For my Hatchet newspaper opinion column, several weeks ago I contacted both the Arkansas governor candidates' -- Mike Beebe (D) and Asa Hutchinson (R) -- campaigns with a request for an interview and indicated that an e-mail interview would be fine, considering the busy schedules. The Beebe campaign didn't respond; but the Hutchinson campaign did. To make the column flow better and meet the length requirements, I edited some of the questions out and rearragned the remaining ones for the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
I am posting the full, original text of the Asa Hutchinson interview below.
-----
Hatchet: Depending on which polling data you put stock in, undecided voters are few and far between in your race. What is the most important message you have to win over enough of the undecided and even people leaning toward your opponent?
ASA: A lot of independents and even Democrats have been pleased with the progress our state has made under Gov. Huckabee’s leadership over the last ten years, and I don’t think they want to go back to the old way of doing things, when a few insiders and special interests set the agenda and called the shots. That’s why I’ve offered a forward-looking agenda focused on jobs growth, lower taxes, better schools, better highways – all the things that the traditional one-party system failed to provide for decades in the Capitol.
Hatchet: Let's talk about the grocery tax. Let's be perfectly clear. I understand that if you become Arkansas' next governor, you will propose legislation that would eliminate as soon as a legislative session opened. Is this an accurate statement?
ASA: Yes. Kill it. With a $700 million plus projected budget surplus, if we don’t do it now, we’ll never do it.
Hatchet: The conventional wisdom says that the GOP is going to take it on the chin in November. Here's a two parter: 1) Do you think conventional wisdom is correct? and 2) What effect will alleged anti- GOP sentiment have on your race?
ASA: There’s no doubt that the national environment for Republicans is tougher than usual, but I don’t see it having a tremendous effect on the race in Arkansas. In the Governor’s race especially, the focus has been on the issues that matter most to Arkansas as a state – not the national environment.
Hatchet: Why do you want to be governor of Arkansas?
ASA: I am running for Governor for a simple reason: So that the next generation of Arkansans can have an even greater opportunity to succeed and do well.
This year, Arkansas voters have a clear choice in the gubernatorial election. We can build upon the foundation of reform laid by Gov. Huckabee and move our state forward toward a more prosperous future -- or we can go back to the status quo way of doing things, when the first reaction to every challenge in our state was to raise taxes and create another government spending program. Under Gov. Huckabee, we’ve seen that a governor with conservative values can do well, whether it’s in tax reform, improving our highways, schools, or on the values issues that matter most to many Arkansans.
For many parts of the state, that status quo way of doing things has never delivered the promised results. It’s time for new thinking in state government.
Arkansas can’t afford to go back to the old way of doing things, which I why I chose to run for Governor, so that our state can continue moving forward on the path of reform, growth and progress.
Hatchet: How important is immigration reform to Arkansans, and what distinguishes your policy from that of your opponent's?
ASA: It’s hugely important – in fact, one of the issues that I hear the most about from Arkansans in my travels around the state. They want to know that they’re being heard, and that someone will take action to address the problem, which is why I’ve laid out a plan to give the state a stronger role in fighting illegal immigration. How does my policy distinguish from that of my opponent? Well, to begin with, I have a policy proposal – he doesn’t. My opponent has chosen to play the blame game, saying it’s the federal problem only and attacking my service at the Department of Homeland Security. He’s flat wrong, and I’m convinced he doesn’t understand the scope of the problem or what we can do to address it.
Hatchet: Even by the accounts of your own staff, this is going to be a close race. With that in mind, you're a campaign veteran, so how hard is this race compared to other races you've ran? What is different about this one? What have been the surprising joys of the journey? The unexpected challenges? How do you feel going into the final stretch?
ASA: This is definitely a tough race, since my opponent is entrenched in state government and has been able to call in favors from special interests so that his campaign is extraordinarily well-funded.
But I’ve seen much, much tougher races. In my 1986 run against Dale Bumpers for the U.S. Senate, it was hard to find support for a Republican in many parts of the state. In some places, you almost had to sneak across the county line if you called yourself a Republican.
