American foreign policy

Second Term Presidencies Taken Over By Foreign Crises: Will It Happen Again Now?

Ronald Leave a comment

Three American Presidents in the last hundred years have been faced by foreign crises leading to war, and disrupting their domestic intentions for their second term of office. All three hoped to accomplish much more internally, but were distracted and diverted by major wars they could not avoid.

Woodrow Wilson had accomplished the most domestic reform in American history of any President until his time, but then World War I intruded, and his second term was dominated by the war and its aftermath.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had surpassed Woodrow Wilson in domestic accomplishments in his first term with his New Deal, but his second term became one of growing concern over the threat of the Japanese Empire to our territories (Hawaii, Guam, The Philippines) in the Pacific, plus the growing threat of Fascism and Nazism represented by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in Europe—leading to concern of its effect on our traditional European friends if not formal allies, Great Britain and France. Although America would not enter World War II until FDR’s third term, the threat of war was ever present, and divided this nation in a massive way between internationalists and isolationists.

Harry Truman had a much more difficult time domestically, and had to deal with the Cold War with the Soviet Union, but hoped to promote a Fair Deal in his second term, but instead had to deal with the Korean War.

Now, Barack Obama faces the growing threat of real war with two nations who have lunatic leadership, and are capable of provoking major wars, emboldened by their nuclear intentions—Iran and North Korea.

Iran moves ahead on nuclear development, unaffected by the major nations bringing pressure and economic sanctions on them, and still seen as potentially able to threaten the survival of Israel, and cause a major cut off of oil in the Straits of Hormuz. While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is leaving in June, it is clear that the Ayatollah Khamenei and the extremist Shiite Muslim leadership really dictates policy, and that anything is possible, including war.

North Korea, under its new young (30) leader, Kim Jong Un, has now declared that the truce agreement which ended the Korean War sixty years ago is null and void; has been testing nuclear weapons against international outcry, including China; and has threatened this past week that it might launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on South Korea and the United States. This all seems bluster, but who can say for sure?

So our need as a nation to face the possibility of war with two international outlaws makes the whole budget issue much more complex, and makes the odds of more domestic reform activities all the harder to accomplish.

Much like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, Barack Obama may face being a war President against his will, and his Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will be sorely tested over the next four years in their hope to avoid a war, just as we are trying to exit a war in Afghanistan, after having done just that in Iraq!

Transformative Presidents In Diplomacy And Foreign Affairs

Ronald 3 Comments

With Presidents Day coming up on Monday, this is a good time to assess the Presidents who were transformative in diplomacy and foreign affairs.

The Presidents who truly made a difference in foreign policy would include the following, chronologically:

Thomas Jefferson—who presided over the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 negotiated with France, and the handling of the Chesapeake Affair of 1807, avoiding war with Great Britain, but causing decline in public opinion about Jefferson as he left office, due to the economic decline caused by the Embargo Act.

James Monroe—who, with the brilliant leadership of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, was able to gain control of Florida in 1819, settle much of the Canadian boundary in the same time frame, and promote the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, a major part of American foreign policy in the future.

James K. Polk—under whom the Pacific Northwest was gained by negotiation with Great Britain, and the American Southwest and California by war with Mexico between 1846 and 1848.

William McKinley—under whom Hawaii was added as a territory, and America gained an “Empire” by engagement in the Spanish American War in 1898.

Theodore Roosevelt—under whom America fully engaged with the outside world, including foreign crises and wars in Europe and Asia, as well as growing intervention in Latin America between 1901-1909.

Woodrow Wilson—under whom America fully entered into international war involvement in the First World War in 1917, and then rejected internationalism as Wilson left office in 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt—who took America out of isolationism in the late 1930s, and presided over our involvement in World War II between 1941-1945, and the growth of America as a super power by 1945.

Harry Truman—who led us into the Cold War with the Soviet Union after 1945, with transitional foreign policy leadership that set the mold for the next half century until 1991.

Richard Nixon—who moved America toward detente with the Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, and opened up to mainland China between 1969 and 1974.

