Radical Campaign Finance Reform

By Andrew Collins

Nothing strikes at the heart of American democracy more piercingly than money in politics. The effects are as broad as you care to imagine. Our drug laws favor big pharmaceutical companies; our tax policies disproportionately favor the wealthy; our energy policies hinder our ability to confront terrorism; and top campaign spenders win elections to the tune of 96 percent of the time in the House and 91 percent in the Senate. (1)

The side effects of Washington’s dollar-worship are equally lamentable. Politicians spend most of their time in office fundraising, not stumping for votes, listening to constituents, or—heaven forbid—governing. In addition to limiting politicians’ effectiveness, an emphasis on fundraising attracts the wrong sort of people into public life. Instead of people who care about ideas, policy and leadership, you get jut-jawed androids with a firm handshake.

The reason meaningful campaign finance reform has not yet occurred in this country is obvious and agonizing: those with the power to change the system—politicians—are usually subjugated to it. Except for transcendent popular figures like John McCain, advocating reform means angering donors, and, in many cases, electoral defeat.

The best recent attempt at campaign finance reform was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, better known as McCain-Feingold. The act banned the federal form of “soft money,” which is donated to parties for nebulous uses, and achieved several other successes. However, Republican members of Congress significantly watered down the act during debate, and it has failed to make an adequate dent in the hugely powerful financial-political complex.

Allow me to suggest some additional campaign finance reform measures. But first, let us examine some of the legitimate downsides to campaign finance reform.

• Donation of money has been characterized as a form of speech in some contexts by the Supreme Court, and it is always risky to discuss infringing upon that right.
• Regulation is not always possible, and even when possible, it almost always involves a public cost.
• Almost all reform measures will somehow favor one party over another, one type of group over another, and/or one form of media over another.
• By taking money out of central campaigns and third-party candidate mouthpieces, reform may leave voters susceptible to misinformation. News media, internet entrepeneurs, and rogue electioneers could all gain relative power, which might not be a good thing.

Despite all that, I believe the case for reform easily trumps those drawbacks.

The centerpiece of my proposal is a $500 cap on all campaign donations, with a few exceptions I will explain later. Practically speaking, this means no corporation, union, special interest, political action committee, or individual would be able to donate more than an ordinary American could be expected to contribute to a political cause. It is the hammer that levels the playing field.

If our democracy is supposed to function according to the voice of the people, shouldn’t all voices be tuned to the same volume? What could be a truer representation of the popular will? The richest individuals should have no more influence on an election than a machinist from Detroit or a farmer from Iowa. Their lives are worth the same, and their political force should be as well.

While a miniscule cap like this would initially seem to benefit Democrats, remember that nine of the 10 top political donors since 1989 are unions that heavily favor Democrats. (2)

An exception to my proposed spending cap is rooted in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, in which the Supreme Court determined it was unconstitutional for the government to cap individuals’ contributions to their own publicly financed campaigns. Therefore, these candidates must be allowed to exceed my proposed $500 cap.

Unlimited individual contributions to one’s own campaign, of course, creates numerous problems. In response, McCain-Feingold established the so-called Millionaire’s Provision, whereby the individual contribution limit to one candidate would be increased if the other candidate spent more than a threshold amount of his or her own money.

The Millionaire’s Provision does not go far enough. I believe that when a candidate declines public funding—implying self-funding—individuals should face no limits in supporting the opposing candidate(s). Under such a rule, when public funds are declined, a Millionaire’s Election would ensue. While no doubt an extreme exception to my $500 cap rule, the effect of this proposed exception, I believe, would be to make foregoing of public funds safe, legal, and rare.

Finally, I would expand the McCain-Feingold restriction on “electioneering communications.” Under the act, unions and corporations are banned from referring to a clearly identified candidate on television or radio ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Let us be realistic: general election campaigns do not begin in September. I would change the rule to 90 and 180 days, respectively, and expand the restriction on electioneering communications to include all third parties, including PACs and nonprofits.

The late Senator Paul Wellstone sought this latter expansion of the electioneering restriction. McCain and Feingold did not, however, and it was not included. It should have been.

As stated earlier, campaign finance reform is difficult because the wheels of reform are forever mired in the tar pit of big money. But history has shown reform is possible, particularly in response to crisis. The assassination of President James A. Garfield by an aggrieved job-seeker in 1881 led to the Pendleton Act of 1883, which established the civil service and curbed corrupt federal patronage.

Now, the administration of President Bush is dogged by ethics questions and subpoenas. So far, the calls for reform have been limited to lobbying rules. But with impending Democratic gains in Congress and McCain mentioned as a 2008 Presidential frontrunner, the timing could be right for meaningful, radical reform.

Don’t let the “r” word throw you off. With the problem of money in politics as deep and pervasive as it is, radical is not such a bad word.

(1) Center for Reponsive Politics, 1998
(2) opensecrets.org

A Paradox of Political Rationality

By Anthony Vitarelli

This Thursday, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) announced that he would filibuster debate on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to fill the seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Kerry’s tactical maneuver will require that Alito supporters muster sixty votes to end debate and force a vote on his nomination.

With over fifty announced supporters of Alito (including three Democrats), his confirmation in a typical up-or-down vote is assured. However, with approximately forty-six Senators opposed to his nomination, one can imagine that Kerry’s filibuster could successfully block the vote from ever reaching the floor.

Interestingly, Kerry’s proposal has been met coolly by most Senate Democrats, who anticipate that such tactics will further reinforce the image of Democrats as obstructionists--the same rhetoric that cost Tom Daschle his seat in 2004. Furthermore, even the most strident opponents of Alito recognize that the “Gang of 14” has already deemed Alito to be worthy of an up-or-down vote, thus ensuring that enough Democrats will support his right to receive of a vote yet still oppose his nomination.