Today, I can go into traditional Democratic strongholds throughout the state and find support from Republicans, from independents and even from Democrats who are starting to see that their party doesn’t necessarily have the best legacy when it comes to moving our state forward. There may even be a little bit more openness to new ideas than there might have been 20 years ago. The fact that we can be running this close – the last Zogby Poll I saw had this race at four points, within the margin of error – even though we’ve been significantly outspent makes me feel very good about where we are in this race and where things are headed in the coming days.
Hatchet: How's your wife? And the rest of your family?
ASA: Great. I couldn’t ask for a better base of support than I’ve gotten from Susan and my children. And Susan, my daughter Sarah and my oldest son Asa have all gone the extra mile in representing me at campaign events I couldn’t attend and helping to spread the word.
Hatchet: How important is Gov. Huckabee's support to a Hutchinson victory next month? When you both talk, what do you talk about?
ASA: Gov. Huckabee’s support has been a tremendous help in fundraising, in the advice he’s offered, everything. This week he’s joining me on my GROW ARKANSAS bus tour into southwest Arkansas. I couldn’t ask for better support than I’ve gotten from him.
Hatchet: We haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 (with the possible exception of Capitol Hill anthrax attacks). How much credit can you take for that, and how, if at all, will your experience in homeland security make you a better governor?
ASA: I’m proud of my service in Washington, even though my opponent has attacked me for it. The fact that we haven’t had a terrorist attack in five years I would never take sole credit for – that credit belongs to the men and women on the front lines of our Homeland Security department and to those who are serving in uniform here and overseas to fight the war on terrorism and to make us safer. I think it’s clear that the Bush Administration’s policies can receive a share of the credit, and I’m happy to have played a role in implementing those policies, but it’s really those people who have been the first line in making us safer, and the credit should be theirs.
Hatchet: Your critics accuse you of cashing in your Washington ties for self-gain. What do you say to that?
ASA: It’s a nonsensical charge. There’s any number of Arkansans, of both parties, who have taken jobs in the private sector following their public service, and they don’t criticize them. Rodney Slater, General Wesley Clark, James Lee Witt – all are Democrats who served honorably in positions of public service and have gone on to do well in the private sector by putting their skills to work. I say good for them.
And let’s face it, that’s just a politically motivated criticism. The more important thing that Arkansans should know is that I want to make my Washington ties work for Arkansas. There’s some great opportunities there in terms of federal grant funding for our colleges and universities, highway dollars, the Farm Bill in 2007, and the next Governor needs to understand how the federal government works if we’re going to get the federal government to work for Arkansas. I can. My opponent can’t say that.
Hatchet: Depending on who you ask, some say Arkansas schools have improved under Mike Huckabee's watch as governor. We certainly are spending a lot of money on schools. Education, as you are aware, is the lion's share of the state's budget. Assuming there is always room for improvement, what plans do you have to improve education and/or get Arkansans more value for their educational dollar?
ASA: I’ve laid out a pretty comprehensive program for keeping up progress on improving our schools. If there’s one thing that I think is at the certain of my program, it’s that we want to make sure that teachers, parents and local communities have a strong voice in how their schools are run and in how their kids are educated. Sometimes it seems like state government is heavy-handed in the mandates it places on our schools and school districts, and we want to be sure that the stakeholders in our education system are having an influence.
That’s why I’ve called for measures to ensure that local schools that are performing well get the help they need and have the flexibility they need to succeed. It’s why I’ve called for forming a “Teachers Advisory Council” comprised of rank and file teachers to advise the Governor on education policy and its effect on teachers in the classroom. And it’s why I’ve called from strengthening the role that parents play in their kids’ education. That’s where we’ll realize some of the greatest dividends as we move our schools forward in the next few years.
##30##
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Democrats Peak Early
Hatchet
by Lucas Roebuck
Writing columns prophesying the outcome of elections a few weeks away is a haphazard task, replete with the probability of error, embarrassment and the potential for the decimation of said columnist’s reputation for prognostication.
Some of my readers from the left side of the political spectrum have written me personal e-mails recently, questioning if I indeed can see anything through my rose-colored glasses. No wonder why all those states look red to me.