George H. W, Bush—who smoothed the end of the Cold War, was receptive to a unified Germany as a result, and created a coalition to prevent Iraqi domination in the Middle East in the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

Other Presidents who had an impact on diplomacy and foreign affairs in a major, if not transformative manner, would include:

George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Sadly, Lyndon B, Johnson and George W. Bush were mostly negative forces in foreign affairs; Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were mixed in their results; while George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy were much more positive.

Inevitable Result: Defeat Of Richard Lugar, And The Death Of Bi-Partisanship In The US Senate

Ronald Leave a comment

The inevitable defeat of Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican Senate primary by Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party favorite, is a major tragedy for Indiana and for the US Senate,and also, for the Republican Party’s history and future!

Lugar, without question, was one of the most brilliant, insightful, intelligent, and learned members of the US Senate, not just now, but for decades in the past.

Richard Lugar was a man who promoted bi-partisanship and reason, rather than yelling and screaming and gridlock and stalemate, and he will be greatly missed.

And with him being forced out of the Senate, and Maine Senator Olympia Snowe voluntarily leaving the Senate, the Republican Party in the Senate becomes a true disaster area, leaving who is left as easily the most disgraceful group under the party name that we have ever seen in American history, from the beginning of the history of the party in 1854!

The GOP was a party of reform in the Civil War-Reconstruction Era, in the Progressive Era, and in the post World War II period, at least in the Northeast and scattered cases elsewhere in the 1960s and 1970s.

The deterioration of the moderate and liberal Republicans began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and now is complete!

And to try to understand why Lugar was defeated is enough to make one wonder about the ignorance and stupidity of the voters who defeated him in Indiana.

What were their reasons to defeat him?

He is too old, being 80–totally ridiculous, as Lugar was a spry 80, fully in charge of his physical and mental faculties, more than most Republican Senate colleagues, who have far less ability at their younger ages than Lugar has always had.

Lugar spent most of his time in Virginia, and hardly ever was in Indiana for residence purposes–ridiculous as doing his job requires a Senator to spend most of his time in the DC area. This is such a totally phony issue and excuse to defeat a Senator who devoted his life to his state’s betterment.

Lugar was from Indianapolis, and the rest of the state resented his urban background–preposterous excuse to defeat him, but not uncommon in many states that the rural areas of a state resent the urban areas. But the thought that “country yokels” resent urban areas, and educated, intelligent people is an example of the problem of this country, that the “Know Nothing” hillbillies resent anyone who actually has brains and talent, and instead want a “good old boy”!

Lugar had the gall to do bi-partisan things, even with Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate–idiotic as that is the only way to get things done effectively, and Lugar always used principle over politics in his judgments, and was far from a liberal, but an honest, decent conservative.

Lugar specialized in foreign policy, and many rural people in Indiana hate foreign governments and the outside world in general–another example of the dangers of these”rural folk” having the ability to keep themselves and their fellow citizens out of touch with the “real world” out there. This anti foreign attitude is much too prevalent all over the country, and endangers our future in a complex world.

So the question arises over what Richard Lugar will do in 2013. He could go home to retirement, but does not seem like the type to want to do that. He could become a professor with specialty in international relations, and many universities would grab at the possibility of employing this brilliant statesman. He could write his memoirs, which would be fascinating.

But also, imagine this! As a good friend, and at times, supporter of Barack Obama on some issues, and with their common work on trying to prevent the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons when Obama was in the Senate in 2005-2006, and with Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department next year, there will be a vacancy that Lugar could fill very well!

Would the Republicans in the Senate oppose their long time colleague, with 36 years of experience, much of it in foreign policy, similar to the experience in foreign policy issues of Vice President Joe Biden, if Lugar wished to serve Obama as Secretary of State?

The assumption is that they would back him if Obama was re-elected and asked Lugar to serve his nation in another distinguished way, as Secretary of State.

So Indiana’s loss could be America’s and Barack Obama’s gain in 2013, and Lugar would richly deserve such an opportunity!

The Imminent Loss Of A True Statesman From The US Senate: Richard Lugar Of Indiana

Ronald Leave a comment

With 24 hours to go, it seems imminent that Indiana Senator Richard Lugar is about to lose his Republican primary for a seventh term to a Tea Party right wing extremist.

