Winning Elections While Rebuilding America
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats must renew their bond with the working class. Listen to Peter Canellos:"During the five decades that the New Deal coalition governed national politics, from the 1930s to the 1980s, the relationship between the Democratic Party and working-class voters was an economic bond. Generations of Americans took it as an act of faith that Republicans represented the moneyed elites while Democrats stood up for the little guy. Since 1980, that relationship has eroded and now it's in tatters. Democrats have lost significant support among the working class.... Thirty years ago, the Democrats would have had a a ready response (to blue-collar dissatisfaction). By pursuing redistributive programs, from make-work jobs to urban development programs to costly expansion of rural infrastructure, the Democrats provided some economic first aid to distressed people and communities: …."
Hold your dollars, folks. Peter Canellos is not running for office. He is the Washington Bureau Chief of the Boston Globe. But he knows the lessons of political history in these United States and demonstrates how the Democrats have mobilized the working class by offering strong economic incentives. The two Democratic candidates for president, hopelessly centrist, should take notice.
The bitterness of the workers should evoke an authentic program to compensate for the three decade decline in wages and working conditions. Such a program should include reform of the labor laws that favor corporations over unions, a national minimum wage providing for decent living conditions, full employment legislation that guarantees a job to all who wish to work, national single-payer health insurance subsidized by the federal government, serious enforcement of occupational safety and health conditions in the workplace, replacement and maintenance of our decrepit system of highways, railroads, bridges, airports, etc.
Or would you rather spend three trillion dollars on Iraq?
Beyond the social benefits of spreading the benefits of our productive society more evenly, such a redistributive program might lead to political victory and occupation of the White House by the Democratic candidate. For references I submit Harry Hopkins and Franklin Delano Roosevelt who knew how to win elections while rebuilding the nation.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
About Iraq
About Iraq
By Jerome Grossman
• The puppet regime in Iraq wants U.S. troops to stay to protect it from the insurgents and other dissatisfied groups, to supply money, and to act as a cover for "the most corrupt government in the Middle East.”
• The Sunni Awakening Councils in Anbar Province are heavily subsidized by U.S. dollars supplied by the U.S. military. We pay 90,000 Sunnis $30 a month and supply them with weapons, a subsidy far higher than the average wage in Iraq.
• The U.S. invasion was in violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, hence in violation of U.S. law.
• Al Qaeda in Iraq is only a small fraction of the insurgency, between 1000 to 2000 fighters. It is fueled in large part by nationalist and anti-foreigner sentiment.
• The so-called bloodbath after U.S. withdrawal is questionable and is being used as an excuse by the Iraqi puppets and the U.S. hard-liners for an extended occupation.
• The U.S. residual force to protect infrastructure, to train Iraqis and to fight insurgents is a continuation of the occupation by another name and must be repudiated.
• The U.S. must not maintain any military bases in Iraq.
• U.S. withdrawal must not depend on the situation in Iraq and the region because there will always be a reason to stay.
• There is no way to prevent Iranian influence on the Iraqi Shiite government. From an imperial standpoint, this is the greatest U.S. mistake. During the Saddam Hussein Sunni regime, Iran’s Shiite government gave sanctuary to Iraq’s religious and civil Shiite leaders. When President Ahmadinejard of Iran visited Baghdad recently, he was greeted by Iraqi officials with kisses, embraces, music and flowers.
• The U.S. should try to make a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan whom we subsidized after the Soviets left. Let us try to avoid the failed experiences of USSR and UK in Afghanistan.
• Some smart policemen have suggested treating terrorism as a criminal conspiracy rather than a military attack, more effective and less expensive in lives and money. Regimes across the globe will be overthrown. We must not react automatically in defense of the status quo.
• The financial costs of the Iraq war are staggering. That has special relevance now given the recession, the banking crisis, the aging U.S. infrastructure, the health-care crisis, etc. The Iraqi government has billions of surplus funds due to the high price of oil. They should be paying for U.S. forces in Iraq. Instead, the U.S. continues to finance the Iraqi government with outright grants rather than loans to be repaid.
• For diplomatic credibility, for decent respect for popular opinion at home and abroad, for avoidance of a boycott of American products abroad, it is crucial that the U.S. places a total ban on torture, live up to the Geneva Conventions, eliminate the rendition program, and eliminate the secret prisons and the assassination program.
• There are in Iraq about as many U.S. sponsored contractors as there are U.S. troops. Many are armed and trigger-happy, not really accountable to the U.S. and Iraqi governments. They should be withdrawn with U.S. troops. The jobs should go to Iraqis, now suffering from high unemployment, even if they are less efficient, in the interest of social stability by reducing unemployment.
• The Iraqi Congress voted by a large margin for U.S. military withdrawal. Yet, a Status of Forces Agreement has been negotiated between Iraq and the U.S. delineating rights and procedures for American military. This agreement was passed by the Iraqi Congress but was never submitted to the U.S. Congress for approval, a violation of the U.S. Constitution and an indication of a long U.S. occupation.
By Jerome Grossman
• The puppet regime in Iraq wants U.S. troops to stay to protect it from the insurgents and other dissatisfied groups, to supply money, and to act as a cover for "the most corrupt government in the Middle East.”
• The Sunni Awakening Councils in Anbar Province are heavily subsidized by U.S. dollars supplied by the U.S. military. We pay 90,000 Sunnis $30 a month and supply them with weapons, a subsidy far higher than the average wage in Iraq.
• The U.S. invasion was in violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, hence in violation of U.S. law.