This dynamic brings up an enormous practical dilemma for Senate Democrats opposed to Alito. How can a Senator vote to end debate, which will certainly lead to Alito’s confirmation, if the Senator opposes the confirmation? Parliamentary nuance does not mollify liberal voters back in the Senator’s home state. Senators will ultimately have to account for their decision on the filibuster, rather than their vote on Alito’s nomination as to whether they did all they could to oppose his confirmation.

At the moment, we can disregard whether that should be the standard to which Senators are held by their constituents, as there is certainly a compelling argument that the only significant vote is the one of the up-or-down variety.

Assuming that standard, far more Senators from solidly blue states will ultimately join with Kerry in his filibuster, as they have nothing to gain from making the principle argument for parliamentary procedure. Additionally, their position is further buttressed by the fact that the filibuster will certainly fail. Thus, their vote is purely symbolic in nature.

As a potential explanation for this behavior, it seems that voters appreciate effort. Kerry--undoubtedly a 2008 Presidential candidate--recognizes that he has assumed the vanguard of the anti-Alito movement, even though such efforts have no hope of success. Assuming Kerry is acting rationally, he must believe that voters will support him increasingly for his efforts to advance a losing cause.

Since voting margins are irrelevant, effort in acquiring one or two or 10 additional yet insignificant votes seems irrational. Should not voters prefer that their representatives acknowledge certain defeat and focus their energies on other, more winnable battles?

If voters are utility-maximizing actors, they should want their elected officials to spend the most amount of time possible working on causes that advance their utility. This does not necessarily denote programs that individually benefit the voter, as people can derive utility from living in a more just society or by living in a country with national parks and museums, even if the voter never visits them. If voters are acting rationally, this scenario may demand then that voters derive utility from seeing their representatives “fight the good fight.”

Another theory may be that rationality enters when considering Kerry’s actions as an expectation of future behavior. That is, his strong opposition to the Alito nomination indicates that he will be a more effective defender of reproductive rights and limited executive power in the future. His actions today will give him greater credibility and potential for success in the future. In such a case, voters could rationally support this behavior, if Kerry’s actions can be assumed to make him more effective in the future. This argument rests on tenuous grounds, though, as many have argued that this parliamentary tactic will weaken his credibility within the Senate, especially among Democratic moderates.

Although these textbook definitions of rationality or utility maximization cannot be applied perfectly to daily observations of political behavior, they can be useful for determining the motivations of both decisionmakers and voters. As this example demonstrates, Kerry would not risk losing credibility within the Senate by filibustering if he did not firmly believe he was acquiring future votes. That behavior then indicates a strong voter preference for politicians who take bold stances on divisive causes, even without great hope for success.

If you still need to be convinced, just wait for the Russ Feingold filibuster of the next Iraq war supplemental.

The Palestinian Elections

By Robert Samuel

Democracy may be facing its greatest challenge since the American Revolution. After yesterday’s electoral victory by the terrorist-promoting and Israel-bashing Hamas in the Palestinian territories, idealistically promoting democratic reform in the Muslim world no longer has quite the same gusto. This is exactly what realist foreign policy thinkers have warned against for years. “If you give the power to the people that hate you, they will elect leaders that will hate you,” goes the thinking. “It’s best to have a pro-United States dictator, despite the absence of freedom. Why give freedom to those who freely hate you?”

Patrick Buchanan specifically lays out this line of thought in his column “Idealism vs. Realism in Egypt,” a critique of the Bush administration’s democracy promotion in Egypt. “How many times must we relearn the lesson? The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the fruits of Wilsonian idealism are rarely ideal,” Buchanan writes.

There is no doubt that everyone who promoted the elections in Palestine is questioning his or her views after this most surprising of victories. Hamas’s willingness to use terrorism to further its political and religious goals is deep rooted in its cause and history. The Israeli Defense Forces is conservative in its listing of the attacks the organization has orchestrated since 2000.

Jan. 9, 2002 - A terror attack against the "Kerem Shalom" position in southern Israel--terrorists penetrated the position and killed four soldiers. Hamas claimed responsibility.

Feb. 16, 2002 - Hamas launched a Qassam 2 rocket into Israeli territory. The rocket landed near Kibbutz Kfar Azza, but there were no casualties.

June 18, 2002 - Nineteen people were killed and 74 injured--six seriously--in a suicide bombing on a bus in Jeruasalem. The bus, which was completely destroyed, was carrying many students on their way to school. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Sept. 19, 2002 - Six people were killed and some 70 injured when a suicide bomber detonated a bomb aboard a bus on Allenby Road in Tel Aviv. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Oct. 10, 2002 - An Israeli woman was killed and some 30 other people were injured when a suicide bomber, who tried to board a bus on the Geha highway near Bar-Ilan University in central Israel, blew himself up. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Jan. 14, 2004 - Four Israelis--three soldiers and one civilian--were killed and 10 wounded when a female suicide bomber detonated a bomb at the Erez Crossing in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and the Fatah al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed joint responsibility for the attack.

To make matters worse, Mahmoud Zahar—the leader of the group deemed a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union—refused to change Hamas’s charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel. The United States is now giving over a billion dollars a year in aid to a government that calls for the destruction of one of its closest allies.

But, surprisingly, the election of Hamas could have some extremely positive outcomes. First, it removes the ruling Fatah party from power. Although the militancy of Hamas seems far more frightening, one must remember that it was the Fatah party that called Yasir Arafat its leader and also called for the destruction of Israel. Fatah ran Palestine into the ground far more than any of Israel’s policies did, creating horrific economic and political conditions for its people.

Arafat blamed the effects of his most unfortunate of policies on the Israelis, creating even more hatred for the Jewish land. With this election, the Palestinians have shown that they no longer solely blame Israel for their problems.

With Hamas in power, it is also far easier to hold Hamas accountable for its actions. Instead of being a shadowy terrorist organization, Hamas is head of a government that can be sanctioned and held militarily accountable. Part of the challenge of the War on Terrorism is that the terrorists do not belong to a state. As the ruling government in the Palestinian territories, this is now barely an issue.