If this happens, as expected, it will be a true tragedy not only for Lugar, but also for Indiana, and for the wish for bipartisanship and principle in the US Senate.

Lugar has been in the Senate for 36 years, after serving as Mayor of Indianapolis, and while he is a strong conservative, he has never resorted to reckless statements or crazy viewpoints, always keeping his dignity and image as a person willing to cross the aisle and work with opposition Democrats.

The fact that he cooperated with a new Senator, Barack Obama, in 2005-2006, on working to avoid the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on a world wide basis, now is being held against him.

The fact that he has occasionally supported the President on a few issues, not many, was enough to make people angry in his right wing Republican state.

The National Rifle Association is against him; Lugar has supported the DREAM Act on immigration; and he supported the two Supreme Court nominees of Barack Obama.

Lugar was twice Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and twice Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and if the Republicans won the Senate in 2012 and Lugar won, he would be Senate President Pro Tempore, third in line of succession to be President of the United States.

Of course, Lugar’s age, 80, could be used against him, but he is a very vigorous, energetic 80, and is seen by many as a brilliant statesman in his major area of interest, foreign policy.

But the GOP of 2012 is sadly controlled too much by the Tea Party and other right wingers, and the only good thing that might come out of a defeat of Richard Lugar is the takeover of the seat by a Democrat, Congressman Joe Donnelly, which would give his party a chance at keeping the Senate majority, a much endangered majority!

Is Mitt Romney “Captive” Of Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, And Bill Kristol?

Ronald Leave a comment

Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee, is a man with very few interests, other than making money, along with caring about his family and his Mormon Church.

He has really no background or great knowledge in foreign policy, and has very little interest in improving the lives of average Americans.

Many are starting to wonder if he the “captive” of Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, and Bill Kristol.

Grover Norquist, the head of Americans For Tax Reform, has been able to convince almost all Republicans in Congress to agree NEVER to raise taxes on ANYONE, and in fact, lower them ever more. Mitt Romney has committed himself to this insanity, and of course, he personally benefits from such a policy.

Paul Ryan, the House Budget Chairman from Wisconsin, promotes the idea of destroying Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as we know it, and has been even criticized by leaders of his own Catholic Church for his harsh view and attitude towards the poor. Romney has also expressed the thought that nothing more needs to be done for those less fortunate.

Bill Kristol is the publisher of the conservative weekly, The Weekly Standard, since its inception in 1994, and he is infamous as one of the “neocons”, the so called neo conservatives, who call for use of force overseas, and advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Mitt Romney has pushed for the idea of bombing Iran, rather than diplomacy first being pursued over their nuclear program.

So one has to wonder if Mitt Romney, having no interest in issues other than what will elect him, is allowing himself now, and later as President, were he to be elected, to enact policies favored by these three men and others, which many would call “radical” ideas.

It is truly ironic that Barack Obama is often called a “radical” President, when if one examines Mitt Romney and who has influence or power over him, we should instead be concerned that Mitt Romney is the true “radical” in the race, ready to reverse progress and change under Barack Obama, and go back to the failed policies of George W. Bush!

In Defense Of Jimmy Carter In The Controversy Over Osama Bin Laden

Ronald Leave a comment

With the debate over the question of whether President Barack Obama should be able to take credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden and use it in the upcoming campaign, we have heard the name “Jimmy Carter” constantly brought up in a derisive manner by Mitt Romney, John McCain and other Republicans, and it makes one want to scream!

Jimmy Carter is very proud of the fact that we did not go to war in his administration; that he helped to negotiate a long lasting agreement, the Camp David Accords, between Egypt and Israel; that he successfully negotiated an agreement to give back the Panama Canal to that nation’s control; promoted human rights, setting a standard principle which has been utilized as a principle of American foreign policy since; and had the courage to take strong action to try and rescue American hostages in Iran, the failed mission occurring in April 1980.

Yes, the rescue mission failed, but Carter could take the credit for the fact that all of the hostages came home, upon the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. The problem was that all of the good that Carter did in foreign policy, as well as domestic policy, was overshadowed by the Iran crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic recession that occurred, including an oil embargo that raised gasoline prices.