• Al Qaeda in Iraq is only a small fraction of the insurgency, between 1000 to 2000 fighters. It is fueled in large part by nationalist and anti-foreigner sentiment.
• The so-called bloodbath after U.S. withdrawal is questionable and is being used as an excuse by the Iraqi puppets and the U.S. hard-liners for an extended occupation.
• The U.S. residual force to protect infrastructure, to train Iraqis and to fight insurgents is a continuation of the occupation by another name and must be repudiated.
• The U.S. must not maintain any military bases in Iraq.
• U.S. withdrawal must not depend on the situation in Iraq and the region because there will always be a reason to stay.
• There is no way to prevent Iranian influence on the Iraqi Shiite government. From an imperial standpoint, this is the greatest U.S. mistake. During the Saddam Hussein Sunni regime, Iran’s Shiite government gave sanctuary to Iraq’s religious and civil Shiite leaders. When President Ahmadinejard of Iran visited Baghdad recently, he was greeted by Iraqi officials with kisses, embraces, music and flowers.
• The U.S. should try to make a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan whom we subsidized after the Soviets left. Let us try to avoid the failed experiences of USSR and UK in Afghanistan.
• Some smart policemen have suggested treating terrorism as a criminal conspiracy rather than a military attack, more effective and less expensive in lives and money. Regimes across the globe will be overthrown. We must not react automatically in defense of the status quo.
• The financial costs of the Iraq war are staggering. That has special relevance now given the recession, the banking crisis, the aging U.S. infrastructure, the health-care crisis, etc. The Iraqi government has billions of surplus funds due to the high price of oil. They should be paying for U.S. forces in Iraq. Instead, the U.S. continues to finance the Iraqi government with outright grants rather than loans to be repaid.
• For diplomatic credibility, for decent respect for popular opinion at home and abroad, for avoidance of a boycott of American products abroad, it is crucial that the U.S. places a total ban on torture, live up to the Geneva Conventions, eliminate the rendition program, and eliminate the secret prisons and the assassination program.
• There are in Iraq about as many U.S. sponsored contractors as there are U.S. troops. Many are armed and trigger-happy, not really accountable to the U.S. and Iraqi governments. They should be withdrawn with U.S. troops. The jobs should go to Iraqis, now suffering from high unemployment, even if they are less efficient, in the interest of social stability by reducing unemployment.
• The Iraqi Congress voted by a large margin for U.S. military withdrawal. Yet, a Status of Forces Agreement has been negotiated between Iraq and the U.S. delineating rights and procedures for American military. This agreement was passed by the Iraqi Congress but was never submitted to the U.S. Congress for approval, a violation of the U.S. Constitution and an indication of a long U.S. occupation.
Monday, April 7, 2008
John McCain, War Hero
John McCain, War Hero
By Jerome Grossman
Up to this point in the race for president of the United States, the uncrowned but virtually certain nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, is doing remarkably well in the public opinion polls. McCain is holding his own against both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. According to all the polls, if the election were held today, he would have an even chance of victory.
This is surprising because of the political difficulties of the Republican Party; short of money, besieged by factional quarrels, a support base with less than customary enthusiasm, an unpopular president presiding over an economy in recession and two unresolved wars.
Yet, McCain is competitive in spite of these overwhelming negatives. One explanation offered is his life history, especially his military service in the Vietnam War. As squadron leader in combat flying, he was shot down, gravely wounded, captured by the enemy, held prisoner for five years, and tortured by his Vietnamese captors. Obama and Clinton have no military experience.
Could this heroic experience be the basis for his political popularity? The American voters have often rewarded their military heroes with the presidency, among them George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Harrison, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush (the father).
However, in the last four elections, authentic war heroes were defeated by rivals who not only did not serve but appeared to have made special efforts not to serve. In 1992, war hero George H. W. Bush (the father) lost to Bill Clinton. In 1996 war hero Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. In 2000, war hero Al Gore lost to George W. Bush (the son). In 2004, war hero John Kerry lost to George W. Bush. It is difficult to explain the political rejection of these war heroes, while most Americans intensely “support the troops,” wherever they are, whatever they do.
On Election Day, 2008, the United States will be engaged in at least two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time it will have the largest military budget in the history of the world plus 737 military bases in 130 countries on every continent. McCain is gung-ho for the two wars and very supportive of the military program. Will the election of war hero John McCain be regarded as another ratification of US military policy by the American public, a policy which includes the entire planet as its sphere of influence and operation? Will President McCain rely on his military experience and U.S. military dominance to solve the inevitable problems posed by American hegemony?
By Jerome Grossman
Up to this point in the race for president of the United States, the uncrowned but virtually certain nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, is doing remarkably well in the public opinion polls. McCain is holding his own against both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. According to all the polls, if the election were held today, he would have an even chance of victory.
This is surprising because of the political difficulties of the Republican Party; short of money, besieged by factional quarrels, a support base with less than customary enthusiasm, an unpopular president presiding over an economy in recession and two unresolved wars.
Yet, McCain is competitive in spite of these overwhelming negatives. One explanation offered is his life history, especially his military service in the Vietnam War. As squadron leader in combat flying, he was shot down, gravely wounded, captured by the enemy, held prisoner for five years, and tortured by his Vietnamese captors. Obama and Clinton have no military experience.
Could this heroic experience be the basis for his political popularity? The American voters have often rewarded their military heroes with the presidency, among them George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Harrison, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush (the father).