This is what I see: The Democrats have peaked about two weeks too early, giving the very effective Republican machine enough time to definitely save the Senate and likely save the House from Democratic takeover.
Rep. Mark Foley’s alleged homosexual impropriety with congressional pages is already off the front page in favor of more significant news like North Korea’s nuclear bomb testing, a record stock market and sectarian violence in Iraq. Democrats also should give voters more credit. Although the mob is often very reactive initially to news, after they have time to cool down and process, the voting masses actually can become quite reasonable.
For example, if the election would have been held last week — when the GOP rank and file couldn’t believe the House leadership didn’t toss Foley in front of the express train to political obscurity a long time ago — the Democrats would be masters of Congress.
Now the conservative base, which fuels the Republican Party like Coke fuels middle schoolers, has realized that: a ) their particular congressperson probably shouldn’t be held responsible for Foley’s stupidity, and b ) sitting out or voting Democratic to punish Foley is like decapitating yourself to spite a nose hair. The nose hair has been plucked, and the axe has been safely put away.
The previously mentioned GOP machine is indeed in full swing, and well funded. In many cases, Republicans have a 5-1 money advantage. Money can’t buy you happiness, and it can’t buy you votes — but it can buy you a lot of airtime to get your message out to your base and the illusive swing voters.
That makes two critical advantages Republicans have over the Democrats: message and money. Why the mainstream media are underestimating often demonized (yet legendary ) White House political adviser Karl Rove at this juncture is beyond my limited scope of understanding.
So what’s the message ? The first one is that raising taxes — which a Democratic-controlled Congress has all but promised — will stagnate the economy. For the most part, the Bush strategy of lowering tax rates to increase government income is working. The second, more tenable message is that we must continue to support the government in Iraq militarily in an attempt to keep civil war from breaking out as part of our larger efforts in the War on Terror.
The Republicans have certainly lost some points on national security because of the Iraq casualties, but I suspect Americans still feel like the Republicans are the only people who will do what needs to be done, i. e. wiretapping, etc., in order to assure there is not an encore to Islamofascism’s Sept. 11, 2001 performance.
The Democratic alternative is to hope that sticking our heads into isolationist sand will make all the Islamic radicals think that American women shouldn’t be forced into following strict Islamic law, that Israel shouldn’t be wiped from the face of the earth, that religious freedom should not be revoked — that somehow they shouldn’t be the instrument of Allah’s judgment on our secular government. Good luck on that.
For what its worth, the most dependable analysis still clearly shows that if the election were held today, the Democrats would pick up 20 seats in the House, and five in the Senate — enough to put San Francisco-style liberal House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi two heartbeats away from the White House, but not enough for Democrats to control the Senate. (I look to the Novak-Evans Report (more conservative ) and Electoral-Vote.com (more liberal ) as the best sourcees of election outcome analysis.)
However, I stlll contend the Republicans will control both the House and the Senate when the dust settles in November.
by Lucas Roebuck
Writing columns prophesying the outcome of elections a few weeks away is a haphazard task, replete with the probability of error, embarrassment and the potential for the decimation of said columnist’s reputation for prognostication.
Some of my readers from the left side of the political spectrum have written me personal e-mails recently, questioning if I indeed can see anything through my rose-colored glasses. No wonder why all those states look red to me.
This is what I see: The Democrats have peaked about two weeks too early, giving the very effective Republican machine enough time to definitely save the Senate and likely save the House from Democratic takeover.
Rep. Mark Foley’s alleged homosexual impropriety with congressional pages is already off the front page in favor of more significant news like North Korea’s nuclear bomb testing, a record stock market and sectarian violence in Iraq. Democrats also should give voters more credit. Although the mob is often very reactive initially to news, after they have time to cool down and process, the voting masses actually can become quite reasonable.
For example, if the election would have been held last week — when the GOP rank and file couldn’t believe the House leadership didn’t toss Foley in front of the express train to political obscurity a long time ago — the Democrats would be masters of Congress.
Now the conservative base, which fuels the Republican Party like Coke fuels middle schoolers, has realized that: a ) their particular congressperson probably shouldn’t be held responsible for Foley’s stupidity, and b ) sitting out or voting Democratic to punish Foley is like decapitating yourself to spite a nose hair. The nose hair has been plucked, and the axe has been safely put away.
