Looking to November

It’s no secret the 2010 Midterm Elections will be tough for the party in power – as most Midterm Elections are. I journeyed today into the future, to get a better understanding of what November might hold for the American political landscape.

On the surface, it looks good. Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball has the GOP picking up seven Senate seats, 27 House seats and four Governorships. Unfortunately, however, that would only put a dent – albeit a considerably large one – in the Democratic Majority.

The Washington Times ran a story today indicating though the GOP may be in a little better shape than expected.

The long-shot bid by Republicans to retake control of the Senate is suddenly in play, as the prospect of high-profile Republican candidates entering the fray has pushed the GOP even or ahead in polling for 10 races.

The potential candidacies of former Republican Govs. George E. Pataki in New York and Tommy G. Thompson in Wisconsin are improving the polling fortunes of the party as it pursues seats long in the hands of Democrats, while the anti-government “tea party” movement has provided momentum to Republican challengers in states such as Florida, Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

“If the election were held today, the Republicans could come close to winning back the Senate, if not actually win it,” said pollster John Zogby.

Optimistic assessment, no doubt, but there’s no reason not to be optimistic. President Obama and Congress have failed to deliver on many of the promises made coming in to office. Partly because the American people have said no and partly because Republicans have played good politics.

There’s more at stake than just numbers in the House and Senate. The Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is very much in danger of losing re-election in Nevada. For Democrats, that may be good news more so than bad because Reid has a history of fumbling on important legislation  - i.e. health care reform.

More importantly though – what’s at stake is momentum going into 2012. There are another 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2012 and another round of House elections. If the GOP makes considerable gains, which it will, we’re likely to see a flurry of Democratic retirements going in to 2012. That’s not even taking into account what impact this may have on the 2012 White House race.

The end game is this: Republicans are going to make waves in November that likely won’t come to shore until 2012. Fortunately, politics isn’t always about the short term.

Another thought on the QDR

When reading about the QDR for yesterday’s post, I came across something else I thought was really interesting. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates finds Cold-War era force planning “too confining.”

Here’s a short excerpt from the QDR:

“[P]ast defense reviews have called for the nation’s armed forces to be able to fight and win two major regional conflicts in overlapping time frames. These have been characterized as conflicts against state adversaries, typically employing conventional military forces. This QDR likewise assumes the need for a robust force capable of protecting U.S. interests against a multiplicity of threats, including two capable nation-state aggressors. It breaks from the past, however, in its insistence that the U.S. Armed Forces must be capable of conducting a wide range of operations, from homeland defense and defense support to civil authorities, to deterrence and preparedness missions, to the conflicts we are in and the wars we may someday face.

“In short, U.S. forces today and in the years to come can be plausibly challenged by a range of threats that extend far beyond the familiar “major regional conflicts” that have dominated U.S. planning since the end of the Cold War. We have learned through painful experience that the wars we fight are seldom the wars that we would have planned. For instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan, two theaters in which we are engaged simultaneously, we have seen that achieving operational military victory can be only the first step toward achieving our strategic objectives.”

This QDR then represents a dramatic shift in U.S. planning and strategy. The Cold War defined our international relations and our military strategy for two decades after it was over.

This also reflects the idea that we no longer live in a “bipolar” world or even a “unipolar” one, at least in terms of security. The threats and challenges we face no longer come in the form of peer states, but are now rogue challenges to our supremacy.

Contradictory defense outlook?

On Monday, President Obama laid out his fiscal year 2011 budget. The Pentagon also released the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, which is in sum an assessment of the U.S. military, its goals and its strategy.

Policy experts at AEI seem to think the President’s budget and the QDR are contradictory.

The simultaneous release today of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report and the Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal reveals the underlying contradiction at the heart of the Obama Administration’s national security policy.  As the second sentence of the QDR states, “first and foremost, the United States is a nation at war.”  But the remainder of the report and, more critically, the long-term budget, reflect an administration more interested in ending wars than winning them, and ready to “manage” American decline rather than preserving American leadership.

The last sentence could be flushed out in much more detail in regards to International Relations Theory – something I would like to do, but I don’t see how it’s possible considering I don’t have an IR class this semester. In brief, liberals (President Obama) make the argument that a hegemon isn’t needed to maintain the International system. Hegemonic realists, however, would argue quite the opposite. The exit question is this: is President Obama seriously “managing” American decline?

I seriously doubt any President or for that matter any American is with serious vigor thinking about managing the U.S. decline to less than the world’s only superpower – either relatively or in absolute terms. At least, I hope not.

Without further digression, I think President Obama does face the conflict of reconciling his approach to international relations with that of the broad American populace. I think it’s the commonsense view, if only because it has for so long been the only view, that if one person grows stronger, we grow weaker. President Obama defiantly declared in China that all countries could grow the pie together.

To conclude, it’s interesting to note the difference between the opening paragraphs of the QDR and what has been seemingly President Obama’s track on international relations and the role the U.S. military will play in the future. Certainly, President Obama is interested in ending our wars abroad. Does that mean he’s not committed to winning them? Not necessarily – that is entirely based on one’s definition of victory. I think the QDR most likely reflects a more “true to life” version of President Obama’s international relations theory.