Hamas will also no longer be able to conveniently criticize Fatah and Israel without providing alternatives. If economic stagnation continues, Hamas will be blamed. If matters with Israel worsen, Hamas will be blamed. With this in mind, it will be far harder for Hamas to enact its radical agenda. Democracy forces some amount of pragmatism on leaders. The election of Hamas makes if far more likely that problems will be solved in poltical debates rather than with suicide belts.

Hamas’s victory is far from a panacea and should be extremely troubling for all those who support Israel. But there are reasons to be cautiously—that is, extremely cautiously—optimistic about what the democratic movement has created in the Palestinian territories. Democracy may have created a more reasonable and pragmatic Hamas that could lead to real peace. The results are too frightening to imagine if it does not.

A Strategy on Iran

By Andrew Collins

I always thought the best part of President Bush’s prelude to the Iraq War was that he seemed so darn crazy and imperturbable. While he was ignoring allies, trumping up charges, and sending Dick Cheney out with apocalyptic rhetoric, he was perhaps inadvertently providing the international community its best chance to force Saddam Hussein to capitulate and cooperate with weapons inspectors.

If Saddam had been fully rational and believed that his continued intransigence would have guaranteed his demise, he might have struck a compromise deal. (Game theorists will recognize this as a US commitment strategy.) However, international and domestic discontent might have seemed to Saddam like a restraint on US options, undermining the perceived legitimacy of the commitment. Furthermore, Saddam was reputed to be megalomaniacal, delusional, and far from rational. He did not respond as desired to the commitment strategy, and the result is the current Iraq imbroglio.

All of which brings us to Iran, the next frontier in the world of highly armed, highly agitated states. The frightening aspects of Iran are well known: it is an unfree Shi’ite Islamist theocracy with an anti-Semitic demagogue as leader. It has a history of domestic unrest, international rule-breaking, and hatred for the United States. It has begun working with Syria and other regional states to form an ominous anti-Israel alliance. Now, it is building a nuclear program against the expressed restrictions of the international community, and many expect Iran to attempt to obtain an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

The most appropriate course of action is by no means clear. But regardless of the ultimate US decision, military incursion should be treated as an inevitable result if Iran acts in specified bellicose ways. Credible commitment to a strategy that would be disastrous for Iran offers the US its best chance to achieve a peaceful victory for the international community. It may be the only way to prevent Iran from going nuclear, since Iran’s leaders justifiably view nuclear weapons as a panacea, and the international community probably possesses no leverage except invasion that could convince them to abandon their ambitions.

Iran is a somewhat different case from Iraq—and commitment has a better chance of producing a peaceful resolution—for several reasons. Firstly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reputed to be more rational than Saddam Hussein. He is a politician with domestic electoral pressures who has his country’s interest foremost in mind out of necessity. Secondly, the United States under President Bush has reestablished itself as a country that follows through on its commitment to security. Partly due to a change in the national mood after 9/11, US reputation for military hardiness has increased and will remain intact as long as we finish the job in Iraq. With a person like George W. Bush, John McCain or Hillary Clinton in charge, Ahmadinejad can count on the United States to deliver on its threats.

The idea with the commitment strategy is to force a capitulation without an invasion. Toward that end, the US must make an equally resounding commitment to peace and cooperation should Ahmadinejad back down.

Actually going through with an invasion of Iran would be a nightmarish scenario. Certainly, there would be no legal justification. If unsuccessful, an invasion of Iran could set off World War III in any manner of unpredictable ways. And even if successful, an Iran War would cement the unprecedented US strategy of preemption, fueling criticism that the United States in the 21st century is warlike, grandiose, and meddlesome.

Still, with Ahmadinejad sounding like Hitler and coveting nukes like Khrushchev, invasion cannot be ruled out. Surely no Allied leader wanted World War II either, but sometimes violent deeds must be done in the service of good. Had the international community stared down Hitler upon his first expansionist insinuations and convinced him that aggression would guarantee his demise, World War II may never have happened.

A commitment strategy involves a large risk. Ahmadinejad could go the way of Saddam and attempt to call the United States on a bluff, or worse, could preemptively strike Israel, Turkmenistan or the United States. Game theory tends to fail in the crosswinds of reality. But of all the possible courses of US action, commitment also offers the best possible result: an Iran compelled to peaceful membership in the international community. Without such a powerful compulsion, surely its leaders will be lured by the power and prestige of nuclear weapons.

It goes without saying that all options are terrible and laden with the possibility of disaster. Such a quandary has been foisted upon the world by Iran. But now is the time to move with a strong policy, before that country’s hateful zealots are armed with nuclear weapons and the world becomes a much, much more dangerous place.

A Conversation on Alito VI

The whining that Democratic senators were “too tough” on Samuel Alito last week strikes me as hypocritical and pathetic. Congress is routinely praised when its hearings and investigations are tough and excoriated when it appears soft. No one had any problem when lawmakers of both parties grilled baseball players on steroids; why, on the far more important issue of a Supreme Court nomination, are Republicans like Orrin Hatch blanching? Any Supreme Court nominee should be able withstand the most brutal and even unfair questioning—it’s a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in America. Furthermore, last week’s hearings were far from unduly rough. In the words of another tough Democrat, Harry Truman, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The truth, of course, is that Republicans (and Democrats, too) love toughness unless and until it harms their political interests. The entire Clinton presidency was an episode of excessive Republican nastiness. But to criticize President Bush is apparently unpatriotic. Tough on Sandy Berger? Sure. Tough on the far graver alleged crimes of Jack Abramoff or Scooter Libby? I think not.

No Alito supporter wants to see the nominee’s character or abilities impugned because that would harm his reputation and detract from Republican political capital. Pleading for civility is a convenient form of posturing. Unfortunately for these self-righteous Republicans, however, no open-minded observer with a memory will buy their hypocritical baloney.

A Conversation on Alito V

Andrew raises a fine point concerning the nature of the confirmation process. Does a Senator’s “yes” vote indicate his endorsement of the President’s nominee or his belief that the nominee can perform adequately? In theory, a process of confirmation should be the latter. The US Constitution endows the President with the authority to make appointments under the advice and consent of the Senate. Therefore, the process is less a collaboration and more a certification.

