor example) and show a President willing to break new risky ground, now that he was no longer in the campaign hot seat.

This speech is for me very symbolic of everything I really got excited about over Bush term 2. In a way that no politician does anymore, Bush detailed facts and figures, actual policy, on live national TV. With no further elections ahead of him, no one to answer to, maybe, he was going to govern. I didn't always agree with the detals of his immigration plans, or his means for addressing the problems of social security, education or energy, but I was all enthusiasm for anyone actually willing to "go there" on those issues. And the more he talked policy, the less bumbling his speech became, so that, for a moment, I almost bought it.

Here's the problem: that speech was one year ahead of schedule. Bush wasn't in the hot seat, but his party was, and last fall, they paid--in some more liberal areas, they paid for the war; in more conservative ones, they paid for his new experimentalism. The election, perhaps, was very explanatory--it revealed the nightmare that often constrains Washington, for fear of offending so many different groups, politicians opt to do nothing.

But that problem is not Bush's problem anymore. The Republican party is so down and out now that none of them will run in 2008 as Bush's right-hand man if they are smart. It may be that Bush and his team, though soon to be retirees, still care about the party, but since so many Republican candidates are now playing the game of distancing themselves from Bush, anything seemingly bold or radical he does makes that process rather easier than harder. In so many ways, this is a President with little or nothing to lose.

He cant get much policy passed with a Democratic Congress, you say? But they are still on the campaign trail--they can't really hurt Bush as much as his kowtowwing to Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday ("madam speaker" etc) indicates he's stressing about. So he should be able to do exactly what he couldn't get away with before, big policy. Tuesday's speech was the chance to go full speed towards leaving a legislative legacy to balance the very poor foreign policy record he's going to have, for himself and the history books, and not for any ballot box.

Instead we got a speech that was without the Term 1 ideological rhetoric (the country's too pessimistic now for that) and yet also without the early Term 2 policy boldness. It was a series of platitudes about hope and opportunity and so lacking in clear applause lines that Republicans were often as ambivalent as Democrats about when to stand up.

Back in the realm of nebulous ideals, he was also back in the realm of poor delivery, reminding me a little of that tick the Fonz has on Happy Days where he can't say sorry, he can only choke on the words. But where the Fonz gets around it by solving the problem or committing some other act of heroism to focus us away from his mistakes, Bush was the opposite of muscly, the opposite of "cool" on Tuesday. I wanted to step into his office, he wasn't sure he had one.

But I can't figure out, when the war is a mess, the Republicans are out of power, and his career is over, in short, when he's already made every mistake in the book, what's he got to lose? Who or what is he so afraid of? This year, I wonder if Washington has finally sucked the life out of a man who was once incompetent but at least interesting.

Space Ambition

As the blog begins its 2007 under the new and awesome name of "the internationalists", which more than presents the spirit and commitment of global harmony that all of its contributors represent, I would like to make my first post of the new year on a surprising and controversial topic: China's launch of its anti-satellite missile.

Although the Chinese government still has not officially recognized the validity of the launch nor has it given its explanation of the event despite widespread concerns and criticisms expressed by Western countries, it is already setting up the stage for its official statement, soon to come in the next few days. The Xinhua News Agency, the nation's official media organization/propaganda machine, has just released an article today in its military section on the topic that space will be the battleground of the 21st century, and the United States and Russia already has some capabilities in this field, implying that Chinese does not and should have in order to compete militarily in the future.

Critics and analysts have presented two possible intentions for the Chinese launch of its anti-satellite missile. 1. Force the U.S. into negotiating a weapon-ban treaty in space, allowing its obvious disadvantage in space technology to lose significance, something President Bush is clearly not interested in. 2. Demonstrate its military and technological might and progress to the world at a time where China is rising fast when its region is unstable. Many pundits still in the Cold War era are legitimately fearful of a new space arms race, which the U.S. and the Soviet Union discarded more than two decades ago. Such scenario is certainly plausible considering China's less-than-optimal though improving relationship with Japan, and its lukewarm ties with its Western neighbor and seemingly the new strategic ally of the U.S., India. Russia and the U.S. itself can easily resume its programs if they deem the action necessary.

I, for one, see a slightly different and rather short-termed intention to China's action. China's reason for the launch of the misslie is a warning signal to the U.S. and Taiwan that any radical action to support Taiwan's independence movement will suffer even more serious consequences than anticipated previously. The reason why the demonstration is executed now is because of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. People have anticipated a larger and bolder uprising of Chinese political exiles, dissidents, and obviously Taiwan Indepedence supporters to more strongly voice their greivances and demands against the Chinese one-party authoritarian government before the Olympics. The Olympics is an opportunity for these people because it is the first time that China has had the chance to demonstrate to the world its new, powerful and peaceful image. The Olympics is highly value by the government and its harsh policy towards dissent could be relaxed as the Games approaches and eyes around the world are focused on this almost 5000 years-old civilization. Many Taiwan experts including the press secretary of the Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing has expressed the view that 2007 is a critical year in the cross-strait relations, given the clear possibility that the lame-duck, pro-indepdence, and scandal-laden Taiwanese president, Chen Shui-bian may make a strong push to advise the Taiwanese constitution and declare de jure independence for the island. A demonstration of the Chinese military capability in space serves to furthur deter any thoughts of involvement in the Taiwan strait tension by the United States and destroy any hope on Formosa that the U.S. will come to its rescue if it decides to take extreme actions. If this is indeed the PRC's intention, the launch should not be viewed as a source of long-term escalation. Its timing and delayed recognition lends support to my position, showing that the PRC government, while uneasy about the criticisms the action is drawing, believes its delivery necessary to enhance its security and protect its position at least until the end of the 2008 Olympics when the window for distraction closes.