However, in the last four elections, authentic war heroes were defeated by rivals who not only did not serve but appeared to have made special efforts not to serve. In 1992, war hero George H. W. Bush (the father) lost to Bill Clinton. In 1996 war hero Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. In 2000, war hero Al Gore lost to George W. Bush (the son). In 2004, war hero John Kerry lost to George W. Bush. It is difficult to explain the political rejection of these war heroes, while most Americans intensely “support the troops,” wherever they are, whatever they do.
On Election Day, 2008, the United States will be engaged in at least two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time it will have the largest military budget in the history of the world plus 737 military bases in 130 countries on every continent. McCain is gung-ho for the two wars and very supportive of the military program. Will the election of war hero John McCain be regarded as another ratification of US military policy by the American public, a policy which includes the entire planet as its sphere of influence and operation? Will President McCain rely on his military experience and U.S. military dominance to solve the inevitable problems posed by American hegemony?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Generalities Without Content
Generalities Without Content
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the voters the same agenda: their positions on issues are quite similar and match the Democratic Congressional stands. As long as their centrist positions differ from the right wing conservative positions of the discredited Bush administration, they can rally enough Democrats and Independents for victory in November.
This situation gives a significant edge to Obama, whose personality, charisma and oratorical skills completely overshadow Clinton. Hillary compensates by producing details of the issues, acting as the smartest girl in the class, but not offering new approaches to old problems. For example, she could break the impasse on health care by offering a single-payer government-run system including every American, a system used by virtually every industrial nation. But Hillary would rather offer an improved version of the current system, staying within the Democratic consensus.
Supporters of Barack Obama praise him for his foreign policy. In The American Prospect magazine, April 2008, the entire front cover blazes in multicolor with the message, "The Obama Doctrine, Barack Obama's challenge to the foreign policy establishment."
Some challenge. The article offers "the most sweeping liberal critique in decades." Examples offered: dignity promotion, enlightened global leadership, freedom from want, freedom from fear, elimination of misery, promotion of liberty, justice, and prosperity. The only specific policy listed is the destruction of Al Qaeda as though that is all that is necessary to achieve these worthy objectives.
Across the 50 states, more than 100 candidates ran for president although only 18 of them were selected by the presidential commission to appear on the televised debates. They represented a wide spectrum of parties and views. It is fair to say that virtually every candidate would agree with the generalities, the bromides attributed to the Obama campaign. Do these motherhood goals constitute a foreign policy challenging the establishment?
An authentic challenge to the foreign policy establishment would be to advocate specific changes to accomplish the stated objectives. The devil is in the details. The credibility of any program is in the “how to.” Please, beloved candidates, tell the American voters what you will actually do. The people are fed up with generalities without content.
Offering bromides without policy is an insult to the voters and a failure of democracy, one of the reasons why 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. One of the candidates should break this logjam by offering credible specifics. From the history of politics, we know that person will be the one running behind the others. But if that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the media to stir the pot, to demand relevant answers. Where are they?
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the voters the same agenda: their positions on issues are quite similar and match the Democratic Congressional stands. As long as their centrist positions differ from the right wing conservative positions of the discredited Bush administration, they can rally enough Democrats and Independents for victory in November.
This situation gives a significant edge to Obama, whose personality, charisma and oratorical skills completely overshadow Clinton. Hillary compensates by producing details of the issues, acting as the smartest girl in the class, but not offering new approaches to old problems. For example, she could break the impasse on health care by offering a single-payer government-run system including every American, a system used by virtually every industrial nation. But Hillary would rather offer an improved version of the current system, staying within the Democratic consensus.
Supporters of Barack Obama praise him for his foreign policy. In The American Prospect magazine, April 2008, the entire front cover blazes in multicolor with the message, "The Obama Doctrine, Barack Obama's challenge to the foreign policy establishment."
Some challenge. The article offers "the most sweeping liberal critique in decades." Examples offered: dignity promotion, enlightened global leadership, freedom from want, freedom from fear, elimination of misery, promotion of liberty, justice, and prosperity. The only specific policy listed is the destruction of Al Qaeda as though that is all that is necessary to achieve these worthy objectives.
Across the 50 states, more than 100 candidates ran for president although only 18 of them were selected by the presidential commission to appear on the televised debates. They represented a wide spectrum of parties and views. It is fair to say that virtually every candidate would agree with the generalities, the bromides attributed to the Obama campaign. Do these motherhood goals constitute a foreign policy challenging the establishment?
An authentic challenge to the foreign policy establishment would be to advocate specific changes to accomplish the stated objectives. The devil is in the details. The credibility of any program is in the “how to.” Please, beloved candidates, tell the American voters what you will actually do. The people are fed up with generalities without content.
Offering bromides without policy is an insult to the voters and a failure of democracy, one of the reasons why 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. One of the candidates should break this logjam by offering credible specifics. From the history of politics, we know that person will be the one running behind the others. But if that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the media to stir the pot, to demand relevant answers. Where are they?
Friday, March 28, 2008
Oh, What a Lucky Man is Johnny McCain
Oh, What a Lucky Man is Johnny McCain
By Jerome Grossman
When this presidential campaign began many months ago, the conventional wisdom was that any Democratic candidate could defeat any Republican candidate. The basis for that generalization was that President Bush's failures in Iraq, Katrina and the economy had weakened the GOP hold on the presidency. The president's approval rating was about 30% on a good day. The party and the candidates were far behind the Democrats in fundraising. The grassroots were discouraged, the independents were looking for change, and the Democrats were full of enthusiasm and energy, enjoying their electoral victories in the 2006 election that gave them control of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.