Carter was the victim of circumstance, but deserves much better treatment and respect, as the only other President so attacked on a regular basis after his Presidency as incompetent, who was Herbert Hoover.

It is ironic that these two Presidents, educated as engineers, both brilliant in intellect, both one term Presidents soundly defeated for re-election, ended up having longer retirements than any other President, with Hoover’s thirty one and a half years in retirement to be passed by Carter on September 8, 2012, just four months from now.

Hopefully, when he reaches that milestone in September, we will see the country celebrate Carter’s longevity, and celebrate his contributions to the country, instead of constant ridicule and disrespect.

But, if anything, Carter’s failure to rescue the hostages probably led to his defeat in 1980 by Ronald Reagan, and that makes Barack Obama’s gamble on Osama Bin Laden, and his courage and decisiveness in the matter, even more impressive, and means everyone should be willing to applaud Obama, and give him the right to use it as an issue in the Presidential Election of 2012!

One can be sure a Republican President would use it as a campaign issue, and we all know that George W. Bush politicized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to his political advantage!

Mitt Romney And American Society: In The 1950s! Mitt Romney And Foreign Policy: In The 1980s!

Ronald Leave a comment

Now that Mitt Romney has the GOP Presidential nomination, we are realizing that he is back in the 1950s, as far as American society is concerned, and back in the 1980s, as far as American foreign policy is concerned!

One might wonder, what does the author mean?

Well, socially, Romney’s family is a 1950s family: a dutiful wife who has never worked for pay, only as a mother and housewife; having a large family of five children; the five sons being well behaved and never getting into trouble; no question of unhappiness or conflict or divorce; very religious; and living a comfortable, suburban life! This is the image of the 1950s, when women knew their “place”; when children did not use illegal drugs or get drunk or even smoke if they came from a “good” family; and minorities were seen, but not heard, and there was very little direct contact with them.

Well, foreign policy wise, Romney is in the 1980s, with the image of the Cold War under Ronald Reagan; with the Russians called the Soviet Union, and seen as an “evil empire”; with the Soviets controlling Eastern Europe, including the nation of Czechoslovakia, and Eastern Europe enslaved by the Russian armies.

Top aides to Romney have used the term “Soviet Union” recently, as has Romney, forgetting that the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, and while Russia is certainly a nation to watch and keep track of their activities, they are certainly nothing like the old “Soviet Union”, do not control Eastern Europe, and do not even control all of the separate provinces that are now independent nations.

Also, the references to “Czechoslovakia” are truly laughable by Romney aides on foreign policy, as that nation broke up peacefully 19 years ago, in 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This is the same mistake made by Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican Presidential nominee!

One would think that a candidate for President, and his top advisers, would know the true story about Czechoslovakia!

One would also think that a candidate for President would realize we are not in the 1950s regarding the family, the role of women, and the reality of minority groups in America!

So one has to say, is this what the nation wants in 2013 and beyond: a candidate socially in the 1950s, and foreign policy wise in the 1980s Cold War mentality? One would hope the answer is NO!

Mitt Romney: Total Opportunist, Totally Unprincipled!

Ronald Leave a comment

So now Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has what he has wanted all of his life: to be the nominee of the Republican Party for the Presidency of the United States!

Now the problem is to WIN the Presidency from a man who is one of the great orators and political “animals” of the modern Presidency, right up there with Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.

Each of the above had his shortcomings and weaknesses, but each knew how to inspire and motivate people, and have people believe in them and their principles.

Mitt Romney has no such problem, no such oratorical gift, no such ability to inspire and motivate people, and no principles he will not abandon in his mad dash to be President!

Mitt Romney offers himself as a chameleon who will change his views on a moment’s notice if he believes it will help promote his desire to be President!

But by being so inconsistent, so changeable, so lacking in embarrassment that he has totally changed his views and repudiated his record as Governor of Massachusetts, he makes it difficult for anyone to feel a commitment to go out there and vote for Mitt as a principled political leader who one can know how he would conduct himself as President.

Mitt Romney is phony even when he laughs, even when he tells a joke, even when he attempts to sing. One finds himself embarrassed for him, that he cannot look at tapes of himself and wince at how he appears to the American people.