The previously mentioned GOP machine is indeed in full swing, and well funded. In many cases, Republicans have a 5-1 money advantage. Money can’t buy you happiness, and it can’t buy you votes — but it can buy you a lot of airtime to get your message out to your base and the illusive swing voters.
That makes two critical advantages Republicans have over the Democrats: message and money. Why the mainstream media are underestimating often demonized (yet legendary ) White House political adviser Karl Rove at this juncture is beyond my limited scope of understanding.
So what’s the message ? The first one is that raising taxes — which a Democratic-controlled Congress has all but promised — will stagnate the economy. For the most part, the Bush strategy of lowering tax rates to increase government income is working. The second, more tenable message is that we must continue to support the government in Iraq militarily in an attempt to keep civil war from breaking out as part of our larger efforts in the War on Terror.
The Republicans have certainly lost some points on national security because of the Iraq casualties, but I suspect Americans still feel like the Republicans are the only people who will do what needs to be done, i. e. wiretapping, etc., in order to assure there is not an encore to Islamofascism’s Sept. 11, 2001 performance.
The Democratic alternative is to hope that sticking our heads into isolationist sand will make all the Islamic radicals think that American women shouldn’t be forced into following strict Islamic law, that Israel shouldn’t be wiped from the face of the earth, that religious freedom should not be revoked — that somehow they shouldn’t be the instrument of Allah’s judgment on our secular government. Good luck on that.
For what its worth, the most dependable analysis still clearly shows that if the election were held today, the Democrats would pick up 20 seats in the House, and five in the Senate — enough to put San Francisco-style liberal House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi two heartbeats away from the White House, but not enough for Democrats to control the Senate. (I look to the Novak-Evans Report (more conservative ) and Electoral-Vote.com (more liberal ) as the best sourcees of election outcome analysis.)
However, I stlll contend the Republicans will control both the House and the Senate when the dust settles in November.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Is Google a hypocrite when it comes to China?
Does Google Do Evil For China?
by Lucas Roebuck
Let me be frank. I think Google is a hypocrite when it comes to China. That being said, I am a hypocrite when it comes to Google. I use the company's flagship search engine several times a day, every day (even to research this story), and here I am judging it.
Also, while I rush to condemn Google, I also would praise the company for doing more to make the Internet useful and accessible than any other individual or organization in the history of the worldwide network of computers.
And who can argue with the company's self-proclaimed informal corporate motto, "Don't be evil"?
Apparently, however, in the post-modern era of the Internet, evil is in the eye of the beholder—or, perhaps, defined by cultures and governments, as is Google's practice. A more cynical take on Google's definition of evil would argue that evil is not having access to China's lucrative Internet advertising market.
China's Censorship
For American-based multinational companies, the Chinese market is a finger puzzle, where a reforming "communist" economic system, embedded in a more slowly reforming totalitarian political system, pulls against the potential of one of the most lucrative global markets.
American companies want China to be aware of their products and services, so as Chinese citizens' personal incomes rise, so will sales to China. Native China companies and multinational companies also want a piece of the China pie. Advertising to the Chinese consumer early and often is critical, and finding effective ways to place advertising is what Google does best.
While China is interested in engaging the world culture, the governing party of that state has no interest in democratizing, addressing its human right abuses, or allowing its citizens to read content that criticizes China for its sometimes-oppressive modus operandi.
As such, China regulates the Internet traffic coming into the country by blocking Web sites and other Internet destinations that are critical of China's human rights record. China also apparently regulates sites that deal with the political sovereignty of the island nation of Taiwan, which China claims as its own.
Early this year, Google agreed to censor itself in China, which many, including myself, agreed violated Google's "Don't be evil" axiom. Google agreed to self-censor in part because China was blocking access to Google.com for its hundreds of millions of Internet users.
The AP published a report on Google's decision in January of this year. "To obtain the Chinese license, Google agreed to omit Web content that the country's government finds objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisions on guidance provided by Chinese government officials. Although China has loosened some of its controls in recent years, some topics, such as Taiwan's independence and 1989's Tiananmen Square massacre, remain forbidden subjects," wrote AP writer Michael Liedtke.
