Race Will Decide
By Jerome Grossman
If Barack Obama had selected Hillary Clinton as his vice president, he would have unified the Democratic Party, obtained the allegiance of her 18 million voters and put the ticket on the road to a landslide victory in November. Sarah Palin would have remained an obscure Governor and John McCain would have insisted on nominating his pal, Joe Lieberman, as his running mate.
The Republican political base would still be depressed, distrustful of McCain and hostile to Lieberman as that team ran to prove they were mavericks, rebels within their parties, hoping for a miracle.
Now we have a presidential campaign fought on personality and abortion and religion. Obama may complain about the personality factor, but he should remember that he defeated Hillary Clinton because he was more likable, not because of his issue positions.
As recently as the 2000 election, McCain stood against the ideologues and moneyed interests of the GOP. His transformation in this election was intended to win the nomination and his selection of Palin was primarily to use her to attack Obama's character. Watch her target: it won't be Joe Biden. Palin will indeed rally the party base, but will that be enough?
Palin's convention speech featured biting and sarcastic partisanship in the style of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, focusing on Obama personally in an attack-dog mode. Instead of presenting herself as a trustworthy leader, she told whom she hates and why. She kept away from the bread and butter concerns of the average voter. In the GOP division of political labor that will be McCain's responsibility taking the high road, while Palin does the attacking on the low road.
The Republican plan should not work. The McCain connection with President Bush, the unpopular war in Iraq, the price of gasoline, the housing crisis, the rising unemployment, the poor economy, should lead to a Democratic victory. Transforming the election into a plebiscite on abortion and religion and race may give the GOP a chance. However, at this time the Democrats appear to have the advantage in money, intensity and organization. Republican efforts are limited by very weak forces on the ground and it will be very difficult to rebuild in less than two months. They will have to motivate supporters through the media.
Race, of course, is the prime factor in this election. Yes, America has made great strides in improving the status of African-Americans. Yes, more blacks have attained middle-class status and good jobs in business and the professions. But a form of tribalism exist in our country that affects virtually all relationships including voting. The electorate is predominantly white and some will vote accordingly. Obstacles to black voting have lessened but still exist. Polling of likely voters does not always reveal true voting intentions.
To win, Barack Obama will need to build multiracial coalitions and that is already in progress. In some ways, that effort is really a test of our society, under improving racial conditions, in support of a candidate with the personality, appearance, education, life history and ability to which most Americans aspire.
The day before the election, Obama will be ahead in the public opinion polls by seven to 10% but that will translate into a very close election as some white voters will change their minds and their votes on Election Day as they have in the recent past. Every vote will be important.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Why Sarah Palin?
Why Sarah Palin?
By Jerome Grossman
For many months, John McCain, along with millions of other Americans, regarded Barack Obama as a phenomenon in the political world, and perhaps beyond. In McCain headquarters, Obama’s name is rarely uttered as he is referred to as “The One”, a mystical title with messianic overtones. He came from nowhere, unannounced and unexpected, clothed in inexperience and a sense of mission.
How long would the Obama phenomenon last? Would it survive the fickle temper of the times, the pressures of American politics? For McCain, the Democratic National Convention was an indication that the media’s love affair with Barack would continue, that the usual Republican strategies and tactics were doomed to failure on November 4.
McCain had seen similar phenomena at the dice tables of Las Vegas where occasionally unknown rookie shooters, inexperienced in the nuances and even the odds of the game, pick up the dice and roll out a long succession of sevens and elevens, making sixes and eights in between as the crowd goes wild. McCain had seen the sly techniques used to throw the lucky shooters off their game: loud noises, a drink spilled onto the table, a manufactured argument.
The nomination of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska for vice-president is McCain's attempt to throw Obama off his game by substituting a competing story line even more improbable than Barack’s. It is an act of political desperation, a “Hail Mary” forward pass thrown in an attempt to stave off inevitable defeat. Nominating Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge as part of a traditional political ticket would not work against “The One”, against the long accumulated guilt feelings of so many Americans, guilt feelings that can now be expressed by voting for this unthreatening assimilated African-American.
McCain's gamble is another indication of the trivialization of American politics. Serious discussion of issues and problems fades behind the attractiveness of personality. Sarah Palin is a former beauty queen and star athlete, unflappable despite her inexperience, secure in her far right conservative Republican beliefs. She will not be diverted by Jay Leno jokes that describe her as a baked Alaska or The Perils of Palin. (Notice how few jokes are told at midnight about Barack? Are the comedians afraid of eternal wrath?) And if Joe Biden patronizes or interrupts her in their debate in his usual style, he will regret the encounter.
Palin's nomination competes with Obama’s in exploiting American guilt by offering voters a choice between correcting the underrepresentation of blacks and women. Of course, the election of President Obama will be more significant than the election of vice-president Palin, but the contest does offer a choice of remedies to historic exclusions: do one now, the other later.
Will Palin attract many of the women who voted for Hillary in the primary elections? I doubt it. Most of them are feminist to some degree, feminists who will be repelled by Palin's ultra conservative positions. Equality for women may be their most important issue, but most of them have a range of liberal beliefs that Palin cannot satisfy.
And this contradiction will be made even more apparent in the campaign as Palin tries to shore up conservative support for McCain, now shaky at best, by telling them of her positions on abortion, guns, death penalty, Iraq war, etc. She cannot satisfy the conservatives and liberals at the same time.