In practice, however, Senators must return home to their states and answer to their voters. Surely, Vermonters and Californians would be loathe to reelect a Senator that voted for the confirmation of Judge Alito. This may be an unfortunate consequence of our electoral process, but it remains the case. Realism pervades political decisions, and Senators, although at moments are high-minded, care deeply about their reelections.

History indicates that in the Washingtonian struggle between idealism and practicality, idealism rarely triumphs. Judicial nominees are no exception.

The minority-empowered Senate and occasional incidences of divided government have created this prisoner’s dilemma within the Senate. Both parties are aware of the numerous vacancies in the federal courts and recognize that – politics aside – the American people would benefit from more judges being confirmed than fewer. The optimal solution demands cooperation between the parties to make the nominating process truly apolitical and to staff our nation’s courts with the most qualified jurists available. Unfortunately, each party always benefits individually from politicizing the process, especially if the other party attempts to remain above the fray.

Given the current incentives to politicize, forced cooperation is the only path to a more beneficial outcome for the American people. Such a solution can only be brokered with vision from each party’s leadership and discipline within the ranks.

That being said, I am not terribly optimistic that we will see apolitical judicial confirmations any time soon.

A Conversation on Alito IV

I am a bit confused by the backlash towards the Alito nomination. No matter how you construct the narrative, Alito has lived the American dream. Growing up in a working-class New Jersey neighborhood, Alito’s talent and diligence earned him a spot at Princeton University and then at Yale Law School. Once leaving the abstract and theoretical world of the academy, he distinguished himself by skyrocketing through the legal ranks all the way to a judgeship on an appellate court.

His extracurricular affiliations and judicial instincts have branded him with a conservative label. But in the hearings and in the anecdotes of his colleagues (many of them liberal), Alito seems very persuadable and open to different points of view.

“Alito seems as decent and fair-minded as he is bright, and I don't doubt his sincerity in separating the results he might like to see from those he concludes the law requires,” said Lawrence Tribe, a liberal law professor at Harvard University, in a Boston Globe commentary on the nomination.

Unlike the unreasonable Robert Bork, Alito appears to agree with the ultraliberal Thomas Paine’s views of intellectual argument and dissent. “He who denies to another [the right to disagree], makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it,” Paine said.

Furthermore, the American Bar Association awarded Alito its highest rating. Adding to his impressive résumé, Alito’s poised responses to extremely hostile questioning in his confirmation hearings showed his natural temperament is ideal for a judge. Newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post, institutions not exactly friendly to conservatism, have even endorsed Alito.

So what exactly is the problem?

I believe part of the anger by the Democrats is primordial. They wonder why someone as reasonable and intellectually comfortable as Alito is not one of them. As David Brooks somewhat oversimplistically argues in his January 12th column, Alito’s Trenton, New Jersey, neighborhood at one point was at the heart of the Democratic Party.

“But by the late 1960's, cultural politics replaced New Deal politics, and liberal Democrats did their best to repel Northern white ethnic voters. Big-city liberals launched crusades against police brutality, portraying working-class cops as thuggish storm troopers for the establishment. In the media, educated liberals portrayed urban ethnics as uncultured, uneducated Archie Bunkers.

“The liberals were doves; the ethnics were hawks. The liberals had 'Question Authority' bumper stickers; the ethnics had been taught in school to respect authority. The liberals thought an unjust society caused poverty; the ethnics believed in working their way out of poverty.”

Alito, highly comfortable with law enforcement and the rule of law, drifted into the world of conservatism, a place he is proudly comfortable now.

The conservative movement has, and will continue, to embrace the Alitos of the world. While elite universities are inarguably liberal in mindset and practice, conservative think tanks and organizations have created their own modes of training conservative students through supplemental programs. These groups have been especially successful in producing exceptional legal talent, as conservative presidents will have a healthy stable of extremely qualified conservative jurists for vacant Supreme Court positions for the foreseeable future.

The fact that a Republican President picked Alito and the fact that a group such as the hated Federalist Society has so successfully produced an impeccable candidate clearly has enraged the Democratic Party.

And the embarrassingly ineffectiveness of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot have made things easier for the party of the left. Going after Alito for his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton showed a sense of desperation and unreasonableness. Democrats can chide Alito all they want about his lack of memory of his membership; the absence of Alito’s name on any of the subpoenaed CAP documents proves he was not intimately involved in the group’s goals or actions.

The absurdity was only magnified this week when Senator Ted Kennedy had to remove his membership from Harvard’s Owl Club because it does not admit women. Though the club was kicked off campus in the 1980s, Kennedy donated $100 to the group as late as 2004.

Unlike his highly effective damning questioning of Robert Bork, Kennedy showed that he has “lost his fastball” when he attempted to curtail Alito. Joe Biden was no better, clownishly making fun of Princeton and yapping for as many as 11 minutes before asking his questions. Charles Schumer seemed to agree with Alito’s answers more than he expected, then read a prepared statement condemning his nomination, proving Alito could have said anything and still not found approval from New York’s senior senator.

I could go on and on about the injustices of this justice’s nomination. Alito should be confirmed nearly unanimously for his impeccable judicial credentials. If the Democrats somehow curb Alito’s nomination, it will set a dangerous precedent.

If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008 and Antonin Scalia died during that presidency, how could any Republican vote for any left-of-center justice if the Democrats do not allow Alito his rightful place on the high court? Republicans would claim that the candidate would unfairly re-balance the court and that his or her judicial philosophy was too activist for them to vote “yes” despite the candidate’s overwhelming credentials.

Those arguments would be ridiculous for future Republicans to make. But not as ridiculous as the Democrats’ arguments are now.

A Conversation on Alito III

Anthony, I guess we disagree on what the respective roles of the President and the Senate should be in judicial nominations. Confirmation, in my interpretation of our country's legal provisions and traditions, is a safeguard against bad appointments rather than an extension of the selection process. The Senate's role should be to check Presidential hubris or poor decisionmaking, not partially usurp a power reserved for the executive.