Now, seven months before the November election, the political conditions have not changed, the economy is in even worse shape, but, strangely enough, Senator John McCain has wrapped up the GOP nomination and is actually competitive with his Democratic rivals. McCain has been mighty lucky. He faced a weak field of GOP rivals for the nomination and saw them fade and then drop out for a variety of reasons. As the leading hawk in the field, he benefited from the limited success of the military surge in Iraq. And he was fortunate that the story about his relationship with the female lobbyist was printed after McCain won close contests with Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and Florida. If the New York Times had broken the story earlier, McCain would have been out of the race, and the paper had been sitting on the details for months.
Now, McCain is enjoying another big break as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton trade attacks giving McCain a free ride, at least temporarily. As a result, the presumptive Republican nominee has crept ahead of both in national polls. While the battling Democrats are defining each other negatively, McCain is sailing along serenely, trying to establish his credentials on foreign and domestic policy.
McCain has a lot of work to do to reach the White House. He must overcome his negative of age in a society that worships youth: he will be 72 years old soon, and sometimes looks like 90. His acknowledged experience lies in military affairs but he must prove his competence in handling the ailing economy. He must find a way to win the rust belt states Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, angry about NAFTA by appealing to workers and Roman Catholics. Organizationally, McCain needs to maintain his long-standing appeal to independent voters while holding together the many opposing factions in the Republican Party. At the same time, McCain needs to demonstrate that his administration will be different from the Bush administrations. Above all, he must keep his focus on his strengths: support for the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and chasing terrorists all over the world. And, of course, he will try to convince the voters that Obama (or Clinton) is too inexperienced for leadership in time of war.
In the inevitable presidential debates this autumn, Obama and McCain will be a study in dramatic contrast, not seen since the smooth John F. Kennedy wiped out the sweating Richard Nixon on television in 1960. Obama - tall, athletic, handsome, with a gift for oratory and improvisation. McCain - short, dumpy, showing his age and infirmity, unsmiling and with a short temper. If I were McCain, I might not show up.
These long-term challenges are very difficult in the current political environment. Voters remain weary of the Iraq war, worried about the economy and disenchanted with the lame duck Republican president. All of the energy is on the Democratic side, but McCain is hanging in there, competitive in the polls, playing out a weak hand that is capable of an upset. And above all, relying on his luck that has brought him to the very edge of unlimited power.
By Jerome Grossman
When this presidential campaign began many months ago, the conventional wisdom was that any Democratic candidate could defeat any Republican candidate. The basis for that generalization was that President Bush's failures in Iraq, Katrina and the economy had weakened the GOP hold on the presidency. The president's approval rating was about 30% on a good day. The party and the candidates were far behind the Democrats in fundraising. The grassroots were discouraged, the independents were looking for change, and the Democrats were full of enthusiasm and energy, enjoying their electoral victories in the 2006 election that gave them control of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.
Now, seven months before the November election, the political conditions have not changed, the economy is in even worse shape, but, strangely enough, Senator John McCain has wrapped up the GOP nomination and is actually competitive with his Democratic rivals. McCain has been mighty lucky. He faced a weak field of GOP rivals for the nomination and saw them fade and then drop out for a variety of reasons. As the leading hawk in the field, he benefited from the limited success of the military surge in Iraq. And he was fortunate that the story about his relationship with the female lobbyist was printed after McCain won close contests with Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and Florida. If the New York Times had broken the story earlier, McCain would have been out of the race, and the paper had been sitting on the details for months.
Now, McCain is enjoying another big break as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton trade attacks giving McCain a free ride, at least temporarily. As a result, the presumptive Republican nominee has crept ahead of both in national polls. While the battling Democrats are defining each other negatively, McCain is sailing along serenely, trying to establish his credentials on foreign and domestic policy.
McCain has a lot of work to do to reach the White House. He must overcome his negative of age in a society that worships youth: he will be 72 years old soon, and sometimes looks like 90. His acknowledged experience lies in military affairs but he must prove his competence in handling the ailing economy. He must find a way to win the rust belt states Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, angry about NAFTA by appealing to workers and Roman Catholics. Organizationally, McCain needs to maintain his long-standing appeal to independent voters while holding together the many opposing factions in the Republican Party. At the same time, McCain needs to demonstrate that his administration will be different from the Bush administrations. Above all, he must keep his focus on his strengths: support for the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and chasing terrorists all over the world. And, of course, he will try to convince the voters that Obama (or Clinton) is too inexperienced for leadership in time of war.
In the inevitable presidential debates this autumn, Obama and McCain will be a study in dramatic contrast, not seen since the smooth John F. Kennedy wiped out the sweating Richard Nixon on television in 1960. Obama - tall, athletic, handsome, with a gift for oratory and improvisation. McCain - short, dumpy, showing his age and infirmity, unsmiling and with a short temper. If I were McCain, I might not show up.
These long-term challenges are very difficult in the current political environment. Voters remain weary of the Iraq war, worried about the economy and disenchanted with the lame duck Republican president. All of the energy is on the Democratic side, but McCain is hanging in there, competitive in the polls, playing out a weak hand that is capable of an upset. And above all, relying on his luck that has brought him to the very edge of unlimited power.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Ignored Costs of the Iraq War
The Ignored Costs of the Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman
Five years into the war in Iraq, the nation awaits the day of reckoning for the enormous cost of this misbegotten adventure, conceived in ignorance, conducted in arrogance and staining our democracy. The saddest costs are suffered by American soldiers, 4000 deaths and 40,000 wounded; the millions of Iraqis killed or wounded or displaced; and the monetary cost to the U.S. taxpayer now estimated at $3 trillion.