Palin's inexperience, a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72 year old man with a medical history, may take Obama’s similar inexperience off the political table. In fact, as Bill Clinton has said repeatedly, every new president enters office unprepared for the challenges of presiding over a nation of 300 million people. Clinton should know. His first two years as president were a disaster marked by failures in health care, gay-lesbian policies in the military, etc. culminating in loss of Democratic control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. John F. Kennedy's term began similarly with the Bay of Pigs invasion failure, nuclear war crises with the Soviet Union, and ineffectiveness in dealing with Congress. Republicans Ronald Reagan, Bush the First and Bush the Second had similar problems in mastering the presidency.
McCain fears that Obama may be unstoppable in his advance to Pennsylvania Avenue. As differences on issues fade, as personality and celebrity reach new heights of importance, as race prejudice becomes entwined with historic American guilt, the political trend is unmistakably toward Barack. Sarah Palin will not change the result any more than previous vice-president nominees. John McCain's Hail Mary pass will not prevent the election of “The One”.
By Jerome Grossman
For many months, John McCain, along with millions of other Americans, regarded Barack Obama as a phenomenon in the political world, and perhaps beyond. In McCain headquarters, Obama’s name is rarely uttered as he is referred to as “The One”, a mystical title with messianic overtones. He came from nowhere, unannounced and unexpected, clothed in inexperience and a sense of mission.
How long would the Obama phenomenon last? Would it survive the fickle temper of the times, the pressures of American politics? For McCain, the Democratic National Convention was an indication that the media’s love affair with Barack would continue, that the usual Republican strategies and tactics were doomed to failure on November 4.
McCain had seen similar phenomena at the dice tables of Las Vegas where occasionally unknown rookie shooters, inexperienced in the nuances and even the odds of the game, pick up the dice and roll out a long succession of sevens and elevens, making sixes and eights in between as the crowd goes wild. McCain had seen the sly techniques used to throw the lucky shooters off their game: loud noises, a drink spilled onto the table, a manufactured argument.
The nomination of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska for vice-president is McCain's attempt to throw Obama off his game by substituting a competing story line even more improbable than Barack’s. It is an act of political desperation, a “Hail Mary” forward pass thrown in an attempt to stave off inevitable defeat. Nominating Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge as part of a traditional political ticket would not work against “The One”, against the long accumulated guilt feelings of so many Americans, guilt feelings that can now be expressed by voting for this unthreatening assimilated African-American.
McCain's gamble is another indication of the trivialization of American politics. Serious discussion of issues and problems fades behind the attractiveness of personality. Sarah Palin is a former beauty queen and star athlete, unflappable despite her inexperience, secure in her far right conservative Republican beliefs. She will not be diverted by Jay Leno jokes that describe her as a baked Alaska or The Perils of Palin. (Notice how few jokes are told at midnight about Barack? Are the comedians afraid of eternal wrath?) And if Joe Biden patronizes or interrupts her in their debate in his usual style, he will regret the encounter.
Palin's nomination competes with Obama’s in exploiting American guilt by offering voters a choice between correcting the underrepresentation of blacks and women. Of course, the election of President Obama will be more significant than the election of vice-president Palin, but the contest does offer a choice of remedies to historic exclusions: do one now, the other later.
Will Palin attract many of the women who voted for Hillary in the primary elections? I doubt it. Most of them are feminist to some degree, feminists who will be repelled by Palin's ultra conservative positions. Equality for women may be their most important issue, but most of them have a range of liberal beliefs that Palin cannot satisfy.
And this contradiction will be made even more apparent in the campaign as Palin tries to shore up conservative support for McCain, now shaky at best, by telling them of her positions on abortion, guns, death penalty, Iraq war, etc. She cannot satisfy the conservatives and liberals at the same time.
Palin's inexperience, a heartbeat away from the presidency of a 72 year old man with a medical history, may take Obama’s similar inexperience off the political table. In fact, as Bill Clinton has said repeatedly, every new president enters office unprepared for the challenges of presiding over a nation of 300 million people. Clinton should know. His first two years as president were a disaster marked by failures in health care, gay-lesbian policies in the military, etc. culminating in loss of Democratic control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. John F. Kennedy's term began similarly with the Bay of Pigs invasion failure, nuclear war crises with the Soviet Union, and ineffectiveness in dealing with Congress. Republicans Ronald Reagan, Bush the First and Bush the Second had similar problems in mastering the presidency.
McCain fears that Obama may be unstoppable in his advance to Pennsylvania Avenue. As differences on issues fade, as personality and celebrity reach new heights of importance, as race prejudice becomes entwined with historic American guilt, the political trend is unmistakably toward Barack. Sarah Palin will not change the result any more than previous vice-president nominees. John McCain's Hail Mary pass will not prevent the election of “The One”.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Why Joe Biden?
Why Joe Biden?
By Jerome Grossman
When Barack Obama presented Joseph Biden to the Democrats of the nation as his personal choice for vice president and Biden accepted, both made verbal blunders unusual for these accomplished and well-prepared orators. Biden called Obama “Barack America” without correcting himself and Obama introduced Biden as “The next president of “The United States” before the crowd corrected him.
If Sigmund Freud had been in the audience he would have analyzed the errors as symptomatic action indicating a concealed problem, an unconscious manifestation of inner conflict, sometimes called buyer's remorse. And he might have been correct.
A senator for 35 years, Biden undermines Obama’s message of hope and change, especially generational change. When Obama confronted his Democratic rivals in the many debates during the primaries, he always pointed out that he was the one who spoke out against the Iraq War while the rival senators voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Now Obama is selecting a vice president who voted with McCain for the worst blunder since Vietnam. But there was another message in that story that the raging and enthusiastic crowds picked up: that the older generation of political leaders were mired in ineffective and obsolete approaches to government and had to be replaced. That is why Obama did not need specific and detailed programs. That is why Hillary's traditional recipes did not carry the day.