I believe judges who are deemed worthy of serving on the nation's highest court by their ability and impartiality should be confirmed, irrespective of personal political orientation. A justice's work is not politics, the art of the possible; it is interpreting the law, a science of the actual. Any potential justice worth confirming would keep personal politics out of the courtroom. (Of course, we have had some justices unworthy of the title; they should not have been nominated or confirmed.) Removing personal politics from the equation would leave excellence as the Senate's confirmation standard--a proper state of affairs, I believe.

In practice, of course, politics permeates Washington and is never stricken from any process, especially one this important. Senators crave power and publicity, and as we saw last week, rarely miss an opportunity for grandstanding. Activists on all sides impose themselves upon the process. And as a result, nearly everybody looks at a potential justice as a political player, missing an opportunity to properly honor and most effectively maintain the greatest American institution.

A Conversation on Alito II

Democrats need to talk straight to the American people and explain candidly that they do not need to manufacture a reason to vote against Judge Alito. Elected Democrats should feel comfortable voting against a judge if they feel that – once confirmed – he or she will not uphold the judicial views that guarantee basic individual freedoms and other values embraced by the party. Simply put, Democrats should vote no on Judge Alito and feel proud that they voted against a Judge who will endanger reproductive rights and personal privacy, as well as empower the President with enormous executive powers.

That being said, assuming that all Democrats vote against Judge Alito, his confirmation will sail through the Senate, with only a filibuster preventing this eventuality. Filibusters should be reserved for the most extreme cases, however, and Judge Alito certainly is an exceptional jurist and does not appear to have ethical problems that would prevent him from performing his duties as a Justice.

The President nominates judges, and the Senate confirms them. Unfortunately, both those institutions are currently controlled by the Republican Party, which creates the current difficult dilemma for Democrats. Then again, that’s why we have elections; maybe Democrats should start winning some.

A Conversation on Alito I

This week, the staff of The 18-to-24 Bracket will be engaging in a freeform conversation about the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. We hope you will join us in this discussion by posting your comments. We will resume our normal publishing schedule next week.

It is hard to argue that Samuel Alito did poorly in front of the Senate last week. Aside from a few evasive answers ("forgetting" his membership in an alumni club sounds almost Clintonian) and a pronounced nebbishness, he revealed himself to be what we expected: a conservative, eminent jurist with a few odd government-loving streaks in an otherwise staid judicial philosophy.

I am not excessively troubled by the fact that Alito and I are far apart politically. Supreme Court justices are appointed to interpret the law to the best of their ability, so long as their ability is surpassing. From all appearances, Alito's personal conservatism is rigid but his approach as a jurist is primarily informed by the substance of cases, not political outlook. And his ability is, indeed, surpassing.

Had he indicated himself to be an "activist judge" in the line of Antonin Scalia (a true "Scalito"), I would be condemning Alito as a threat to the sanctity of our legal system. But as it stands, he claims to be "open" on abortion and not professionally wedded to any article of political faith. He faced criticism as unwilling to commit to judicial positions in advance, but I interpret that reticence as waiting for the facts of specific cases to emerge before coming to conclusions. If that is indeed his approach--apolitical and even-handed--Alito will earn my respect, regardless of his inevitable clashes with my party's positions.

The President, however, lost my respect by nominating an able judge for all the wrong reasons. Unlike Alito, who appears not to play politics with the Supreme Court, President Bush did exactly that. He refused to consider judges who did not match his conservative political philosophy, clearly cowtowed to his hectoring "base," and otherwise approached the Supreme Court nomination as if it were another notch in the belt for a conservative warrior. His emphasis of extracurricular ideology over judicial brilliance was convincingly clarified when he nominated Harriet Miers, an ill-qualified partisan whose greatest distinction was that President Bush knew her political philosophy matched his. The President should consider himself lucky that Alito and and John G. Roberts are as distinguished as they are, because his nomination process put judicial brilliance second to politics--a reckless abuse of a solemn power.

Reframing Security

By Anthony Vitarelli

For years, the American public has viewed the Republican Party as stronger on defense and more capable of handling security matters than the Democrats. Much of this perception is derived from lavish defense spending during the Reagan administration and defense cuts during the Clinton administration intended to help balance the federal budget. Under President Bush, the Defense Department has expanded largely, especially when including additional spending necessitated by the new Department of Homeland Security. Republicans have perpetuated their perception of being the party willing to spend tax dollars on America’s physical safety.

While Republican spending purchased more guns, tanks, and missile systems, it also ballooned the deficit and sent billions of American dollars to foreign creditors. Surely this additional spending on artillery and weapons technology increases the military’s ability to defend the nation, but the Republicans have sacrificed the United States’ economic security in the process.

Simply put, each year the government does not raise enough revenue through taxation as it intends to spend, it must borrow the deficit from someone else. In an international economic context, that “someone else” is most commonly a foreign government’s central bank seeking to invest its surplus in stable, revenue-generating bond. The US Government then issues bonds, which other governments purchase, and the United States agrees to repay over (typically) the next 30 years, at a relatively low-interest rate.

However, as the United States increases its demand for money, the price of that money (the interest rate) must rise to satisfy the suppliers in the current period. Essentially, continually issuing new bonds will require the United States to pay them back at higher rates in the future.

Even if the total amount of US discretionary spending and tax-generation remain stable, running consistent deficits ultimately increases the national debt as interest payments on such bonds increase with each fiscal year of deficit spending. Unfortunately, the GOP does not just run stable deficits. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress ran such monumentally enormous deficits from 2001 to 2005 that they increased the national debt from $975 billion to $2.1 trillion in just over four years.

On the potentially constructive side, that deficit spending financed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the creation and operations of the Department of Homeland Security, and gave a tax cut windfall to America’s wealthiest citizens and largest corporations. In contrast, that escalation of the national debt has dramatically increased the percentage of the United States budget that must be dedicated to debt service each year.