But there are many other hidden costs damaging to our nation that President Bush ignores when he describes this cruel war as "noble, necessary, and just", contrary to world opinion, contrary to friend and foe.
The Costs Ignored:
• U.S. intelligence has been discredited as inaccurate and politicized
• U.S. Is known worldwide as a nation that uses torture as an instrument of policy
• The war has increased the military power and political influence of Iran
• The war has put internal and external pressure on key U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan
• The war has affected Israel by weakening the governments of Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel
• The war has diminished the reputation of the U.S. in every country and dramatically increased hostility to the U.S. in the Muslim world, affecting the sales of American products
• The war has driven up the cost of oil
• The war has indicated the vulnerability of the U.S. military to guerrilla strategy and tactics
• The war cost is curtailing our country's ability to solve urgent domestic problems of infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc...
The war in Iraq is a costly failure at every level. It must be ended at the earliest possible time to save lives and money in order to establish a sane and sensible foreign policy that will truly protect our country and rebuild U.S. relationships and reputation.
It won’t be easy for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Resistance will come from imperial ambition, domestic political advantage, and oil business interests.. The argument will be made that withdrawal from Iraq without victory might stimulate similar demands in the 130 countries where the U.S. has a total of 737 bases.
And finally, we should remember the experience of other great powers. From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did until they were forced out.
By Jerome Grossman
Five years into the war in Iraq, the nation awaits the day of reckoning for the enormous cost of this misbegotten adventure, conceived in ignorance, conducted in arrogance and staining our democracy. The saddest costs are suffered by American soldiers, 4000 deaths and 40,000 wounded; the millions of Iraqis killed or wounded or displaced; and the monetary cost to the U.S. taxpayer now estimated at $3 trillion.
But there are many other hidden costs damaging to our nation that President Bush ignores when he describes this cruel war as "noble, necessary, and just", contrary to world opinion, contrary to friend and foe.
The Costs Ignored:
• U.S. intelligence has been discredited as inaccurate and politicized
• U.S. Is known worldwide as a nation that uses torture as an instrument of policy
• The war has increased the military power and political influence of Iran
• The war has put internal and external pressure on key U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan
• The war has affected Israel by weakening the governments of Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel
• The war has diminished the reputation of the U.S. in every country and dramatically increased hostility to the U.S. in the Muslim world, affecting the sales of American products
• The war has driven up the cost of oil
• The war has indicated the vulnerability of the U.S. military to guerrilla strategy and tactics
• The war cost is curtailing our country's ability to solve urgent domestic problems of infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc...
The war in Iraq is a costly failure at every level. It must be ended at the earliest possible time to save lives and money in order to establish a sane and sensible foreign policy that will truly protect our country and rebuild U.S. relationships and reputation.
It won’t be easy for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Resistance will come from imperial ambition, domestic political advantage, and oil business interests.. The argument will be made that withdrawal from Iraq without victory might stimulate similar demands in the 130 countries where the U.S. has a total of 737 bases.
And finally, we should remember the experience of other great powers. From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did until they were forced out.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Obama Style
The Obama Style
By Jerome Grossman
The Almanac of American Politics writes about Barack Obama, “Politics always seems to have been on his mind. In 1992 he worked on voter registration for the Democratic ticket. In 1996 he ran for the state Senate and was unopposed in the decisive Democratic primary. Next came a political misstep: in 2000 he ran in the primary against First District Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush...... Rush was endorsed by Bill Clinton and won 61% to 30%......... In October 2002 he made a public statement opposing the Iraq war resolution. ' I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.............. “Perfect. Obama clearly understood the dangerous situation. He was absolutely correct in resisting the drive to war.
Obama was not a native of Chicago but his wife was. Given his political ambitions, it was easy to understand why he joined the largest African - American church in the city; a church led by the most charismatic pastor, Jeremiah Wright. For twenty years Obama attended, grew close to Wright, absorbed his sermons, and asked him to officiate at his marriage and the baptisms of his daughters. Whether or not Obama agreed with Wright in his attacks on racism in America that also included AIDS as an American conspiracy, class warfare rants, awards to anti-Semite Farrakhan, and "God damn America" diatribes, Obama did not object or even try to modify the pastor's actions and rhetoric. And he did not leave the church and the associations that have helped his political career. Was that the political compromise?
Obama has proven repeatedly by his actions and his rhetoric that he is a natural conciliator so his failure to try to modify the explosive situation in his church is unsettling. There is a parallel in the way he acted out his undiluted opposition to the Iraq war. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, one would have expected that he would have used his position to advance his deeply held views on this matter of life and death for so many Americans and Iraqis, the way freshman Senator James Webb of Virginia did, as Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and African-American Congressman John Conyers of Michigan do, day by day, bill by bill. Obama did nothing wrong. His votes on Iraq were fine, no complaints there, but he did not seize the initiative, there for the asking, to insist, to dramatize, to demand, to be a center of dissent on Iraq. Was that a political decision to stay with the party consensus while exploring a run for the presidency? Is this the pattern of Obama's political style: political safety in a swirl of brilliant rhetoric and analysis but avoiding decisive action? Is politics always on his mind? At the church in Chicago, at the Senate in Washington, it was and is a question of leadership.
