Since World War II, America has been the de facto leader of the free world. Today, the scales are tipping. Globalization is evening out the playing field, and, although it seems as though our economy is faltering, really it's just the rest of the world who is getter richer. A global free trade market is spreading out the wealth. India and China are each growing an enormous, car-driving middle class. That's what prosperity looks like. Cars and KFC.
Today, we are still in position to be a leader of the world, but all signs point to a waning of our power in the coming decades - or more accurately, a growth of power abroad. Some call it the end of an empire, and history supports that idea (e.g. Rome, Spain, England, et al).
The question I would like to ask is: What do we want our legacy to be from our time as the a global superpower? If the empire ended today, we'd have a spotty reputation at best. Fifty years of perpetual wars, cold and hot. A foreign policy of bullying instead of collaboration. Hyper-decadence and skyrocketing obesity coupled with weak foreign aid programs to help people in nations that aren't as well-off as we are. A nonchalant attitude towards torture and the Geneva Convention. If the empire ended today, we would have to admit that we have sent a bad example abroad - and we would most likely pay for it once someone else takes the lead.
As a nation, it is imperative that we set a good example. For, as history tells us, it won't be our planet forever. In a thousand years, it could be Brazil that is the worldwide superpower, or Russia, or China. If we neglect global Good Neighbor standards, we are making the statement that it's OK to get away with what you can. We are encouraging the next world leaders to push the boundaries of civility and help out only when necessary.
I would not want to be on the receiving end of our foreign policy, but if the next superpower takes our example, our descendants some day inevitably will be.
Here's to preventative maintenance.
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Example We Set
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A Costly Campaign
Can someone please stop Sen. Clinton? She's dragging the American political process through the mud, and everyone's getting a bit on them. Her only way to win is if Sen. Obama has some major screw-up.
He hasn't yet, so the fact that she is still running means her paid staff has two choices: keep her in it long enough for a major party foul to happen by chance (statistically improbable since it hasn't happened yet, and near-impossible if Obama is who he says he is), or seek a victory for Sen. Clinton by willfully destroying Sen. Obama's reputation.
So, if she wins the nomination, she will have won either by luck or by underhanded subversion. Is this how we want her to run the country? Not love your neighbor, but destroy your neighbor? If she is this vicious with a fellow American, fellow member of the US Senate, and even fellow member of the Democratic Party, what will be her tactics for other, more foreign entities which she will need to compete with as Commander-In-Chief?
She is doing more harm than good, and we are all paying the price. Obama is right when he derides divisive politics on the basis that it turns the public off. He is also right when he suggests that the strength of a Democracy comes through interest and involvement by the people. Hillary Clinton is intentionally undermining Democracy for her own gain. She and Mark Penn might be playing dirty enough to win. Just like Karl Rove and George Bush did.
I value Sen. Clinton as a public servant, and understand that she has been the target of such tactics as much as anyone, but she, of all people, should know the negative effects such tactics have on the individual and on America as a whole.
We want change.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Let's Grow Up, Out of the Electoral College
The Electoral College is a an outdated and cumbersome system created by the Framers of the Constitution for circumstances which no longer exist in our nation.
Here's why they installed it:
Back in the early days of America, there were no cell-phones, internet, TV, or radios. Information was all hand-delivered or passed by word of mouth. Simultaneously, much of the population was living out of constant contact from the greater whole - they were busy hacking out homesteads in the forests of New England, etc. Minds like Ben Franklin's decided that, since not everyone had the time or resources to be politically informed in a timely manner, they would locally select "Electors" whose job it was to research the issues and pick the best President. Which was a brilliant, but short-sighted solution.
We are now in the Information Age. It's getting harder and harder not to know what's going on in the world these days. I can see speeches from every single candidate simply by bringing my laptop to McDonald's (that's right - free Wi-Fi!) or by watching the TV monitors while I fill up at the Shell station. If asked, on election day, who should be president and why, nearly everyone in America would have a somewhat informed answer. We will all have at least heard the candidates' names. We no longer need electors to do the research for us. In fact, the concept of the Electoral College now does more harm than good.
First, and most obviously, abolishing the Electoral College will shake up all the "electioneers'" strategies and force them to earn each vote, rather than having to simply shoot for a majority in a few moderately-populated swing states. This concept turns my stomach. The system doesn't end up electing a President based on how good they'll be for the country - it ends up electing the President who is best at getting elected. And, as we've seen with President Bush Jr., being good at getting elected can at times be mutually exclusive with the ability to improve the nation.
The second reason for halting the use of the Electoral College is that voter turnout will increase, hand in hand with national political interest. Perhaps you sense a logical leap here. Here's how I came to this theory: Imagine yourself a Republican in California, like my parents. You vote for the Republican candidate, who very rarely wins the state. When the candidate doesn't win, your vote ceases to exist. All the electoral votes go to the other candidate, which is the same as if only one person voted and they voted for the Democrat. In the popular vote system, every vote counts. I repeat, EVERY VOTE COUNTS. You can even see the statistics: if 117,384 people vote for Ron Paul, and you're one of them, you will see one of those numbers as being representative of your opinion. This is a very important point, and is critical in giving our population a sense of power within our government. If I know that my vote will add to my candidate's count no matter what, I feel the importance of my vote. If I'm pretty sure that my vote won't affect the results of the election at all (which I have always felt being a voter in California), then I won't want to vote. Anyone feel me?
Current events surrounding the issue:
- Bush Jr. lost the popular vote and won the election and no one did a thing about it except to whine a little bit.
- Republicans, suffering the embarassment of the publicly corrupt Bush Administration among other political party fouls, are pushing to break up the electoral votes in California. Democrats hate this idea because they are rightly calling it a cheap trick to try to win votes. I, personally, love the idea. Firstly, I have no fear of a Republican winning the upcoming election - with or without California. Secondly, if they push through this legislature (albeit with dishonest intent), it will be easier to call the rest of the nation to do the same.