Bad Mojo
Google received plenty of bad Net karma from bloggers and media watchers.
Reporters Without Borders noted in a June release that China's access to all but the truncated Google.cn part of Google's services has been mostly blocked by China.
"It was only to be expected that Google.com would be gradually sidelined after the censored version was launched in January," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. "Google has just definitively joined the club of Western companies that comply with online censorship in China. It is deplorable that Chinese Internet users are forced to wage a technological war against censorship in order to access banned content."
Becky Hodge of OpenDemocracy.net was particularly sarcastic in her assessment. "So, it turns out Google is evil after all. Like a toddler who's just caught Santa beating up his little helper round the back of the grotto, the geek community reacted as one when Google entered the Chinese market with its censored Google.cn service last Wednesday," writes Hodge. "Anger and disbelief quickly gave way to a sense of abandonment and fear, and as Daddy sat us down for a grown-up talk about publicly owned companies, market economies and shareholder rights, we felt our tiny little world dissolve into a new, scarier reality."
Hodge argues that those people who bought into the "Don't be evil" motto for Google were naïve.
Mining Personal Data
Hodge is one of a small but growing group of vocal Google critics who think Google's method of collecting and providing personal information to help advertisers find you online is also evil.
"Google collects mountains of IP address-linked data about the search behavior of all its customers. The more services you sign up for with Google (Gmail, Desktop, Homepage), the more Google knows about you—knowledge that it shares with third parties, for example, to make better-targeted ads," writes Hodge. "This is its core business model, and the reason why small ads are so successful. To keep our information flowing into the Googleplex, Google relies on a high level of either ignorance or (one hopes, more likely) trust from its users."
Hodge wonders what China will do with this information Google is collecting on the activities of the Chinese if and when the government requests it from the search giant.
"So, our next question should be, how much data are you logging about your new Chinese customers, Google? And what will you do when the Chinese authorities ask you to hand it over?" Hodge asks.
Long-Term Good?
For its part, Google has sort of been using the George H. W. Bush defense of dealing with China. Bush argued that encouraging capitalism in China would help bring freedom to the people there faster than punitive measures. Google argues that it's better to make sure the Chinese have access to some information than none.
"While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission," Google said in a statement after announcing its policy to work with China's censors.
In some ways, Google's San Francisco progressive company culture and motto served as the glass house that now is being deluged with stones. Yahoo! and Microsoft, Google's closest competitors, acquiesced to the Chinese government long before Google did. But everyone expects Microsoft to be looking out for the bottom line.
Google claimed to be different, and it let down many of its greatest fans when it enabled China's censorship. Those people will have to search somewhere else to find a company that will stand up for human rights for all citizens of the world.
(c) 2006 Lucas Roebuck
by Lucas Roebuck
Let me be frank. I think Google is a hypocrite when it comes to China. That being said, I am a hypocrite when it comes to Google. I use the company's flagship search engine several times a day, every day (even to research this story), and here I am judging it.
Also, while I rush to condemn Google, I also would praise the company for doing more to make the Internet useful and accessible than any other individual or organization in the history of the worldwide network of computers.
And who can argue with the company's self-proclaimed informal corporate motto, "Don't be evil"?
Apparently, however, in the post-modern era of the Internet, evil is in the eye of the beholder—or, perhaps, defined by cultures and governments, as is Google's practice. A more cynical take on Google's definition of evil would argue that evil is not having access to China's lucrative Internet advertising market.
China's Censorship
For American-based multinational companies, the Chinese market is a finger puzzle, where a reforming "communist" economic system, embedded in a more slowly reforming totalitarian political system, pulls against the potential of one of the most lucrative global markets.
American companies want China to be aware of their products and services, so as Chinese citizens' personal incomes rise, so will sales to China. Native China companies and multinational companies also want a piece of the China pie. Advertising to the Chinese consumer early and often is critical, and finding effective ways to place advertising is what Google does best.
While China is interested in engaging the world culture, the governing party of that state has no interest in democratizing, addressing its human right abuses, or allowing its citizens to read content that criticizes China for its sometimes-oppressive modus operandi.