By Jerome Grossman
The Almanac of American Politics writes about Barack Obama, “Politics always seems to have been on his mind. In 1992 he worked on voter registration for the Democratic ticket. In 1996 he ran for the state Senate and was unopposed in the decisive Democratic primary. Next came a political misstep: in 2000 he ran in the primary against First District Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush...... Rush was endorsed by Bill Clinton and won 61% to 30%......... In October 2002 he made a public statement opposing the Iraq war resolution. ' I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.............. “Perfect. Obama clearly understood the dangerous situation. He was absolutely correct in resisting the drive to war.
Obama was not a native of Chicago but his wife was. Given his political ambitions, it was easy to understand why he joined the largest African - American church in the city; a church led by the most charismatic pastor, Jeremiah Wright. For twenty years Obama attended, grew close to Wright, absorbed his sermons, and asked him to officiate at his marriage and the baptisms of his daughters. Whether or not Obama agreed with Wright in his attacks on racism in America that also included AIDS as an American conspiracy, class warfare rants, awards to anti-Semite Farrakhan, and "God damn America" diatribes, Obama did not object or even try to modify the pastor's actions and rhetoric. And he did not leave the church and the associations that have helped his political career. Was that the political compromise?
Obama has proven repeatedly by his actions and his rhetoric that he is a natural conciliator so his failure to try to modify the explosive situation in his church is unsettling. There is a parallel in the way he acted out his undiluted opposition to the Iraq war. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, one would have expected that he would have used his position to advance his deeply held views on this matter of life and death for so many Americans and Iraqis, the way freshman Senator James Webb of Virginia did, as Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and African-American Congressman John Conyers of Michigan do, day by day, bill by bill. Obama did nothing wrong. His votes on Iraq were fine, no complaints there, but he did not seize the initiative, there for the asking, to insist, to dramatize, to demand, to be a center of dissent on Iraq. Was that a political decision to stay with the party consensus while exploring a run for the presidency? Is this the pattern of Obama's political style: political safety in a swirl of brilliant rhetoric and analysis but avoiding decisive action? Is politics always on his mind? At the church in Chicago, at the Senate in Washington, it was and is a question of leadership.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
By Jerome Grossman
In a key scene in a famous movie, "The Graduate", the young Dustin Hoffman is cornered at the graduation party by an older man who whispers enigmatically, “plastics", a hot business of that decade. Ten years ago the same bore would have whispered "Real Estate." Welcome to our world of capitalism, where boom and bust often alternate, where the quickest make a killing and the slower have trouble sleeping.
Subprime lending on mortgages with little or no money down followed by securitization of debt in derivatives was born out of the illusion of permanent high demand. The housing industry was overbought and oversold and of course would never collapse - until it did.
The banks and financial institutions that invested in this "sure thing" were gambling with OPM, Other People's Money. They couldn't lose: if the market turned they were too big to fail, they would be bailed out by the government, then after a few years the gambling would begin again. Not protected were the consumers who signed the mortgages, nor the small businesses affected by the decline in trade. Only the big boys: heads they win, tails, the taxpayers lose.
Now the White House offers a plan to resolve the growing credit crisis made worse by eroding home prices. The plan relies on the same banks and mortgage brokers and Wall Street firms that are to blame for the current crisis. Yet there is no plan to prevent a recurrence in the future. No significant regulation is provided and the federal government has only a limited role in the regulation. The plan is to leave regulation to the states. We know how that has worked out on other issues such as taxation: the states compete with each other awarding breaks to the businesses in order to attract or keep them.
There is a larger question. If banks and financial institutions are so important to economic life that they need to be rescued repeatedly from their own mistakes, they become virtually a public utility that ought to receive a certain guaranteed profit but be barred from speculative investments. That was once the law under the Glass-Steagall Act enacted under the New Deal in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929 but repealed in 1980. If we want to keep the bankers conservative and protect the depositors, perhaps Glass-Steagall should be reenacted to limit our worries and our losses.
By Jerome Grossman
In a key scene in a famous movie, "The Graduate", the young Dustin Hoffman is cornered at the graduation party by an older man who whispers enigmatically, “plastics", a hot business of that decade. Ten years ago the same bore would have whispered "Real Estate." Welcome to our world of capitalism, where boom and bust often alternate, where the quickest make a killing and the slower have trouble sleeping.
Subprime lending on mortgages with little or no money down followed by securitization of debt in derivatives was born out of the illusion of permanent high demand. The housing industry was overbought and oversold and of course would never collapse - until it did.
The banks and financial institutions that invested in this "sure thing" were gambling with OPM, Other People's Money. They couldn't lose: if the market turned they were too big to fail, they would be bailed out by the government, then after a few years the gambling would begin again. Not protected were the consumers who signed the mortgages, nor the small businesses affected by the decline in trade. Only the big boys: heads they win, tails, the taxpayers lose.
Now the White House offers a plan to resolve the growing credit crisis made worse by eroding home prices. The plan relies on the same banks and mortgage brokers and Wall Street firms that are to blame for the current crisis. Yet there is no plan to prevent a recurrence in the future. No significant regulation is provided and the federal government has only a limited role in the regulation. The plan is to leave regulation to the states. We know how that has worked out on other issues such as taxation: the states compete with each other awarding breaks to the businesses in order to attract or keep them.