Joe Biden as vice president undercuts the spirit and special nature of the inspired Obama campaign. While he has a moderate to liberal voting record in the Senate and understands the awesome dangers of nuclear weapons, he not only voted for the Iraq War but in August 2003 said he did not regret that vote. His criticisms of the Bush administration on Iraq have focused on its handling of the conflict. His energies were expended primarily on his plan to divide Iraq into three nations, Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd, an approach opposed by most Iraqis and one that would keep the US involved there for decades if not permanently.
While Biden voted against the first Iraq War of 1991, he was one of the strongest voices urging US and NATO intervention in Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia. Only last week he flew to the nation of Georgia when President Sakashvili called him, then returned to urge the Congress to establish a $1 billion fund for Georgia reconstruction while calling for “The West to stand up for the rights of free people throughout the region”, using many of the same terms used by John McCain urging that Georgia be admitted to NATO. Will he be the interventionist in the Obama cabinet?
Will Biden lead the attacks on McCain as advertised? I doubt it. Edwards did not do it for Kerry, nor Lieberman for Gore, nor Bentsen for Dukakis, nor Gore for Clinton, etc. etc. The vice presidential nominees promise to do the attacking but rarely deliver, folding in the clutch, not wanting to alienate the public with rough tactics, protecting their political careers.
Will Biden bring votes to the ticket? Unfortunately, he has no political base outside of Delaware and has proven it. He has run twice for president with negligible results, forced to drop out early. As a Catholic who supports Roe v. Wade he will be denied communion by the same bishops who denied it to John Kerry, limiting his effectiveness with that group.
The selection of Joe Biden seems to square with the many centrist changes in foreign and domestic policy that Obama has made since he became the virtual nominee. It is difficult to see these tactics as flowing from a comprehensive strategy. More and more the Obama campaign slips into a traditional mode. The excitement generated by the Obama challenge has diminished as the emphasis on change has slipped.
That does not mean defeat. The country is sick of Bush and Republican incompetence. Economic recession, as well as failures in Iraq and Katrina to name just a few, ought to mean a Democratic victory in the White House as it will surely be in the Congress. But it will be in traditional political terms, not in the revolutionary concepts implied if not stated in inspirational hope and institutional changes that brought millions to the side of Barack Obama and won him the nomination.
By Jerome Grossman
When Barack Obama presented Joseph Biden to the Democrats of the nation as his personal choice for vice president and Biden accepted, both made verbal blunders unusual for these accomplished and well-prepared orators. Biden called Obama “Barack America” without correcting himself and Obama introduced Biden as “The next president of “The United States” before the crowd corrected him.
If Sigmund Freud had been in the audience he would have analyzed the errors as symptomatic action indicating a concealed problem, an unconscious manifestation of inner conflict, sometimes called buyer's remorse. And he might have been correct.
A senator for 35 years, Biden undermines Obama’s message of hope and change, especially generational change. When Obama confronted his Democratic rivals in the many debates during the primaries, he always pointed out that he was the one who spoke out against the Iraq War while the rival senators voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Now Obama is selecting a vice president who voted with McCain for the worst blunder since Vietnam. But there was another message in that story that the raging and enthusiastic crowds picked up: that the older generation of political leaders were mired in ineffective and obsolete approaches to government and had to be replaced. That is why Obama did not need specific and detailed programs. That is why Hillary's traditional recipes did not carry the day.
Joe Biden as vice president undercuts the spirit and special nature of the inspired Obama campaign. While he has a moderate to liberal voting record in the Senate and understands the awesome dangers of nuclear weapons, he not only voted for the Iraq War but in August 2003 said he did not regret that vote. His criticisms of the Bush administration on Iraq have focused on its handling of the conflict. His energies were expended primarily on his plan to divide Iraq into three nations, Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd, an approach opposed by most Iraqis and one that would keep the US involved there for decades if not permanently.
While Biden voted against the first Iraq War of 1991, he was one of the strongest voices urging US and NATO intervention in Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia. Only last week he flew to the nation of Georgia when President Sakashvili called him, then returned to urge the Congress to establish a $1 billion fund for Georgia reconstruction while calling for “The West to stand up for the rights of free people throughout the region”, using many of the same terms used by John McCain urging that Georgia be admitted to NATO. Will he be the interventionist in the Obama cabinet?
Will Biden lead the attacks on McCain as advertised? I doubt it. Edwards did not do it for Kerry, nor Lieberman for Gore, nor Bentsen for Dukakis, nor Gore for Clinton, etc. etc. The vice presidential nominees promise to do the attacking but rarely deliver, folding in the clutch, not wanting to alienate the public with rough tactics, protecting their political careers.
Will Biden bring votes to the ticket? Unfortunately, he has no political base outside of Delaware and has proven it. He has run twice for president with negligible results, forced to drop out early. As a Catholic who supports Roe v. Wade he will be denied communion by the same bishops who denied it to John Kerry, limiting his effectiveness with that group.
The selection of Joe Biden seems to square with the many centrist changes in foreign and domestic policy that Obama has made since he became the virtual nominee. It is difficult to see these tactics as flowing from a comprehensive strategy. More and more the Obama campaign slips into a traditional mode. The excitement generated by the Obama challenge has diminished as the emphasis on change has slipped.
