Keeping the Bar Low

In politics, whether local school board elections, or district, state or even national races, legislation and problem solving rarely ever happens for simple reasons. Even axioms like "follow the money" seldom give the whole answer - even if they do point to a malodorous trail. The right posture, portrayed in the right light, can lead to policy that is not in the best interest of constituents.

Likewise, when politicking is at its best, the public can be served despite enormous odds against it. Yesterday afternoon, John Murtha passed away. He was a politician who excelled at finding ways to shape politics to benefit his constituents. He also famously came out against the Iraq war in 2005.

Politicians like Murtha fought for his own district, but also weren't afraid to risk political capital to stand up for what is right. Too often do politicians hem and haw about the election implications of taking a stand. One thing that Barack Obama did during his campaign, and which he has continued to do since entering office, is to avoid this lowering of the bar so as to always appear in the right as much as possible.

Of course his administration has downplayed results, and avoided taking explicit positions - they play politics 24 hours a day. However, more often than not, they have taken a position that accurately reflects the President's view on what is best for his constituents - the entire country. It says something that he has been lambasted by liberals and conservatives alike. It bears remarking that he has demanded political action on a scale not scene in generations while also candidly taking responsibility for errors. It is worth noting that he is both a constitutional scholar and a community organizer.

When politicians put reelection above their duty, or muddy the political landscape as a stall tactic, it harms their electorate, plain and simple.

Instead of a weak and vacillating Government, a single, purposeful, energetic personality is ruling today.
Hjalmar Schacht

Just don't put too much stock in one man's personality...

A New American Clean Energy Economy

There were many important sections, moments, and turns of phrase in President Obama's State of the Union address earlier this week. Much of the speech revolved around the American economy and other domestic topics. In one section in particular, Barack Obama made a point that cannot be stressed enough. He talked about the US's place in the global energy economy.

For many reasons, investing heavily in scientific research across the board is a smart idea. Investing today in research for clean energy technologies is an even smarter idea. As Obama said,

The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.

In countless cases throughout the last several hundred years, it has been the access to energy that has dictated whether a nation's power grows or dwindles. In the 21st century it will be no different. If the United States does not become the dominant leader in new energy technology, it will gradually lose its edge militarily, politically, and economically.

Long gone are the days when the US could get most of its energy from domestic sources, and even harnessing all of the country's reserves without any attention to environmental preservation would not change that fact. However, the culture of assured access to limitless energy is pervasive and implacable. Replacing this with a new national identity of scientific progress through hard work and tough decisions is the right thing to do.

It's extraordinary how inventive one can be with ethanol right now
-Daniel Yergin

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