A Return to Thoughtful Diplomacy

The first nine months of Barack Obama's presidency have involved a slew of much needed visits to countries all across the world. Fulfilling his promises to reengage any country willing to come to the table, Barack Obama has made great strides forward in promoting the interests of the United States abroad. The current changes in Iran's behavior are a paragon of how well his strategies will come to fruition over time.

His diplomatic poise, which has drawn criticism from the right for superficial reasons, and been effectually ignored by democrats, is beginning to produce tangible results. Despite moments of uncertainty, Iran agreed to a draft deal to send most of its enriched uranium to Russia for re enrichment. The uranium would then be shipped to France to be turned into plates for use in the research reactor at Tehran University. This would strip Iran of the ability to make a nuclear weapon while at the same time allowing them validation in their claims of pursuing nuclear power as a means for self-reliance.

Should this deal go through, President Obama will have orchestrated a finely crafted diplomatic victory. Furthermore, regional tensions would be slackened at a time when "the moment may be at hand" in the Middle East peace process. With the recent poll numbers indicating that because of Barack Obama, the United states is now the most admired country in the world, it seems that the stage is set for real progress.

Finally, the type of diplomacy in which the current American Administration has engaged has been one of calculation, compromise, and strategic positioning. The brilliance of skipping Berlin in May only to dine out in Paris in June is a perfect example of this.

“Life is a constant oscillation between the sharp horns of dilemmas.”
H.L. Mencken

It seems conventional wisdom favors restoring a little more "imperiousness" to the White House's relationship with the press. Across the board, commentators are calling the White House's attacks on Fox News a bad idea. Even Fox News thinks this is a bad idea. While one of the arguments in the NYT article makes sense, it seems tough to figure out just why the White House should avoid butting heads with Fox News.

No one seems to have a problem with the facts of what has been said about Fox. in their own article they quoted Rahm Emanuel and Anita Dunn without contradicting the bulk of their claims. This seems like an odd twist in what may prove to be a very entertaining fight between the administration and Fox News.

The argument against engaging Fox News' brazen partisanship that makes the most sense was in the NYT article:

People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones.

The previous tactic of the administration, explicitly ignoring Fox News, and giving it few if any officials to interview, seems like a long-term strategy that might bear fruit. It seems likely then that a decision was made to head off the inevitable campaigns against various administration officials Fox News would continue to make by taking the fight out into the open.

The carrot-and-stick approach to the media has been in use for a long time, and criticizing the White House for taking a stand against Fox News without disagreeing with claims Emanuel, Dunn, or Axelrod has made does not make a strong case for why the White House should back off.

“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they
control the minds of the masses."

Malcolm X

The need for leadership with class and honor to match their hubris has been in existence for a long time. At the current moment, as has happened many times in the past, the quality of leadership- from Wilson to Grayson, and Beck to Olbermann, vapid partisan noisemaking appears as virulent and infectious as the Swine Flu.

It is always difficult to not panic and declare the end of journalism, the fall of American Democracy, the coming apocalypse in 2012, or what have you. There have been questions about the virility of the American Dollar before. Similarly, as President Obama has pointed out, FDR faced much of the same rhetoric 70 years ago about health care in America.

What is needed is more leadership like that of President Obama, of Senator John McCain. And Ms Noonan is right, elders are needed to set the standards and hand down the lore.

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
-Shakespeare, Ceasar III, II

Right to Life?

The right to life is the preeminent right mandated by the American Declaration of Independence. Deeply ingrained in the psyche of the American people, there is no greater task of the government of the United states than to protect the lives of its citizens. Medical procedures with the potential to lengthen sharply the lifespan of American Citizens are therefore historically and practically important.

A recent study on mice controlling a particular protein genetically puts a potentially pressing matter into focus: what if only some people could afford this treatment? People have always received medical treatment and care in proportion to their power, wealth, and political status. The amount to which there has been outrage from the less well-off has varied in the past. However, if the future holds a series of procedures that can undeniably alter a select few people's lifespans by a dramatic amount, there will be discord.

If living in the "rich world" will mean living to 100, and everyone elsewhere knows it, what will happen? While clearly the separation is already quite drastic, imagine if the gap between the rich and poor countries doubled in a short period of time.

With reference to the current raucous noise about health care in the United States, what if instead of rising premiums and falling services, most Americans could be angry about the loss of their right to life?