As such, China regulates the Internet traffic coming into the country by blocking Web sites and other Internet destinations that are critical of China's human rights record. China also apparently regulates sites that deal with the political sovereignty of the island nation of Taiwan, which China claims as its own.
Early this year, Google agreed to censor itself in China, which many, including myself, agreed violated Google's "Don't be evil" axiom. Google agreed to self-censor in part because China was blocking access to Google.com for its hundreds of millions of Internet users.
The AP published a report on Google's decision in January of this year. "To obtain the Chinese license, Google agreed to omit Web content that the country's government finds objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisions on guidance provided by Chinese government officials. Although China has loosened some of its controls in recent years, some topics, such as Taiwan's independence and 1989's Tiananmen Square massacre, remain forbidden subjects," wrote AP writer Michael Liedtke.
Bad Mojo
Google received plenty of bad Net karma from bloggers and media watchers.
Reporters Without Borders noted in a June release that China's access to all but the truncated Google.cn part of Google's services has been mostly blocked by China.
"It was only to be expected that Google.com would be gradually sidelined after the censored version was launched in January," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. "Google has just definitively joined the club of Western companies that comply with online censorship in China. It is deplorable that Chinese Internet users are forced to wage a technological war against censorship in order to access banned content."
Becky Hodge of OpenDemocracy.net was particularly sarcastic in her assessment. "So, it turns out Google is evil after all. Like a toddler who's just caught Santa beating up his little helper round the back of the grotto, the geek community reacted as one when Google entered the Chinese market with its censored Google.cn service last Wednesday," writes Hodge. "Anger and disbelief quickly gave way to a sense of abandonment and fear, and as Daddy sat us down for a grown-up talk about publicly owned companies, market economies and shareholder rights, we felt our tiny little world dissolve into a new, scarier reality."
Hodge argues that those people who bought into the "Don't be evil" motto for Google were naïve.
Mining Personal Data
Hodge is one of a small but growing group of vocal Google critics who think Google's method of collecting and providing personal information to help advertisers find you online is also evil.
"Google collects mountains of IP address-linked data about the search behavior of all its customers. The more services you sign up for with Google (Gmail, Desktop, Homepage), the more Google knows about you—knowledge that it shares with third parties, for example, to make better-targeted ads," writes Hodge. "This is its core business model, and the reason why small ads are so successful. To keep our information flowing into the Googleplex, Google relies on a high level of either ignorance or (one hopes, more likely) trust from its users."
Hodge wonders what China will do with this information Google is collecting on the activities of the Chinese if and when the government requests it from the search giant.
"So, our next question should be, how much data are you logging about your new Chinese customers, Google? And what will you do when the Chinese authorities ask you to hand it over?" Hodge asks.
Long-Term Good?
For its part, Google has sort of been using the George H. W. Bush defense of dealing with China. Bush argued that encouraging capitalism in China would help bring freedom to the people there faster than punitive measures. Google argues that it's better to make sure the Chinese have access to some information than none.
"While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission," Google said in a statement after announcing its policy to work with China's censors.
In some ways, Google's San Francisco progressive company culture and motto served as the glass house that now is being deluged with stones. Yahoo! and Microsoft, Google's closest competitors, acquiesced to the Chinese government long before Google did. But everyone expects Microsoft to be looking out for the bottom line.
Google claimed to be different, and it let down many of its greatest fans when it enabled China's censorship. Those people will have to search somewhere else to find a company that will stand up for human rights for all citizens of the world.
(c) 2006 Lucas Roebuck
Dysfunctional Democracy
Dysfunctional Democracy
Why does our system pick inadequate leaders?
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
I decided to put away my partisan crayons this week to discuss a problem that has been percolating in the back of my head at least since the last time being a Republican was cool.
Why doesn’t our democratic system produce leaders that are capable of dealing the modern challenges to our way of life? In the modern era, I would argue only two American presidents proved to be the sort of leader that advanced American democracy in the face of a civilization-level struggle: John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
(Of course, about 10 percent of you have just read the last sentence and thought, “How could anyone dare mention my personal hero, [JFK/The Gipper], in the same sentence as that disgrace to the Oval Office, [JFK/The Gipper].)