Sabato misses the point

Mount Olympus?

There was quite a fuss over President Obama’s remark in the State of the Union that the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to special interest in its Citizens United opinion.

The President’s comments in full: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

There is something to be said about the President’s own inaccuracies, but many have already done so and I won’t be redundant.

I’m writing to address the response by Dr. Larry Sabato. Professor Sabato, as I hope to have the privledge of calling him next semester, responded to the President’s quote, Justice Samuel Alito’s response and the response of the media by writing for Politico.com.

In part he wrote that,

“Mr. Obama’s blunt attack on the Court’s ruling, with the members sitting in front of him, was no doubt stunning and unsettling to some, and it contradicted his frequent calls for bipartisanship and civility.

…

“At the same time, President Obama had every right to denounce a decision that is fundamentally at odds with his beliefs.

…

“Still, I believe the members of the Court are entirely too sheltered by lifetime tenure as well as often-obsequious deference to them during their public appearances. Comfortably ensconced on the constitutional equivalent of Mount Olympus, they can seem oblivious to the real-world consequences of their rulings. It is good for them to be challenged in public by the President and others.

…

“No one wants a brawl, but it is good for the Court to be reminded that it is not a hermetically sealed institution—and it’s good for the President to be reminded that how he says something is often as important as what he says.”

Professor Sabato has written before on his opinion that the Court is far too sheltered from the rest of American political development. He has argued against lifetime tenure, insteading pushing for non-renewable terms.

I think, however, the President’s comments and the response of many to the Court’s ruling exemplifies the very need for lifetime tenure and entirely insulated from “politics.”

Think for a moment if members of the Supreme Court did not have lifetime tenure. Would they have been more or less likely to issue a ruling many members of the current political party in power openly disagree with? Surely, less is the obvious answer. On the other hand, if Republicans were in power would they have been more or less likely to issue the ruling from two weeks ago? Obviously, more.

But because our Judges are appointed for a lifetime and need not to worry about being removed merely because of an opinion, they can issue opinions they deem as proper interpretations of the law.

Much can be said about campaign finance laws that restrict the voice of many, merely because they have more money, but that’s not the point at hand here. It is to say that because judges are relatively unaffected by partisan tides or the ebb and flow of political opinion, they can make decisions that perhaps in the long run are more beneficial to the Union as a whole.

Professor Sabato argues for non-renewable terms in his book “A More Prefect Constitution.” The problem with non-renewable terms is that Judges would still then be forced to worry about what to do once they leave the Supreme Court. A Judge who knows that in 10 years he will need to find another job, in my opinion, is more likely to curry favors or partisanship in his or her opinions.

The Supreme Court is an institution with a valuable role in American political development. The necessity for judicial review of both the Executive and the Legislative branch requires that the Court be immune to the factors that influence those branches and thus be immune to any influence those branches may attempt to exercise.

I think, Professor Sabato, fails to see this argument because he thinks “politics is a good thing” and indeed it is. But for American political development to operate as it was intended to and to ensure the Executive doesn’t ignore the Legislature and to ensure that neither the Executive nor the Legislature ignore the Constitution, an independent Judiciary is absolutely necessary.

Too Much Political Correctness

The threat of a terrorist attack against the United States was renewed this Holiday Season when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab almost blew up NWA Flight 253 as it approached Detroit.

In his remarks to the American people, which by the way came three days after the attempted terrorist attack and in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday which most Americans were working, President Obama condemned the attacks and called it a “serious reminder of the dangers we face.”

He failed to address, however, the real problem: radical, religious extremism, specifically, radical, Islamic extremism.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a radical, Islamic extremist and that extremism alone remains the greatest to the United States of America. President Obama, and others, have failed to address that point.

Political correctness is causing problems, especially when it comes to airport screening. Mark Steyn accurately addressed this by saying “you can congratulate yourself on how impeccably multi-cultural and non-discriminatory you are, but people are going to die because of it. Fourteen people died at Fort Hood because of political correctness.”

More people could have died on NWA Flight 253 and more people could die in the future because we’re to afraid to admit that radical Muslims are the ones trying to blow up our buildings and airplanes.

It’s difficult to say this without coming across as discriminatory, but that’s the honest truth of it.

Clear Information: The Problem with Iran

“Alarming” revelations this weekend about Iran’s peaceful uranium enrichment program show that it may not be so peaceful after all. CNN picked up on the story this morning, citing a Western diplomat, but the UK’s Times Online had the story yesterday.

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

This highlights the problem of President Obama’s international relations thought on dealing with Iran. The truth of the matter is we really do not know what we are getting from them and if it in any way resembles the truth. Clear information is very important when it comes to resolving conflicts short of war and what we’re getting from our discussions with Iran and other major powers on the nuclear issue is anything but clear.

Legitimate Democracies do not go to war with legitimate Democracies because of dispute-resolution mechanisms and clear information. Iran is not a legitimate Democracy, evidenced by the fraudulent elections this summer.

My lack of faith in engagement should not imply support for a get tough approach. There are no indications that worked either, evidenced by the failures of the Bush Administration to prevent Iran from getting to this stage in the development process.

The point is however to say that something, albeit I am not sure what, needs to be done if we are truly determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.