Five Questions: I
Sep. 24th, 2008 09:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danalwynSo I haven't been paying much attention to the election. My concentration is mostly on foreign policy and foreign affairs, so I pay very little attention to the domestic mess that is the current US political campaign. I really don't like McCain, but I'm not entirely ecstatic about Obama either (although I'm currently supporting him). Neither seems to me to have much of a plan for America that I can get behind.
But this may be a misconception on my part of what their plan for America is. After all, it doesn't take a great genius to figure out that political platforms are now twisted into pretzels and donuts. So I'm going to make a pledge. I'm going to outline what I think are the five most important questions that the next President has to answer, one per post. I'm also going to outline what I think are the right answers. Any major candidate (not a write-in), who answers these questions in this way will get my vote. That's right Republicans! I hereby promise to vote for John McCain, if (and only if), you can get him to offer these answers to these questions.
So, time for question number one:
What are the most important strategic threats to America?
I'm going to give my answers in reverse order, from least important to most important. There are three of them.
3) Terrorism.
Terrorism is big. Terrorism is scary. Terrorists dominate our nightly news broadcasts, our world news reports, and special reports on terrorism are always revealing the latest threat from scary terrorists who are busy hiding in caves in Waziristan, but are also possibly right next door, waiting to do scary things to you the moment you come out of the door (disclaimer: I thought I was attacked by terrorists once, but they turned out to be Jehovah's Witnesses).
Let's be honest. Nobody really cares about terrorism.
Fact: Terrorism has been the dominant cause of violence against the first world for political ends since the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Union twenty years ago.
Fact: Since then, terrorists have managed to kill about three thousand one hundred Americans. That includes those killed by Timothy McVeigh, who will not be stopped by bombing Pakistan.
Fact: That is less then two hundred people a year.
Fact: In 2005, 283 people were killed by acute bronchitis and bronchiolitis. Hell, 439 people got killed by their own appendix.
Fact: We do not spend more each year researching better treatment for acute bronchitis then we do fighting terrorism.
Fact: Your appendix, a part of your body, a piece of you, a genetic gift from your parents, is more then twice as likely to kill you then Osama bin Laden. That's pretty damn pathetic of bin Laden.
Yes, there is a great deal to fear from terrorism. Terrorists could get a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon and detonate it in the middle of an American city. The reason they have not done so yet is not because they haven't thought of it, or because we've been particularly effective at thwarting them, but rather because it's damn hard. But it will happen, eventually. Statistics is not on our side. Sooner or later someone is going to do it.
But as much as I hate to use this overused and now most twisted of sayings, I have to. Freedom isn't free. If you want to live in a secure country, move to North Korea. I hear they have a very good internal security mechanism. Sooner or later, a country with freedom of movement, freedom of action, and freedom of thought will experience those who will use those freedoms against it. And the group that does it isn't going to be run by a bunch of ex-nomads huddling in caves on the Pakistani border, it's going to be a suave and sophisticated cell in somewhere like Indonesia or Dubai, who know how to use the world's financial networks to pool their money and resources, how to purchase from big buyers, and how to fake shipping manifests. It's going to be from people who are in the US, or who know how to business with the US, in nations that we haven't even realized are a threat yet.
And we're going to stop them, not by hunting them down in helicopters, or by chasing them in tanks, but by closing in on the huge financial networks that they need to stay alive, by hunting them on internet forums, and in political dialogues, by tracking arms purchases, and by a lot of good detective work. And even better, we're going to stop them by giving those angry young men and women good jobs in a burgeoning economy, that will keep them too damn busy to fight wars on their own time.
Remember we have nothing to fear but fear itself. And scary old men with long beards. And bronchitis. And your own appendix. In fact, you have everything to fear, because everything can kill you. So why bother?
2) The New Authoritarianism
Dictatorships are funny things. There's always been a duality of political thought about how centralized a nation should be, running from the old days of Parliamentary and Absolute monarchs to today. One side is now represented by liberal democracy, in all its myriad forms. The other has...changed. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was represented by the last of the absolute monarchies, the Tsars of Russia, the Emperors of Germany and Austria. Then came World War I, and the rise of two very different authoritarian structures; communist dictatorship, and fascist rule. Fascism, and the intense combination of nationalism and economic interest it represented burnt itself out in the second World War. Despite its internal contradictions, Communism staggered on for another forty years before burning out in a flare of self-destruction. The only major communist power left in the world has a booming stock market, and makes toys for American tots.
Which has led more then one person to point out that China, and Russia, and a number of other countries in the world have entered a new phase of authoritarianism. Communism, with its mammoth bureaucracy and groundswell of popular support, managed to both curb some of the excesses of its later leaders, and also to keep the average person happy, failures that fascism failed to avoid. But the Soviet Union collapsed partially due to popular discontent, and partially due to a continually malfunctioning economy.
Now China thinks they have a new solution to the problem. People, they argue, don't actually want freedom, they don't actually want democracy. They simply want prosperity and entertainment. As long as they can keep people locked into the rat race, in the eternal struggle between rags and riches, those people will be too busy to complain. Those who truly are dangerous, the ones with the drive to succeed, will swiftly rise in the world, fulfilling their ambitions. The rest will remain a neutered, leaderless herd. It becomes an economic doctrine. Keep the people rich, reward the troublemakers and keep them in the system, and the world is yours for the taking.