However, I can say with few qualifications that Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr., have failed in some degree to be the whole leader — someone who not only has the mettle to go the distance, stick to his guns, and operate a clean house, but also someone who can rally a nation to a cause greater than ourselves. They all found themselves lacking in critical areas: the ability to articulate a solution, the ability to implement a solution, self-control to curtail ones unsavory appetites or paranoia, and other critical areas of domestic and international import.
Take the current nuclear defiance in North Korea: Laying the blame at the feet of the Clinton Administration is easy. The Clinton Administration babied North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, thinking the evil man could be coddled into becoming a good leader that recognized basic human rights and started to feed his people instead of funding his mad quest to get a nuke to blackmail the world with.
To call the current North Korean regime is evil, is to call ice cold. Consider this analysis from Human Rights Watch (Hat tip: James Taranto’s “Best of the Web”): “The regime … is among the world's most repressive. . . . The country's dismal human rights conditions, including arbitrary arrests, pervasive use of torture, and lack of due process and fair trials, remain of grave concern. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. There is no freedom of information or freedom of religion. Basic services, such as access to health care and education, are provided according to a classification scheme based on the government's assessment of an individual's and his/her family's political loyalty.”
Both President Clinton and his chief negotiator in the process, former President Carter, absolutely failed at doing anything but providing North Korea with some temporary relief while Dictator Kim advanced his nuclear agenda.
But Clinton isn’t the only president who failed to have what it takes to deal with North Korea’s oppression of its own people and its desire to join the Nuke Club. President George W. Bush has had six years now to deal with North Korea, and although I think he sees Jong Il for what he really is (a totalitarian, oppressive dictator), Bush has also failed to use the massive resources of the United States, the greatest amalgamation of political, economic and military force in the history of the world, to solve the North Korean problem. In spite of our exercise of military force in Iraq, Bush has been unable to convince anyone that the U.S. has the political will to seriously dealing with North Korea (or Iran for that matter).
Let the blasphemy commence: I would like to genetically engineer a president with the moral fiber and greater vision of Bush mixed with the political acumen of Clinton. That would be a president for the ages — a Reagan or a JFK. And maybe throw in a dash of the political architectural genius of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for good measure.
But Reagans and JFKs are few and far between, I speculate, because more and more our partisan political process is controlled by the extremes and third-party interests. Don’t miss my meaning. I think our two-party system is great, when we have two viable parties offering competing visions and solutions for a better America.
Instead, we have the Republicans, who have the right vision, but apparently lack competence to achieve those ends. Record spending, mismanagement in war administration, inability to articulate a vision to the people, stupid scandals — all the legacy of the current GOP leaders. I have to ask myself the question: Is the system that produced leaders who ultimately proved less than stellar dysfunctional?
The Democrats, unfortunately are worse. At this point, they are depending on scandal and the fumbles of the Republicans to succeed at the polls. The Democrats promote extremists like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Gov. Howard Dean, who lead nothing but a party of self-hate, able to recognize that the current GOP leadership has failed in areas. But they offer nothing — and I mean zero — in place of the Republican plan. The only thing we know for sure is that they would raise taxes. Holding down taxes to promote economic growth is the one thing that the GOP has done consistently well. (The federal deficit is now at its lowest point in four years — due to increased tax receipts, while tax rates were lowered.)
The Democrats, again controlled by the extreme left, throw out their party’s best and brightest, like Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Zell Miller. (Sen. Mark Pryor is a notable exception; his career will be a good litmus test of the future of the Democratic Party.)
The problems have been the same for the past 20 years: Increasing national debt, Middle East tensions/the rise of Islamofacism, dependence on foreign energy, etc. Is our political system capable of producing a leader who can deal with the greatest political problems of our age?
Looking at the hopefuls for the 2008 presidency, I am anything but hopeful.
Why does our system pick inadequate leaders?
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
I decided to put away my partisan crayons this week to discuss a problem that has been percolating in the back of my head at least since the last time being a Republican was cool.