Moreover, foreign governments now control a staggering share of US debt. According to the Progressive Policy Institute, Japan hold the greatest share of the United States debt, with over $682 billion as of this October, and also has accumulated the most US debt recently, increasing its holdings from only $317 billion in 2001. China comes in second place, with $248 billion and has accumulated the most rapidly-growing share of T-bills of any nation over the last four years.

Foreign control of US debt demands that we maintain positive economic relations with such countries and also ensure their economic security, which can be costly in trade negotiations. Having increasingly to worry about other nation’s economic well-being can prevent us from securing our own.

For Democrats to reclaim authority on national security issues, they must convince the voters that security rests on far more than our ability to physically destroy other nations. Much of what comprises voters’ sense of security involves their ability to obtain and retain employment, consuming and investing under a reasonable level of inflation, and their ability to plan for future economic expenditures. Certainly, a lack of physical security jeopardizes these desires, but a lack of economic security can utterly decimate them.

Democrats must demonstrate that as members of the party of fiscal responsibility, they have balanced budgets and paid off at least some of the national debt. They must candidly discuss the potential need to rollback the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and explore areas of government spending reductions. Democrats must communicate to the voters that the government needs to balance its check book, just like each and every American does.

The Five Greatest Conservative Statesmen

By Robert Samuel

One can find rankings galore about the prowess of history’s statesmen. History buffs love to converse about who was the greatest American president, or who was the most talented British prime minister, or who provided the brightest global leadership.

Rarely, though, does one find lists of statesmen ranked within their particular ideology. This is quite the opposite in the academic field of philosophy. Great philosophers are defined by how talented of an “Aristotelian” they were or how adept they were at applying Marx’s theories. Statesmen are rarely ranked in how adroit they were in advancing an ideological movement’s beliefs and policies. In short, rarely does one see a list of the greatest liberal statesmen or the greatest conservative statesmen.

As a self-defined conservative, I would like to make a list of whom I consider the greatest five conservative statesmen in history. I do not seek to express a broad ideological definition of what conservatism is and then fit popular, like-minded statesmen into slots.

Rather, I am choosing persons who were considered “conservative” during their time, both by their fellow politicians and by the electorate. I also am only choosing statesmen who practiced after the French Revolution. That revolution was the first ideological shift against which conservatives truly en masse united. The conservatives I am choosing are also only from the Anglo-American breed of conservatism, the type that promotes patriotism, self-reliance, and a trustworthy attitude toward a powerful military.

I am seeking to avoid highly controversial or contested figures in regards to conservatism. For example, mythic statesmen such as Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were not given consideration because both sides of the current ideological divide claim those two Mt. Rushmore brothers for championing their beliefs. And some in both liberal and conservative camps outright reject Lincoln and Roosevelt for not sharing their beliefs. Although I personally would argue Lincoln and Roosevelt were more conservative than not, they simply should not be labeled conservatives for the sake of this list.

There is only one person on this list—the only founding father to make the cut—who is not universally viewed as a conservative. But I believe the conservative community so identifies with this man’s views that he warrants a spot on the list.

Without further ado, here is the list:

5. Margaret Thatcher (British prime minister, 1979-1990). As the hubris of the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s finally became obvious to most, Margaret Thatcher was waiting with a slew of policies aimed at reversing the downward trends of the United Kingdom.

Thatcher reduced the power of trade unions and the role of the state in business affairs, thus creating a culture of ownership that stood as a far more appealing practice than that of democratic socialism.

After years of engagement and philosophic debate, Thatcher took a hard-line stance against communism and made this seem like an obvious and reasonable reaction to the Soviet Union and its allies.

Thatcher brought the UK out of years of decline to once again be considered a true power in Europe. For this reason, she should be remembered as one of the truly great conservative statesmen of all time.

4. John Adams (US president, 1797-1801). While not universally considered a conservative, since the mid-century publication of Russell Kirk’s classic The Conservative Mind, John Adams has been considered the conservative of the Founding Fathers. Adams was a religious man who saw the true nobility in statesmanship, and as the greatest orator of his time, he was the voice of the Independence as Jefferson was the pen.

Adams never hesitated to fight militarily in the name of liberty, both in the Revolution and the quasi-naval war that characterized the end of the 18th century.

Like all great conservative statesmen, Adams was particularly adept at deciding which traditions to conserve and which liberties to enhance. Nothing shows this more than Adams’s respect for British political institutions while creating wholly American founding documents such as The Constitution.

3. Benjamin Disraeli (British prime minister 1868, 1874-1880). Disraeli was one of London’s leading literary figures before entering politics and became the first and only British prime minister of Jewish descent. Disraeli’s main accomplishments were balancing the social reform movement with respect to tradition and projecting British power as a force of good in the world.

Britain's international power increased during Disraeli’s tenure, most notably with the creation of the Suez Canal. Perhaps more importantly than the enhancement of British power, Disraeli’s leadership balanced the ambitions of Russia and stymied a significant threat on the Eastern front.

2. Ronald Reagan (US president, 1981-1989). Reagan’s chief accomplishment was one of leadership. It had been since 1961, when Dwight Eisenhower left office, that a presidency had ended well. It is hard to imagine now, but at the time of his inauguration, there was legitimate discussion that the presidency had grown too large a job for one man to handle.

Reagan’s leadership completely shattered that view, as he successfully and morally led through difficult economic and international times to give America the foundation for its roaring '90s.

With his tax cuts, Reagan once again made America the entrepreneurial mecca it was always meant to be.

Reagan also presided over the rebuilding of the US military, improving it from a formidable one to world history’s greatest.

And history will surely remember his decision to frame the conflict with the Soviet Union as a moral one and also win it. Reagan’s plan for the Cold War was simple: “We win. They lose. “ The fact that history proved him correct less than a year after his presidency will be the reason why Reagan will always be remembered as one of the few giants of American politics.