Others have adopted the theory. Russia seems on the verge of becoming the second China, a nation where fervent nationalism combined with the economic battle for survival will keep the people from complaining too much about a government that rules with absolute authority. Propped up by petrodollars, they may serve as an inspiration to other nations like Venezuela who can follow suit.
These nations become more dangerous because they are more of a threat. These nations don't have to grub around in the dirt looking for nukes. They build nukes, and they are willing to base them around the world to keep their interests close at hand. This is the new face of global miilitarism, no longer an ideology unto itself, but the face of a carefully crafted policy to keep the plebs under control. As long as they keep making money, keep expanding, those nations will remain under the control of dangerous, unprincipled leaders.
Or so the theory goes. Whatever the case, China and Russia are both leaning out into the world, beginning to work on driving the waters in the direction they demand, opening up their markets to Russian and Chinese goods, buying interests in foreign resources.
I say we let them. If Russia wants to help deal with the many problems in the Carribean, let them. If China wants to make deals with African nations, let them. My only condition would be that we get to do the same. The New Authoritarians are betting that they can keep feeding their nation's growing appetite for consumer goods and services by opening up new resources, and creating new markets, in the developing world. I say we let them do their share at keeping those markets open. Because I am betting, and willing to bet our nation's future, that our companies will be able to be more flexible, more adaptable, and get more out of those open markets then theirs will. We should be less worried about how their economy is expanding into those nations, and more worried about how we're going to outperform it. I am willing to throw the gauntlet down, and see whether we can outperform them, and whether we will still be there when economic downturns start to throw their populations into chaos.
After all, what to the authoritarian monarchs, the fascist empires, and the huge communist domains all have in common? You can only find them in the history books. Bring it on.
1) The New Global Economy
The top concern is not a nation, although it holds nations in the palm of its hands, it has no religious ties, although it does have apostles, it had no armies, although it does have soldiers. The global economy is suddenly the pre-eminent factor in the world. No longer are we split into two portions, each with its sources of natural resources and its industries, but it is one thing, indivisible. The old economic mainstays, agriculture and industry, are on their way out. New ones crop up every day, in every direction, and we have no idea where they will go, or when. Despite being the largest economy in the world, the United States has the very real chance that it will be driven into the ground if we follow the same route.
There are so many parts to this; energy and the environment, competition, tariffs and trade, surpluses and deficits, that it is impossible to solve each problem separately. But one thing is clear. We are now competing with every nation on Earth, and we no longer have all the advantages.
But as to how I think we should meet this problem, well, that's the subject of question two.
But this may be a misconception on my part of what their plan for America is. After all, it doesn't take a great genius to figure out that political platforms are now twisted into pretzels and donuts. So I'm going to make a pledge. I'm going to outline what I think are the five most important questions that the next President has to answer, one per post. I'm also going to outline what I think are the right answers. Any major candidate (not a write-in), who answers these questions in this way will get my vote. That's right Republicans! I hereby promise to vote for John McCain, if (and only if), you can get him to offer these answers to these questions.
So, time for question number one:
What are the most important strategic threats to America?
I'm going to give my answers in reverse order, from least important to most important. There are three of them.
3) Terrorism.
Terrorism is big. Terrorism is scary. Terrorists dominate our nightly news broadcasts, our world news reports, and special reports on terrorism are always revealing the latest threat from scary terrorists who are busy hiding in caves in Waziristan, but are also possibly right next door, waiting to do scary things to you the moment you come out of the door (disclaimer: I thought I was attacked by terrorists once, but they turned out to be Jehovah's Witnesses).
Let's be honest. Nobody really cares about terrorism.
Fact: Terrorism has been the dominant cause of violence against the first world for political ends since the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Union twenty years ago.
Fact: Since then, terrorists have managed to kill about three thousand one hundred Americans. That includes those killed by Timothy McVeigh, who will not be stopped by bombing Pakistan.
Fact: That is less then two hundred people a year.
Fact: In 2005, 283 people were killed by acute bronchitis and bronchiolitis. Hell, 439 people got killed by their own appendix.
Fact: We do not spend more each year researching better treatment for acute bronchitis then we do fighting terrorism.
Fact: Your appendix, a part of your body, a piece of you, a genetic gift from your parents, is more then twice as likely to kill you then Osama bin Laden. That's pretty damn pathetic of bin Laden.
Yes, there is a great deal to fear from terrorism. Terrorists could get a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon and detonate it in the middle of an American city. The reason they have not done so yet is not because they haven't thought of it, or because we've been particularly effective at thwarting them, but rather because it's damn hard. But it will happen, eventually. Statistics is not on our side. Sooner or later someone is going to do it.