Why doesn’t our democratic system produce leaders that are capable of dealing the modern challenges to our way of life? In the modern era, I would argue only two American presidents proved to be the sort of leader that advanced American democracy in the face of a civilization-level struggle: John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
(Of course, about 10 percent of you have just read the last sentence and thought, “How could anyone dare mention my personal hero, [JFK/The Gipper], in the same sentence as that disgrace to the Oval Office, [JFK/The Gipper].)
However, I can say with few qualifications that Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr., have failed in some degree to be the whole leader — someone who not only has the mettle to go the distance, stick to his guns, and operate a clean house, but also someone who can rally a nation to a cause greater than ourselves. They all found themselves lacking in critical areas: the ability to articulate a solution, the ability to implement a solution, self-control to curtail ones unsavory appetites or paranoia, and other critical areas of domestic and international import.
Take the current nuclear defiance in North Korea: Laying the blame at the feet of the Clinton Administration is easy. The Clinton Administration babied North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, thinking the evil man could be coddled into becoming a good leader that recognized basic human rights and started to feed his people instead of funding his mad quest to get a nuke to blackmail the world with.
To call the current North Korean regime is evil, is to call ice cold. Consider this analysis from Human Rights Watch (Hat tip: James Taranto’s “Best of the Web”): “The regime … is among the world's most repressive. . . . The country's dismal human rights conditions, including arbitrary arrests, pervasive use of torture, and lack of due process and fair trials, remain of grave concern. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. There is no freedom of information or freedom of religion. Basic services, such as access to health care and education, are provided according to a classification scheme based on the government's assessment of an individual's and his/her family's political loyalty.”
Both President Clinton and his chief negotiator in the process, former President Carter, absolutely failed at doing anything but providing North Korea with some temporary relief while Dictator Kim advanced his nuclear agenda.
But Clinton isn’t the only president who failed to have what it takes to deal with North Korea’s oppression of its own people and its desire to join the Nuke Club. President George W. Bush has had six years now to deal with North Korea, and although I think he sees Jong Il for what he really is (a totalitarian, oppressive dictator), Bush has also failed to use the massive resources of the United States, the greatest amalgamation of political, economic and military force in the history of the world, to solve the North Korean problem. In spite of our exercise of military force in Iraq, Bush has been unable to convince anyone that the U.S. has the political will to seriously dealing with North Korea (or Iran for that matter).
Let the blasphemy commence: I would like to genetically engineer a president with the moral fiber and greater vision of Bush mixed with the political acumen of Clinton. That would be a president for the ages — a Reagan or a JFK. And maybe throw in a dash of the political architectural genius of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for good measure.
But Reagans and JFKs are few and far between, I speculate, because more and more our partisan political process is controlled by the extremes and third-party interests. Don’t miss my meaning. I think our two-party system is great, when we have two viable parties offering competing visions and solutions for a better America.
Instead, we have the Republicans, who have the right vision, but apparently lack competence to achieve those ends. Record spending, mismanagement in war administration, inability to articulate a vision to the people, stupid scandals — all the legacy of the current GOP leaders. I have to ask myself the question: Is the system that produced leaders who ultimately proved less than stellar dysfunctional?
The Democrats, unfortunately are worse. At this point, they are depending on scandal and the fumbles of the Republicans to succeed at the polls. The Democrats promote extremists like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Gov. Howard Dean, who lead nothing but a party of self-hate, able to recognize that the current GOP leadership has failed in areas. But they offer nothing — and I mean zero — in place of the Republican plan. The only thing we know for sure is that they would raise taxes. Holding down taxes to promote economic growth is the one thing that the GOP has done consistently well. (The federal deficit is now at its lowest point in four years — due to increased tax receipts, while tax rates were lowered.)
The Democrats, again controlled by the extreme left, throw out their party’s best and brightest, like Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Zell Miller. (Sen. Mark Pryor is a notable exception; his career will be a good litmus test of the future of the Democratic Party.)
The problems have been the same for the past 20 years: Increasing national debt, Middle East tensions/the rise of Islamofacism, dependence on foreign energy, etc. Is our political system capable of producing a leader who can deal with the greatest political problems of our age?
Looking at the hopefuls for the 2008 presidency, I am anything but hopeful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