This is a man of unknown quality, an intelligent man for sure, a good family man for sure, probably a lot of fun to be around in private according to his wife’s testimony, a man of strong religious principle for sure, and a man who if he was not running for President might come across as genuine if he was not seeking your vote.

But he is asking us to vote for him without having any clue as to whether he will go back to being a moderate, or remain on the right wing of the Republican Party. We do not know if he would be willing to gut the social safety network that even George W. Bush expanded. We do not know if he would be able to get along with right wing Republicans in Congress, or would be his own man and break with the extremism that they represent.

We do not know how he would shape the Supreme Court, whether he would pick moderates or make the Court so right wing that it would set us back for two generations of time.

We do not know how he would communicate with the media, and through them, with the American people on a daily basis. He certainly would have a tough act to follow, lacking the charisma and personality of Barack Obama.

Would Mitt Romney be willing to preside over the dissolution of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as we know it? Would he be unwilling to work with our European allies, and be ready to commit troops to ever continuous war in the Middle East? Would he be someone who would resist religious influence to promote an intrusion in government beyond the wishes of the Founding Fathers? Would the Mormon Church gain a special foothold in government, and be able to promote its backward, resistance to change, mentality with a Mormon in the White House, or would Romney, like John F. Kennedy, make clear that he happens to be a Mormon, but is not the Mormon President, not dedicated to the church’s advancement in a nation that is a country of all religions and also, no religious beliefs?

What it comes down to is that Mitt Romney as President would be a total “blank slate”, an unknown, who we would have no idea of what kind of President he would turn out to be.

The question is whether the American people want to gamble on a man who is so much an unknown quantity, due primarily to his chameleon nature!

The betting is clearly that the answer will be NO!

The Republican Party Losing The Future: Suicidal Tendencies

Ronald 3 Comments

The Republican Party of 2012 is a shell of its old self, and has allowed itself to move out of the mainstream of American politics based on the extremism of religious zealots, greedy capitalists, and neoconservatives who believe American power must be waged everywhere no matter what the cost to the American economy.

The problem for the GOP is that the nation has changed so much from what it was, and the younger generation is alienated from these trends.

The younger generation is alienated from organized traditional religion that subjugates women.

The younger generation is alienated by the abuses of the wealthy, and are concerned what their future is in an economy that has decimated the middle class, and caused the loss of hope in the “American dream”.

The younger generation is alienated from the war machine mentality of neoconservatives and the Pentagon, which thinks that military force all over the globe is the only answer to world problems, and they want America focusing on its internal problems, rather than being a crusader all over the world, as they see American power as “imperialistic”.

The GOP is losing women, African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, college graduates, those under 35, the struggling middle class, most major metropolitan areas, and the coastlines with large electoral vote states.

All they can attract in majority numbers are Christian and other religious fundamentalists, blue collar whites who have not attended college, the wealthy top two percent of the population, and the military oriented hawkish foreign policy advocates.

The Republican Party is losing the future in a nation more socially moderate, believing in economic opportunity, and wishing for more direct democracy by the masses, instead of all power in the hands of a powerful wealthy elite.

In other words, the nation is more progressive than conservatives and Republicans want to believe!

Comedian Bill Maher’s PAC Contribution To The Obama Presidential Campaign

Ronald 1 Comment

Comedian Bill Maher has been a strong critic of President Barack Obama over the past three years for being too moderate, and unwilling to take on the Republican opposition.

However, Maher has decided to give $1 million to the Obama PAC, Priorities USA, with his reasoning that, despite his disappointments with the Obama record, that he has made progress on many fronts, has many accomplishments, and that the alternative is going backwards.

Maher also points out that Obama or the Republican nominee will end up having judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and lower courts, and that this is a long range issue not getting enough attention, and that it affects the nation long term, not just for the next four years.

Also, Republicans seem ready to go to war overseas again, while Obama has a more measured approach to military action, trying to avoid disasters such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All of the points made by Maher are those the author agrees with completely, and has stated many times in this blog. One would just wish that the author had financial assets on the level of Bill Maher, so that he could contribute an amount to the Obama campaign, on the level of Maher. But oh well!