That does not mean defeat. The country is sick of Bush and Republican incompetence. Economic recession, as well as failures in Iraq and Katrina to name just a few, ought to mean a Democratic victory in the White House as it will surely be in the Congress. But it will be in traditional political terms, not in the revolutionary concepts implied if not stated in inspirational hope and institutional changes that brought millions to the side of Barack Obama and won him the nomination.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Georgia on My Mind
Georgia on My Mind
By Jerome Grossman
During his long presidential campaign when he also had responsibilities and duties as a United States Senator, John McCain found the time to make three separate trips to the nation of Georgia, a country of less than 5 million people, whose main claim to importance was a pipeline carrying oil from wells owned by western companies in the Caspian Sea basin.
McCain chief policy adviser Randy Scheunemann and his business partner lobbied McCain or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2 year span while being paid $830,000 dollars by the government of Georgia. Scheunemann stopped lobbying for Georgia this March but retains an interest in the lobbying firm that signed a new $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government.
McCain’s time spent in Georgia is noteworthy because it affected his campaign: he has not found the time to visit a number of states in the US whose votes he will need to be elected president. Clearly he was not seeking votes in nation Georgia but perhaps he was looking for campaign contributions. Contributions from foreign governments and citizens are illegal but American oil companies may have shown their gratitude.
On August 13, McCain told reporters, “In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations,” as he denounced the Russian invasion of Georgia. The irony of that statement was not lost on the rest of the world given the US invasion of Iraq after the United Nations refused to authorize US invasion of Iraq. The US invaded on its own. So much for the McCain version of history.
McCain insists that the Russian invasion was a “setback for democracy” because President Saakashvili had been elected twice. But he doesn't tell that that president declared martial law in Georgia last November using tear gas and rubber bullets on Georgian citizens, shutting down an opposition television station too.
US officials have stressed that the White House and State Department repeatedly warned President Saakashvili and his government against responding to Russian military provocations in ways that could spark a broader conflict. A Georgian official confirmed this. But Saakashvili took the Russian bait and made the first military move in South Ossetia, responding to small-scale local violence with heavy handed military. Saakashvili was conferring with McCain by telephone virtually every day. What kind of advice did he receive? That “We are all Georgians?” That the US would ride to the rescue?
McCain has some explaining to do. Did his interest in Georgia promote campaign contributions? Is his foreign-policy basically run by lobbyists and in some cases lobbyists for foreign governments? Does that put him in direct conflict with the US State Department and even the Secretary of Defense? How reliable is his judgment? Is he a risk taker whose first instinct is to use the military? Or promise it when he shouldn’t?
By Jerome Grossman
During his long presidential campaign when he also had responsibilities and duties as a United States Senator, John McCain found the time to make three separate trips to the nation of Georgia, a country of less than 5 million people, whose main claim to importance was a pipeline carrying oil from wells owned by western companies in the Caspian Sea basin.
McCain chief policy adviser Randy Scheunemann and his business partner lobbied McCain or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2 year span while being paid $830,000 dollars by the government of Georgia. Scheunemann stopped lobbying for Georgia this March but retains an interest in the lobbying firm that signed a new $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government.
McCain’s time spent in Georgia is noteworthy because it affected his campaign: he has not found the time to visit a number of states in the US whose votes he will need to be elected president. Clearly he was not seeking votes in nation Georgia but perhaps he was looking for campaign contributions. Contributions from foreign governments and citizens are illegal but American oil companies may have shown their gratitude.
On August 13, McCain told reporters, “In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations,” as he denounced the Russian invasion of Georgia. The irony of that statement was not lost on the rest of the world given the US invasion of Iraq after the United Nations refused to authorize US invasion of Iraq. The US invaded on its own. So much for the McCain version of history.
McCain insists that the Russian invasion was a “setback for democracy” because President Saakashvili had been elected twice. But he doesn't tell that that president declared martial law in Georgia last November using tear gas and rubber bullets on Georgian citizens, shutting down an opposition television station too.
US officials have stressed that the White House and State Department repeatedly warned President Saakashvili and his government against responding to Russian military provocations in ways that could spark a broader conflict. A Georgian official confirmed this. But Saakashvili took the Russian bait and made the first military move in South Ossetia, responding to small-scale local violence with heavy handed military. Saakashvili was conferring with McCain by telephone virtually every day. What kind of advice did he receive? That “We are all Georgians?” That the US would ride to the rescue?
McCain has some explaining to do. Did his interest in Georgia promote campaign contributions? Is his foreign-policy basically run by lobbyists and in some cases lobbyists for foreign governments? Does that put him in direct conflict with the US State Department and even the Secretary of Defense? How reliable is his judgment? Is he a risk taker whose first instinct is to use the military? Or promise it when he shouldn’t?
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Chinese Olympic and Humiliation
The Chinese Olympic and Humiliation
By Jerome Grossman
For China the Olympics are a demonstration of the ascendancy of the host nation -from historic international humiliation “to the gate of greatness.” The Chinese investment was enormous, $40 billion, 10 times the amount spent by any country in previous Olympics. Large sections of Beijing were refitted; enormous efforts tried to control and minimize pollution; the city was beautified in its buildings and public art; every effort was made to make housing and accommodations and entertainment pleasant for foreign guests. The organization and precision of the opening ceremonies stunned the entire world.
The Chinese were out to prove that their system of capitalist authoritarianism is a success, with national goals that their Gross Domestic Product will surpass the United States by 2025 and that they will dominate the 21st century as America dominated the 20th.