1.Winston Churchill (British Prime Minister 1940-45, 1951-55). It is hard to overestimate the accomplishments of Churchill. While the rest of Europe was casually observing the political fireworks in Italy, Germany, and Russia, Churchill was warning of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism before it had fully showed its fangs.

And once the war began, Churchill stood up to the most ruthless fighting machine ever seen with enough confidence to inspire his people to overcome this unbelievable existential threat. Only a conservative would have been willing to sacrifice so much to preserve the institutions and freedoms of his homeland.

It does not matter how many more stories are revealed about Churchill’s alcoholism or how much of his speeches he wrote himself; Churchill’s resilience in the face of the largest threat ever seen against the Anglo-American way of life will always rank him high amongst the pantheon of great leaders, no matter the category.

Beating the Republicans in '08

By Andrew Collins

Newt Gingrich has a brief audio recording on his website called “Beating Hillary in ’08.” Gingrich’s core message is that Republicans should communicate their values loud and clear, because Americans support those values. The means of communication, he says, should be forcing Hillary Rodham Clinton to vote on certain Republican measures that will expose her as being out of step with the people.

Foremost among these measures is including “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Gingrich says 91 percent of Americans support it, and Congress should challenge Clinton by voting on its inclusion. Second, Gingrich says 87 percent of Americans want to renew the 1996 welfare reform bill.

Assume for a moment that Gingrich’s numbers are correct. Ignore the fact that the “under God” clause of the Pledge is legally evaluated by the judicial branch, not the legislative branch. And finally, pretend that the 1996 welfare reform bill was not signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The more important question is, are Republicans really in step with the American people, as Gingrich claims? Because if so, the Democrats will have to resort to some sort of trickery to win in 2008. Or is it the other way around.

Gingrich has presented the Pledge of Allegiance and a welfare reform bill that was pushed by a Democratic President. OK. Now let’s look at some more salient issues: Iraq, Social Security, Medicare, abortion, the environment, domestic spying, and trade (all results are the most recent available).

• Sixty-one percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the war in Iraq (Dec. 16-18, 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll).
  
  
• Forty-eight percent of Americans agree with the Democratic approach to Social Security, compared to 31 percent who agree with the Republican approach (June 10-15, 2005 CBS News/New York Times poll).
  
  
• Fifty-four percent of Americans think Democrats generally make better decisions on Medicare, compared to 24 percent who think Republicans make better decisions (Dec. 2-6, 2005 CBS News/New York Times poll).
  
  
• Fifty-seven percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases (Dec. 15-18, 2005 ABC News/Washington Post poll). Sixty-six percent do not want Roe v. Wade overturned (Dec. 9-12, 2005 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll). Only 16 percent think abortion should be banned (Nov. 9-27, 2005 Pew Research Center poll; Nov. 11-13, 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll).
  
  
• Seventy-four percent say protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost (Aug. 9-16, 2005 Harris poll). Only 6 percent of Americans think global warming is not a problem (Sept. 23-27, 2005 ABC News/Washington Post poll).
  
  
• Fifty-six percent of Americans think the President should be required to obtain a warrant before spying on American citizens in suspected terrorism cases, compared to 42 percent who think a warrant is unnecessary (Jan. 3-5, 2006 Associated Press-Ipsos poll).
  
  
• Sixty-nine percent of Americans think outsourcing hurts the economy (May 17-19, 2004 Associated Press-Ipsos poll).

It appears that the American people, while agreeing with Gingrich (and probably a majority of Democrats) on the Pledge of Allegiance and Democratic welfare reform, actually disapprove of the GOP approach on most major issues.

So maybe Gingrich’s advice would be better used by the Democrats. How to beat the Republicans in 2008? Shout Democratic values loud and clear, because Democratic values are American values.

A Democratic Answer on Ethics

By Anthony Vitarelli

Since the President has been elected, his administration has fought an unprovoked, unjustifiable, and unpopular war that has cost the lives of over 2,000 American soldiers. His aides have been embroiled in an ethics scandal that has led to the indictment of the Vice-President’s Chief of Staff and perhaps the indictment of the President’s chief strategist, Karl Rove. The President’s aloof management style led to a massive human disaster in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the inept performance of former FEMA Director Michael Brown exposed the rampant cronyism within the Executive Branch. Finally, the intimate and extensive connections of the Republican Congress and Washington’s lobbyists, coupled with recent plea bargain of super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, will likely lead to ethics accusation against even more Republicans, especially those in the leadership.

Despite low approval ratings for their own party, the Democrats could not have wished for a more ideal political climate in which to run a mid-term election.

However, they will not capitalize on this remarkably receptive political atmosphere unless they aggressively campaign with a substantive message that differentiates them from the catastrophic years of unscrupulous Republican rule.

Above all else, the Democrats must propose an uncompromising series of lobbying and ethics reforms. Conveniently, four Democrats have already done this. Representatives David Obey, Barney Frank, David Price, and Tom Allen have proposed a succession of fourteen ethics reforms that would severely curtail the influence of lobbyists over the legislative process and reduce the hazard of accepting campaign contributions laced with implicit promises for legislative action.

Among others, their proposals bar lobbyist financed travel and prohibit former members of the House from using their floor privileges to lobby on any matter in which they have a financial stake. To prevent a lobbyist-fueled disaster such as the unfathomably long Prescription Drug voice vote, their legislation sets a limit of 20 minutes on all votes in the House. To prevent the rush of “emergency” legislation, all new bills must be posted on the Internet for 24 hour before a vote; with such a provision, the Patriot Act may have received a few more nay votes after it had been inspected by staffers and journalists. Finally, it proposes three changes to increase the transparency of the process by which the House conferences with the Senate, eliminating the backroom wheeling and dealing that frequently accompanies those encounters.

One would imagine that with the voters’ current revulsion with ethics violations and insider scandals, the Democratic leadership would be screaming from the rooftops about the necessity of enacting this proposal as soon as possible. For whatever reason, this piece of legislation has remained low on the radar screen, yet its affiliation with the Center for American Progress may elevate its media exoposure.