There is a larger question. If banks and financial institutions are so important to economic life that they need to be rescued repeatedly from their own mistakes, they become virtually a public utility that ought to receive a certain guaranteed profit but be barred from speculative investments. That was once the law under the Glass-Steagall Act enacted under the New Deal in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929 but repealed in 1980. If we want to keep the bankers conservative and protect the depositors, perhaps Glass-Steagall should be reenacted to limit our worries and our losses.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Flip a Coin For President
Flip a Coin For President
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama was on a "roll" as they stay in the clubhouse of the Boston Red Sox. He had won 11 straight primaries, all but one in smaller states as the Hillary Clinton campaign reserved its money and energies for the biggest states. And indeed Hillary won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan and Florida.
The Obama campaign looked like the New England Patriots as they approached the Super Bowl with a record of 18 straight victories. Defeat was unthinkable. The Obama organization, like the Patriots, was justifiably touted as the best in the business. The candidate was tall, handsome, and brilliant with a remarkable gift for oratory. Moreover, it had political smarts and powerful political momentum.
But on March 5 in the super duper primaries for Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, the underdog rose up and defeated the big dog in every state but tiny Vermont, just as the New England Patriots lost to the under dog New York Giants in the Super Bowl. In that one event, much of the air went out of the Obama campaign. It was no longer a perfect instrument; it had failed and lost momentum. Even the candidate seemed diminished as he repeated his mantra of hope, change and inspiration. But not diminished enough to call for Tom Brady as substitute candidate, for Tom Brady, the Patriots inspiration had also been seriously diminished by losing.
Nothing succeeds like success. Even Hillary's negatives have gone down. Her campaign now has momentum as the contest moves into the final quarter. When Hillary wins Pennsylvania on April 22, neither candidate will have enough delegates for nomination at the convention. It will be up to the super delegates to break the virtual tie. Remarkably, Hillary has revived her relatively inefficient campaign three times: after Iowa, South Carolina and the eleven defeats, while the media constantly shows their distaste for her.
Right now, it appears that the super delegates will decide the nomination. The super delegates are appointed, not elected, from the ranks of political big shots who think they own the party: Senators, Representatives, Governors, bureaucrats past and present, donors and professional politicians. They can vote for whomever they please. They don't have to run for delegate and perhaps be defeated. They can play it safe and wait until they see the likely winner. Predictably, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are putting maximum pressure on the super delegates, including making serious financial donations to their political committees.
Some super delegates are in embarrassing situations. Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick endorsed Obama before the Massachusetts primary. But the state voted heavily for Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy's endorsement did not prevent a big Clinton win in New York, nor did Patrick Kennedy save Rhode Island, nor Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger save California. US Representative John Lewis switched from Clinton to Obama partly because a rival candidate made it an issue and filed to oppose him for reelection.
Hillary has a chance to pick up 366 delegates in Michigan and Florida where she won primaries that were disqualified for breaking party rules but there will be intense opposition. It seems inconceivable that the millions of voters in those two big states can be effectively disenfranchised. Especially in Florida, where the violation was made by the Republican Governor and legislature. This battle on the convention floor could harm party unity and jeopardize victory in November.
An ideal solution for this dangerous rivalry would be to nominate both Obama and Clinton, one for President, the other for Vice President. Which one on top? Flip a coin. They are both superb candidates who would represent the party with distinction.
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama was on a "roll" as they stay in the clubhouse of the Boston Red Sox. He had won 11 straight primaries, all but one in smaller states as the Hillary Clinton campaign reserved its money and energies for the biggest states. And indeed Hillary won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan and Florida.
The Obama campaign looked like the New England Patriots as they approached the Super Bowl with a record of 18 straight victories. Defeat was unthinkable. The Obama organization, like the Patriots, was justifiably touted as the best in the business. The candidate was tall, handsome, and brilliant with a remarkable gift for oratory. Moreover, it had political smarts and powerful political momentum.
But on March 5 in the super duper primaries for Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, the underdog rose up and defeated the big dog in every state but tiny Vermont, just as the New England Patriots lost to the under dog New York Giants in the Super Bowl. In that one event, much of the air went out of the Obama campaign. It was no longer a perfect instrument; it had failed and lost momentum. Even the candidate seemed diminished as he repeated his mantra of hope, change and inspiration. But not diminished enough to call for Tom Brady as substitute candidate, for Tom Brady, the Patriots inspiration had also been seriously diminished by losing.
Nothing succeeds like success. Even Hillary's negatives have gone down. Her campaign now has momentum as the contest moves into the final quarter. When Hillary wins Pennsylvania on April 22, neither candidate will have enough delegates for nomination at the convention. It will be up to the super delegates to break the virtual tie. Remarkably, Hillary has revived her relatively inefficient campaign three times: after Iowa, South Carolina and the eleven defeats, while the media constantly shows their distaste for her.
Right now, it appears that the super delegates will decide the nomination. The super delegates are appointed, not elected, from the ranks of political big shots who think they own the party: Senators, Representatives, Governors, bureaucrats past and present, donors and professional politicians. They can vote for whomever they please. They don't have to run for delegate and perhaps be defeated. They can play it safe and wait until they see the likely winner. Predictably, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are putting maximum pressure on the super delegates, including making serious financial donations to their political committees.
Some super delegates are in embarrassing situations. Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick endorsed Obama before the Massachusetts primary. But the state voted heavily for Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy's endorsement did not prevent a big Clinton win in New York, nor did Patrick Kennedy save Rhode Island, nor Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger save California. US Representative John Lewis switched from Clinton to Obama partly because a rival candidate made it an issue and filed to oppose him for reelection.
Hillary has a chance to pick up 366 delegates in Michigan and Florida where she won primaries that were disqualified for breaking party rules but there will be intense opposition. It seems inconceivable that the millions of voters in those two big states can be effectively disenfranchised. Especially in Florida, where the violation was made by the Republican Governor and legislature. This battle on the convention floor could harm party unity and jeopardize victory in November.