But the Chinese are careful not to threaten the US, their best customer. Their emphasis is on economic primacy, not military, not interventionist. While they have modernized the military establishment, they have not built their capacity to a threatening level. For example, their nuclear arsenal has only about 200 capable of reaching the US while the US has 10,000 capable of reaching China and an armed American fleet regularly prowls the Western Pacific.
The Chinese have serious problems that may prevent realization of national goals: too many people to be adequately supported, especially the elderly beneficiaries of the health system, who must be supported in retirement; unrest among the workers as inequality of income grows; an overrated economy not yet capable of using all modern technology; environmental problems that affect the health of all Chinese; rejection of the state ideology by some members of the intellectual and underprivileged classes.
However, all Chinese are united in hosting the Olympics as a demonstration that the humiliating legacy of the domination by foreigners has ended. The humiliation began with China's defeat in the Opium Wars in the 19th century; continued when the 1919 Treaty of Versailles allotted port concessions to European governments to profit from goods entering and exiting China; the treatment of Chinese laborers in the US; the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and China proper; the British seizure of Hong Kong; the Portuguese control Macao; the separation of Taiwan, etc. etc..
The Chinese want the world to know that those days are over. In 2001, the National People's Congress passed a law establishing a National Humiliation Day. The leaders, past and present, of all parties and factions scorned the humiliating insults to the Chinese people, the yoke, the suffering, uniting such diverse political figures and Sun Yatsen, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Ze Dong.
So the Chinese Olympics are much more than a series of pageants and athletic contests. They are an emotional, national, prideful statement: we have arrived; there will be no more humiliation.
By Jerome Grossman
For China the Olympics are a demonstration of the ascendancy of the host nation -from historic international humiliation “to the gate of greatness.” The Chinese investment was enormous, $40 billion, 10 times the amount spent by any country in previous Olympics. Large sections of Beijing were refitted; enormous efforts tried to control and minimize pollution; the city was beautified in its buildings and public art; every effort was made to make housing and accommodations and entertainment pleasant for foreign guests. The organization and precision of the opening ceremonies stunned the entire world.
The Chinese were out to prove that their system of capitalist authoritarianism is a success, with national goals that their Gross Domestic Product will surpass the United States by 2025 and that they will dominate the 21st century as America dominated the 20th.
But the Chinese are careful not to threaten the US, their best customer. Their emphasis is on economic primacy, not military, not interventionist. While they have modernized the military establishment, they have not built their capacity to a threatening level. For example, their nuclear arsenal has only about 200 capable of reaching the US while the US has 10,000 capable of reaching China and an armed American fleet regularly prowls the Western Pacific.
The Chinese have serious problems that may prevent realization of national goals: too many people to be adequately supported, especially the elderly beneficiaries of the health system, who must be supported in retirement; unrest among the workers as inequality of income grows; an overrated economy not yet capable of using all modern technology; environmental problems that affect the health of all Chinese; rejection of the state ideology by some members of the intellectual and underprivileged classes.
However, all Chinese are united in hosting the Olympics as a demonstration that the humiliating legacy of the domination by foreigners has ended. The humiliation began with China's defeat in the Opium Wars in the 19th century; continued when the 1919 Treaty of Versailles allotted port concessions to European governments to profit from goods entering and exiting China; the treatment of Chinese laborers in the US; the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and China proper; the British seizure of Hong Kong; the Portuguese control Macao; the separation of Taiwan, etc. etc..
The Chinese want the world to know that those days are over. In 2001, the National People's Congress passed a law establishing a National Humiliation Day. The leaders, past and present, of all parties and factions scorned the humiliating insults to the Chinese people, the yoke, the suffering, uniting such diverse political figures and Sun Yatsen, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Ze Dong.
So the Chinese Olympics are much more than a series of pageants and athletic contests. They are an emotional, national, prideful statement: we have arrived; there will be no more humiliation.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Choosing a Vice President
Choosing a Vice President
By Jerome Grossman
Most voters, indeed the overwhelming number, select their choice for president on the top of the ticket, only rarely on the nominee for vice president. The media pay attention to the choice of the V.P.nominee mainly in dull news cycles or just before the choice is made.
In the current election, the race is so close that the vice president might be selected if he / she can help the ticket carry a state or two. The four states with the largest numbers of electoral votes are California, New York, Texas, and Florida. California and New York are sure things for Obama, Texas is for McCain, but Florida could go either way and decide the election.
Approaching the election this way in a state-by-state countdown, McCain is likely to nominate Governor Charles Crist of Florida, a proven vote-getter. Obama is competitive, only one or two points behind in Florida, and may select Bob Graham, another popular Floridian, former Governor, former Senator, former presidential candidate, former chair of U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, who voted against authorizing the Iraq war in the crucial vote of October 2002.
Another approach is to select a vice president who has special qualifications in areas where the presidential nominee is weak. McCain admits he knows little about economics. Mitt Romney could help here, citing his managerial experience as Massachusetts Governor and his successful business career. They would run as a team, one handling foreign and military affairs, the other promising to pull the nation out of recession, covering all the bases, maybe a winning team.
Obama also has gaps in his experience, gaps that will certainly be exploited by the opposition. He is most likely to be attacked for his lack of military experience and expertise especially when the nation is fighting two wars.. General Wesley Clark, successful commander of NATO forces in the Bosnia war, or Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island could fill the bill with grace, knowledge and public approval. Reed is a graduate of West Point, served as a paratrooper, and is vice chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee where he holds the respect of Republicans and Democrats alike for his judgment and technical knowledge.