But as much as I hate to use this overused and now most twisted of sayings, I have to. Freedom isn't free. If you want to live in a secure country, move to North Korea. I hear they have a very good internal security mechanism. Sooner or later, a country with freedom of movement, freedom of action, and freedom of thought will experience those who will use those freedoms against it. And the group that does it isn't going to be run by a bunch of ex-nomads huddling in caves on the Pakistani border, it's going to be a suave and sophisticated cell in somewhere like Indonesia or Dubai, who know how to use the world's financial networks to pool their money and resources, how to purchase from big buyers, and how to fake shipping manifests. It's going to be from people who are in the US, or who know how to business with the US, in nations that we haven't even realized are a threat yet.
And we're going to stop them, not by hunting them down in helicopters, or by chasing them in tanks, but by closing in on the huge financial networks that they need to stay alive, by hunting them on internet forums, and in political dialogues, by tracking arms purchases, and by a lot of good detective work. And even better, we're going to stop them by giving those angry young men and women good jobs in a burgeoning economy, that will keep them too damn busy to fight wars on their own time.
Remember we have nothing to fear but fear itself. And scary old men with long beards. And bronchitis. And your own appendix. In fact, you have everything to fear, because everything can kill you. So why bother?
2) The New Authoritarianism
Dictatorships are funny things. There's always been a duality of political thought about how centralized a nation should be, running from the old days of Parliamentary and Absolute monarchs to today. One side is now represented by liberal democracy, in all its myriad forms. The other has...changed. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was represented by the last of the absolute monarchies, the Tsars of Russia, the Emperors of Germany and Austria. Then came World War I, and the rise of two very different authoritarian structures; communist dictatorship, and fascist rule. Fascism, and the intense combination of nationalism and economic interest it represented burnt itself out in the second World War. Despite its internal contradictions, Communism staggered on for another forty years before burning out in a flare of self-destruction. The only major communist power left in the world has a booming stock market, and makes toys for American tots.
Which has led more then one person to point out that China, and Russia, and a number of other countries in the world have entered a new phase of authoritarianism. Communism, with its mammoth bureaucracy and groundswell of popular support, managed to both curb some of the excesses of its later leaders, and also to keep the average person happy, failures that fascism failed to avoid. But the Soviet Union collapsed partially due to popular discontent, and partially due to a continually malfunctioning economy.
Now China thinks they have a new solution to the problem. People, they argue, don't actually want freedom, they don't actually want democracy. They simply want prosperity and entertainment. As long as they can keep people locked into the rat race, in the eternal struggle between rags and riches, those people will be too busy to complain. Those who truly are dangerous, the ones with the drive to succeed, will swiftly rise in the world, fulfilling their ambitions. The rest will remain a neutered, leaderless herd. It becomes an economic doctrine. Keep the people rich, reward the troublemakers and keep them in the system, and the world is yours for the taking.
Others have adopted the theory. Russia seems on the verge of becoming the second China, a nation where fervent nationalism combined with the economic battle for survival will keep the people from complaining too much about a government that rules with absolute authority. Propped up by petrodollars, they may serve as an inspiration to other nations like Venezuela who can follow suit.
These nations become more dangerous because they are more of a threat. These nations don't have to grub around in the dirt looking for nukes. They build nukes, and they are willing to base them around the world to keep their interests close at hand. This is the new face of global miilitarism, no longer an ideology unto itself, but the face of a carefully crafted policy to keep the plebs under control. As long as they keep making money, keep expanding, those nations will remain under the control of dangerous, unprincipled leaders.
Or so the theory goes. Whatever the case, China and Russia are both leaning out into the world, beginning to work on driving the waters in the direction they demand, opening up their markets to Russian and Chinese goods, buying interests in foreign resources.
I say we let them. If Russia wants to help deal with the many problems in the Carribean, let them. If China wants to make deals with African nations, let them. My only condition would be that we get to do the same. The New Authoritarians are betting that they can keep feeding their nation's growing appetite for consumer goods and services by opening up new resources, and creating new markets, in the developing world. I say we let them do their share at keeping those markets open. Because I am betting, and willing to bet our nation's future, that our companies will be able to be more flexible, more adaptable, and get more out of those open markets then theirs will. We should be less worried about how their economy is expanding into those nations, and more worried about how we're going to outperform it. I am willing to throw the gauntlet down, and see whether we can outperform them, and whether we will still be there when economic downturns start to throw their populations into chaos.
After all, what to the authoritarian monarchs, the fascist empires, and the huge communist domains all have in common? You can only find them in the history books. Bring it on.
1) The New Global Economy
The top concern is not a nation, although it holds nations in the palm of its hands, it has no religious ties, although it does have apostles, it had no armies, although it does have soldiers. The global economy is suddenly the pre-eminent factor in the world. No longer are we split into two portions, each with its sources of natural resources and its industries, but it is one thing, indivisible. The old economic mainstays, agriculture and industry, are on their way out. New ones crop up every day, in every direction, and we have no idea where they will go, or when. Despite being the largest economy in the world, the United States has the very real chance that it will be driven into the ground if we follow the same route.
There are so many parts to this; energy and the environment, competition, tariffs and trade, surpluses and deficits, that it is impossible to solve each problem separately. But one thing is clear. We are now competing with every nation on Earth, and we no longer have all the advantages.
But as to how I think we should meet this problem, well, that's the subject of question two.