An ideal solution for this dangerous rivalry would be to nominate both Obama and Clinton, one for President, the other for Vice President. Which one on top? Flip a coin. They are both superb candidates who would represent the party with distinction.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Ralph Nader, Please Don't Run
Ralph Nader, Please Don't Run
By Jerome Grossman
Ralph Nader told Tim Russert of NBC on "Meet the Press" that he was running again for President of the United States. Why is he running? Certainly not to win or even to influence the result. Nader runs because he wants to talk about issues, to educate the voters about the problems the United States faces, problems that are virtually ignored in contemporary politics.
He wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, "full Medicare for all," about a national commitment to abolish poverty, about corporate crime, the bloated military budget, and the waste, fraud and corruption in government operations.
Nader has a track record for progressive change he has brought to American society: seat belts and air bags and safer automobiles; battles against tainted meat, air and water pollution and food additives; initiating and building agencies that protect the worker, the environment, and the consumer. And lots more over the last fifty years. In fact, a case could be made that he has improved the lives of more Americans than any other member of his generation including the presidents who led the nation.
But Nader should not run for president if his aim is to raise his issues with American voters. He should know that not many ballots are cast on issues. At the presidential level certainly, and perhaps at all levels, little attention is paid to detailed solutions of problems. Faced with complicated details requiring close study, faced with a shortage of time in our helter-skelter lifestyle, American voters put their trust in winning personalities who seduce them with their handsome appearance, attractive styles and lofty rhetoric. Promises of solutions are more easily accepted than the details of specific plans. And besides, who has the time to pay attention.
Barack Obama is the latest example of the personally attractive leader. But the phenomenon has appeared often in the history of the republic. After the emotion fades, it is difficult to remember the love and enthusiasm. In 2000, George W. Bush was the popular candidate with whom to have a beer. Bill Clinton was young and handsome. Ronald Reagan had the moves and looks of a movie star. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a saint who would never tell a lie. John F. Kennedy was a prince of the Round Table, young and handsome and dashing. Dwight Eisenhower was the war hero of the century; both parties wanted him to be their president. FDR charmed with his conversational style and aristocratic mannerisms. And remember Ulysses Grant, Gary Hart, Howard Dean and so many other heroes who made our hearts flutter.
Cynics may cry, if cynics cry, that the people are not supposed to get into the details. Leave that to the specialists, the experts hired by the lobbyists who are hired by corporate America who really run the country anyway. Presidential politics may be a form of entertainment, supplied by the management every four years as an emotional catharsis to the masses. And it is fun.
Ralph Nader, you are making a mistake. Stay with your successful act: hire lawyers, encourage the whistleblowers, sue the corporations, monitor the government, and make change, real change, not just in words but by demanding more improvements like those you made that have so enriched our lives. You and your painstaking work are the true hope and inspiration of our days.
By Jerome Grossman
Ralph Nader told Tim Russert of NBC on "Meet the Press" that he was running again for President of the United States. Why is he running? Certainly not to win or even to influence the result. Nader runs because he wants to talk about issues, to educate the voters about the problems the United States faces, problems that are virtually ignored in contemporary politics.
He wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, "full Medicare for all," about a national commitment to abolish poverty, about corporate crime, the bloated military budget, and the waste, fraud and corruption in government operations.
Nader has a track record for progressive change he has brought to American society: seat belts and air bags and safer automobiles; battles against tainted meat, air and water pollution and food additives; initiating and building agencies that protect the worker, the environment, and the consumer. And lots more over the last fifty years. In fact, a case could be made that he has improved the lives of more Americans than any other member of his generation including the presidents who led the nation.
But Nader should not run for president if his aim is to raise his issues with American voters. He should know that not many ballots are cast on issues. At the presidential level certainly, and perhaps at all levels, little attention is paid to detailed solutions of problems. Faced with complicated details requiring close study, faced with a shortage of time in our helter-skelter lifestyle, American voters put their trust in winning personalities who seduce them with their handsome appearance, attractive styles and lofty rhetoric. Promises of solutions are more easily accepted than the details of specific plans. And besides, who has the time to pay attention.
Barack Obama is the latest example of the personally attractive leader. But the phenomenon has appeared often in the history of the republic. After the emotion fades, it is difficult to remember the love and enthusiasm. In 2000, George W. Bush was the popular candidate with whom to have a beer. Bill Clinton was young and handsome. Ronald Reagan had the moves and looks of a movie star. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a saint who would never tell a lie. John F. Kennedy was a prince of the Round Table, young and handsome and dashing. Dwight Eisenhower was the war hero of the century; both parties wanted him to be their president. FDR charmed with his conversational style and aristocratic mannerisms. And remember Ulysses Grant, Gary Hart, Howard Dean and so many other heroes who made our hearts flutter.
Cynics may cry, if cynics cry, that the people are not supposed to get into the details. Leave that to the specialists, the experts hired by the lobbyists who are hired by corporate America who really run the country anyway. Presidential politics may be a form of entertainment, supplied by the management every four years as an emotional catharsis to the masses. And it is fun.
Ralph Nader, you are making a mistake. Stay with your successful act: hire lawyers, encourage the whistleblowers, sue the corporations, monitor the government, and make change, real change, not just in words but by demanding more improvements like those you made that have so enriched our lives. You and your painstaking work are the true hope and inspiration of our days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