Within the next few weeks, Obama and McCain will make their decisions. The potential vice presidents will not be chosen primarily for their ability to be president, although that will be the cover story, and maybe some will have that ability. But the dominant factors in the decisions will be - can that person help to win the election.
By Jerome Grossman
Most voters, indeed the overwhelming number, select their choice for president on the top of the ticket, only rarely on the nominee for vice president. The media pay attention to the choice of the V.P.nominee mainly in dull news cycles or just before the choice is made.
In the current election, the race is so close that the vice president might be selected if he / she can help the ticket carry a state or two. The four states with the largest numbers of electoral votes are California, New York, Texas, and Florida. California and New York are sure things for Obama, Texas is for McCain, but Florida could go either way and decide the election.
Approaching the election this way in a state-by-state countdown, McCain is likely to nominate Governor Charles Crist of Florida, a proven vote-getter. Obama is competitive, only one or two points behind in Florida, and may select Bob Graham, another popular Floridian, former Governor, former Senator, former presidential candidate, former chair of U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, who voted against authorizing the Iraq war in the crucial vote of October 2002.
Another approach is to select a vice president who has special qualifications in areas where the presidential nominee is weak. McCain admits he knows little about economics. Mitt Romney could help here, citing his managerial experience as Massachusetts Governor and his successful business career. They would run as a team, one handling foreign and military affairs, the other promising to pull the nation out of recession, covering all the bases, maybe a winning team.
Obama also has gaps in his experience, gaps that will certainly be exploited by the opposition. He is most likely to be attacked for his lack of military experience and expertise especially when the nation is fighting two wars.. General Wesley Clark, successful commander of NATO forces in the Bosnia war, or Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island could fill the bill with grace, knowledge and public approval. Reed is a graduate of West Point, served as a paratrooper, and is vice chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee where he holds the respect of Republicans and Democrats alike for his judgment and technical knowledge.
Within the next few weeks, Obama and McCain will make their decisions. The potential vice presidents will not be chosen primarily for their ability to be president, although that will be the cover story, and maybe some will have that ability. But the dominant factors in the decisions will be - can that person help to win the election.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Dollars and Diplomacy
Dollars and Diplomacy
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama and John McCain dispute the reasons for the decline in violence in Iraq, now at its lowest level in years. McCain emphasizes the effectiveness of the “surge” troops, 30,000 additional American combat soldiers. Obama appreciates the surge but emphasizes the political rapprochement between Iraqi factions. Neither Obama nor McCain give us the whole story and its implications for the future.
Before the 30,000 surge there were about 150,000 coalition forces in Iraq, mostly American and mostly combat soldiers. However, another 150,000 contractors were on the scene working for the US military, not in uniform but armed for self protection, feeding the troops, guarding US installations, repairing damaged sites, etc., doing what American uniformed soldiers have always done in past wars, but this time working for private contractors for high wages and corporate profits. The point is that the total Allied force was 300,000 making the surge increase only ten percent.
The decrease in violence was located in all of Iraq, yet the 30,000 surge was concentrated in Baghdad. In that city the troops concentrated on weakening the Mahdi Army, a militia controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric close to Iran who had already issued a cease-fire order to his minions.
The surge operation in Baghdad was aided by a new program called Sons of Iraq that employed Sunnis who were formerly insurgents, paying them $10 a day and giving them guns for their pseudo police powers. This strategy had already worked in Anbar province well before the start of the surge. There, the US military hired 90,000 Sunnis at $30 a month plus guns to maintain order and to disarm the few Al Qaeda partisans who had infiltrated into the country from foreign lands. Part of the Sunni motivation in accepting the American deal was to prepare themselves for the show-down when the US forces leave Iraq.
Iran may have been included in the arrangements. Neither the US command in Iraq nor their superiors in Washington are now accusing Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, quite a change from previous charges. In addition, cleric al-Sadr, still close to Iran, has shut down his militia. And the US does not have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the first time in decades. The whole world has noticed that William Burns, the number three person in the US State Department, participated in a meeting with a representative of Iran, the first such meeting since 1979.
Has a deal been made? If so, the surge may have been the cover story for US home consumption, while the real story was investment in dollars and diplomacy.
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama and John McCain dispute the reasons for the decline in violence in Iraq, now at its lowest level in years. McCain emphasizes the effectiveness of the “surge” troops, 30,000 additional American combat soldiers. Obama appreciates the surge but emphasizes the political rapprochement between Iraqi factions. Neither Obama nor McCain give us the whole story and its implications for the future.
Before the 30,000 surge there were about 150,000 coalition forces in Iraq, mostly American and mostly combat soldiers. However, another 150,000 contractors were on the scene working for the US military, not in uniform but armed for self protection, feeding the troops, guarding US installations, repairing damaged sites, etc., doing what American uniformed soldiers have always done in past wars, but this time working for private contractors for high wages and corporate profits. The point is that the total Allied force was 300,000 making the surge increase only ten percent.
The decrease in violence was located in all of Iraq, yet the 30,000 surge was concentrated in Baghdad. In that city the troops concentrated on weakening the Mahdi Army, a militia controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric close to Iran who had already issued a cease-fire order to his minions.
The surge operation in Baghdad was aided by a new program called Sons of Iraq that employed Sunnis who were formerly insurgents, paying them $10 a day and giving them guns for their pseudo police powers. This strategy had already worked in Anbar province well before the start of the surge. There, the US military hired 90,000 Sunnis at $30 a month plus guns to maintain order and to disarm the few Al Qaeda partisans who had infiltrated into the country from foreign lands. Part of the Sunni motivation in accepting the American deal was to prepare themselves for the show-down when the US forces leave Iraq.
Iran may have been included in the arrangements. Neither the US command in Iraq nor their superiors in Washington are now accusing Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, quite a change from previous charges. In addition, cleric al-Sadr, still close to Iran, has shut down his militia. And the US does not have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the first time in decades. The whole world has noticed that William Burns, the number three person in the US State Department, participated in a meeting with a representative of Iran, the first such meeting since 1979.
Has a deal been made? If so, the surge may have been the cover story for US home consumption, while the real story was investment in dollars and diplomacy.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Axis of Evil
Axis of Evil
By Jerome Grossman
President Bush has decided to abandon his long-standing position that his administration would not meet face-to-face with Iran until Tehran suspended its uranium enrichment program. A senior American official recently participated in talks with Iranian officials, the first such meeting since the seizure of the US Embassy by Iranian militants in Tehran in 1979.
This policy shift followed President Bush's announcement in late June that the United States would remove North Korea from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. This was in response to progress in the effort with Asian nations to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice then met with the North Korean Foreign Minister.
In late July, Prime Minister Nuri al-Malakai insisted that the United States agree to a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. President Bush and General Petraeus agree with him in principle although not on a precise date.
These dramatic changes in administration policies have astonished the world and infuriated hard-liners -- many of whom once worked for Bush. The harsh rhetoric, the name calling, the military threats made against these nations have diminished. The "Axis of Evil" used by Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address is no longer part of his vocabulary.
The invasion of Iraq is now almost universally regarded as a mistake. The diplomatic maneuvers with North Korea and Iran are clearly the better road to solutions of long-standing differences, solutions with low cost in lives and treasure.
As Winston Churchill remarked at a White House luncheon in 1954 at the height of the Cold War, "It is better to jaw - jaw than to war - war."
By Jerome Grossman
President Bush has decided to abandon his long-standing position that his administration would not meet face-to-face with Iran until Tehran suspended its uranium enrichment program. A senior American official recently participated in talks with Iranian officials, the first such meeting since the seizure of the US Embassy by Iranian militants in Tehran in 1979.
This policy shift followed President Bush's announcement in late June that the United States would remove North Korea from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. This was in response to progress in the effort with Asian nations to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice then met with the North Korean Foreign Minister.
In late July, Prime Minister Nuri al-Malakai insisted that the United States agree to a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. President Bush and General Petraeus agree with him in principle although not on a precise date.
These dramatic changes in administration policies have astonished the world and infuriated hard-liners -- many of whom once worked for Bush. The harsh rhetoric, the name calling, the military threats made against these nations have diminished. The "Axis of Evil" used by Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address is no longer part of his vocabulary.
The invasion of Iraq is now almost universally regarded as a mistake. The diplomatic maneuvers with North Korea and Iran are clearly the better road to solutions of long-standing differences, solutions with low cost in lives and treasure.
As Winston Churchill remarked at a White House luncheon in 1954 at the height of the Cold War, "It is better to jaw - jaw than to war - war."
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The U.S. and Israel on Iran
The U.S. and Israel on Iran
By Jerome Grossman
The United States of America and the State of Israel are the closest of allies, sharing intelligence, weapons, military research, among many other joint ventures. They support each other's policies at the United Nations and other international venues with only rare exceptions.
Policy on Iran may be one of those rare exceptions. Responsible Israeli officials have made their positions clear: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and Iranian protestations that their development of nuclear power is only for civilian electricity is not to be believed. Furthermore, that Iranian President Ahmedinejad's threat "to wipe Israel off the map" represents Iranian policy.
Some Israeli leaders want to launch a preemptive attack. Israeli official Shaul Mofaz said recently, "If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
In a New York Times op-ed, July 18, 2008, Benny Morris, an influential moderate and former Israeli official warned, "Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months."
Recently, the Israeli Air Force conducted a massive war game over the Mediterranean that was interpreted as a demonstration of Israeli ability to mount a serious and effective attack on Iranian installations.
However, US policy now seems to be headed in another direction. In the past, American policy placed Iran in the Axis of Evil, condemned it as a terrorist regime, passed a resolution in the U.S. Senate demanding regime change, appropriated money for Iranian dissidents, and refused to establish any diplomatic contact with the Iranian government.
Now, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, “We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports him. Accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq have diminished. Most importantly, the Bush administration is planning to establish an American diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time since Iranian extremists seized American hostages and occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Is the US sending a message to Israel not to attack Iran? Is the US sending a message to Middle East nations disassociating itself from an Israeli attack? Has US intelligence decided that the Israelis are serious in their threats?
The effects of an Israeli - Iran war would be world wide. The Muslim world would explode and attack western interests everywhere they could. Rulers of Muslim nations friendly to the west and clients of the US might be overthrown. The price of oil would probably reach $400 per barrel assuming that any oil at all would be shipped to the west. Worldwide energy shortages and commercial disruption would likely cause a financial collapse.
The stakes could not be higher, considering that Barack Obama told the US Israeli lobby AIPAC on June 4, "My goal will be to eliminate the threat (to Israel) posed by Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Pause) Everything. The pause is scary.
By Jerome Grossman
The United States of America and the State of Israel are the closest of allies, sharing intelligence, weapons, military research, among many other joint ventures. They support each other's policies at the United Nations and other international venues with only rare exceptions.
Policy on Iran may be one of those rare exceptions. Responsible Israeli officials have made their positions clear: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and Iranian protestations that their development of nuclear power is only for civilian electricity is not to be believed. Furthermore, that Iranian President Ahmedinejad's threat "to wipe Israel off the map" represents Iranian policy.
Some Israeli leaders want to launch a preemptive attack. Israeli official Shaul Mofaz said recently, "If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
In a New York Times op-ed, July 18, 2008, Benny Morris, an influential moderate and former Israeli official warned, "Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months."
Recently, the Israeli Air Force conducted a massive war game over the Mediterranean that was interpreted as a demonstration of Israeli ability to mount a serious and effective attack on Iranian installations.
However, US policy now seems to be headed in another direction. In the past, American policy placed Iran in the Axis of Evil, condemned it as a terrorist regime, passed a resolution in the U.S. Senate demanding regime change, appropriated money for Iranian dissidents, and refused to establish any diplomatic contact with the Iranian government.
Now, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, “We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports him. Accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq have diminished. Most importantly, the Bush administration is planning to establish an American diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time since Iranian extremists seized American hostages and occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
Is the US sending a message to Israel not to attack Iran? Is the US sending a message to Middle East nations disassociating itself from an Israeli attack? Has US intelligence decided that the Israelis are serious in their threats?
The effects of an Israeli - Iran war would be world wide. The Muslim world would explode and attack western interests everywhere they could. Rulers of Muslim nations friendly to the west and clients of the US might be overthrown. The price of oil would probably reach $400 per barrel assuming that any oil at all would be shipped to the west. Worldwide energy shortages and commercial disruption would likely cause a financial collapse.
The stakes could not be higher, considering that Barack Obama told the US Israeli lobby AIPAC on June 4, "My goal will be to eliminate the threat (to Israel) posed by Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Pause) Everything. The pause is scary.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Obama and McCain on Iraq
Obama and McCain on Iraq
By Jerome Grossman
Whether Barack Obama or John McCain is elected president, it is difficult to imagine a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
McCain insists on complete victory, refuses to ask Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their own future, and has completely changed his own stated position that he would leave Iraq when the Iraqis ask us.
Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has indeed asked for a set timetable for US withdrawal but the silence from Bush, McCain and Obama has been deafening. McCain has forsworn deadlines for troop withdrawal without support for al-Maliki's position.
Obama's reaction is loaded with hedges:” If current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground."
Obama approaches his consultations with the military in a defensive position. “Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform." Does this sentiment weaken the historic civilian control of the US military?
MSNBC's crack reporter David Gregory interprets Obama: "When Obama says we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, that's the line, that's a signal that says he's not yanking (troops) out right away." Careless is a gross understatement, leaving unsaid the misrepresentations and lies on intelligence, on weapons of mass destruction, as well as the US ignoring the refusal of the Security Council of the United Nations to give legal sanctions to the US invasion.
In any case, both McCain and Obama plan for a residual US military force to fight Al Qaeda and insurgents, to train the Iraqi military, and to protect the US Embassy and US military bases in Iraq. That is the likely key to US policy in Iraq under either administration. The US is the dominant military, economic and political power on the planet and surely wants to remain in that position. It is inconceivable that the US would give up its control of the Middle East, an area that contains more than 40% of the oil reserves on earth. We now know that the supply of oil is finite, that modern society cannot function without oil, that the price of oil can be stretched to extraordinary heights. We cannot and will not walk away from the trillions of dollars involved and the power over all other nations we can exercise by control of oil.
After the investments the US has made in life, treasure and reputation, after the incompetence of the Bush administration in destroying the system it had in place for dominating the area without US troops, the American empire is surely not going to divest itself of this incalculable asset. No other empire in human history has done that. We won't either.
By Jerome Grossman
Whether Barack Obama or John McCain is elected president, it is difficult to imagine a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
McCain insists on complete victory, refuses to ask Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their own future, and has completely changed his own stated position that he would leave Iraq when the Iraqis ask us.
Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has indeed asked for a set timetable for US withdrawal but the silence from Bush, McCain and Obama has been deafening. McCain has forsworn deadlines for troop withdrawal without support for al-Maliki's position.
Obama's reaction is loaded with hedges:” If current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground."
Obama approaches his consultations with the military in a defensive position. “Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform." Does this sentiment weaken the historic civilian control of the US military?
MSNBC's crack reporter David Gregory interprets Obama: "When Obama says we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, that's the line, that's a signal that says he's not yanking (troops) out right away." Careless is a gross understatement, leaving unsaid the misrepresentations and lies on intelligence, on weapons of mass destruction, as well as the US ignoring the refusal of the Security Council of the United Nations to give legal sanctions to the US invasion.
In any case, both McCain and Obama plan for a residual US military force to fight Al Qaeda and insurgents, to train the Iraqi military, and to protect the US Embassy and US military bases in Iraq. That is the likely key to US policy in Iraq under either administration. The US is the dominant military, economic and political power on the planet and surely wants to remain in that position. It is inconceivable that the US would give up its control of the Middle East, an area that contains more than 40% of the oil reserves on earth. We now know that the supply of oil is finite, that modern society cannot function without oil, that the price of oil can be stretched to extraordinary heights. We cannot and will not walk away from the trillions of dollars involved and the power over all other nations we can exercise by control of oil.
After the investments the US has made in life, treasure and reputation, after the incompetence of the Bush administration in destroying the system it had in place for dominating the area without US troops, the American empire is surely not going to divest itself of this incalculable asset. No other empire in human history has done that. We won't either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