Regardless, Representatives Pelosi and Hoyer (in additional to Senators Reid and Durbin) should immediately hold a press conference explaining how the enactment of this legislation will help to a create a legislative process in which it would be impossible for someone like Jack Abramoff to charge $750 per hour by swindling Native American tribes and buying amendments to key legislation. This proposal should serve as a cornerstone of every Democratic challenger’s stump speech and be incorporated into all talking points for campaign appearances and interviews. Democrats must do more than simply demand that Republicans return any Abramoff money; they must demonstrate that those who accepted his contributions have shown willingness to be bought. If elected, they will not only enact comprehensive ethics reforms, but also act with the integrity that is absent from the current Republican caucus.

Practically though, ethics reforms do not resonate with voters like tax cuts or bolstering national defense, but then again, neither did McCain-Feingold at first. Good governance measures must be explained thoroughly and repetitively enough so that voters understand the long-term implications of removing financial interests from the legislative process. Voters must be able to see how they are disadvantaged by the current, lobbyist-driven system.

Couple such a bold stance on good governance with a positive domestic agenda that resonates with the average voter, and the Democrats could make significant inroads, particularly in the House of Representatives. Allow the Democrats to set the agenda in Congress, and the legislative branch may begin writing laws for every citizen – not just those who can afford Jack Abramoff’s retainer.

Munich v. Bush

By Robert Samuel

Steven Spielberg’s film “Munich” has a very clear lesson: violent reprisals to terrorist attacks only perpetuate a vicious cycle of carnage. The film is explicit in its argument, and Mr. Spielberg has not been shy about stating his film’s purpose.

“A response to a response doesn't really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual motion machine,” Spielberg said. “There's been a quagmire of blood for blood for many decades in that region. Where does it end?

“The only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills.”

Both Israeli and Palestinian groups have criticized Spielberg for misrepresenting their points of view. Israelis have expressed discontent for giving the Munich massacre moral equivalence to its response, and Palestinians have said the film does not show the Israeli injustices that motivate much of the terrorism.

Implicit in Spielberg’s commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict is a critique of the Bush administration’s War on Terrorism. Spielberg has been obsessed with the state of America since 9/11. 2002’s “Minority Report” discussed the merits of pre-emption, 2004’s “The Terminal” commented on post-9/11 airport security and immigration, and 2005’s “War of the Worlds” articulated fears of a newly incubated enemy whose motives are impossible to understand.

Whatever Munich’s merits are in describing Israel’s problems in dealing with the Arab world, the film offers scant relevance in exposing the Bush administration's flaws in its battle with Islamic extremism. Spielberg, like many of Bush’s fiercest critics, does not draw an important distinction between the portrayed motives of Israel’s response to terrorism with Bush’s.

None of Bush’s actions since 9/11 were fueled by pure revenge. All of the policy tools his administration has applied after the suicide bombings have been to prevent a future attack, not to get back at the perpetrators of the worst attack on American soil.

Spielberg’s entire film is an argument against revenge. The book the film upon which the film is based is even entitled “Vengance.”

One need to look no further than the decision to invade Iraq to prove Bush was thinking in the long-term about terrorism. Instead of sending six-figures worth of troops to hunt down Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenants, Bush sent about a score of a thousand troops after the terrorist godfather, and 150,000 or so to remake the Middle East instead. Bush realized catching bin Laden is a necessary step in winning the War on Terrorism. But bin Laden is only one man, and if the conditions that allowed for his rise were not terminated, merely catching him would provide little long-term comfort for the United States.

The reason the Middle East could not be remade anew with freedom and democracy in Afghanistan is because Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Afghanistan is a landlocked Central Asian nation that became haven for terrorists, not a producer of them.

Iraq, meanwhile, is in the heart of the Middle East. Bush correctly predicted the Iraqi people would be open to democratic ideas after years of Saddam's tyranny. By giving the Iraqi people a say in their own affairs, Bush hopes democratic success in Iraq will spread across the region and provide a very persuasive alternative to Islamic terrorism.

If Bush were after revenge, he would have spent countless resources going after several dozen men while the rest of the Islamic world simmered in the same hatred and tyranny that produced bin Laden’s powers of persuasion.

Instead, Bush went out to transform the region so its youth could follow its hopes and dreams rather than enact nightmares on the free world in the name of bin Laden’s backwards and totalitarian ideology.

Munich offers many lessons for how to deal with terrorism. Fortunately for the United States, Bush has already learned them.

Ominous Rumblings from South America

By Andrew Collins

With Iraq a throbbing headache in America’s collective consciousness, it is sometimes easy to forget that other state and nonstate actors can affect the interests of the United States just as significantly. Regional issues in Russia, Iran, Turkey, and the Pacific Rim, simmering now, could become tomorrow’s imbroglios.

Some of the most serious developments for the United States are the ongoing political and economic changes in South America. After a long period of quiet economic anguish, the continent seems to be reacting into a protectionist, virulently anti-American brand of populism.

The spiritual leader of this broad movement is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who, if not yet a dictator, is well on the way to becoming one. His identity is largely founded upon his oft-professed disdain for the United States. This is not necessarily a problem in itself—Canadian politicians have done it for centuries—but coupled with repression of political freedom and nationalization of industries, suggests Chavez could become a modern Castro or worse. The Rev. Pat Robertson even recommended the United States assassinate Chavez last year, apparently after skipping his lithium.

With Chavez thriving on an anti-United States platform, other leaders have found popularity by hitching their horse to Chavez. Bolivia’s president-elect, Evo Morales, has forged a particularly close alliance with the Venezuelan strongman. It is worth noting that Venezuela and Bolivia are not natural partners and are geographically quite distant, suggesting the whiff of a future pan-South American movement. Morales also presents unique problems for the United States with his pro-coca farming stance.

Argentina is the most powerful of the countries looking leftward, although its recent populist tilt is largely due to a 2001 economic collapse. With many blaming the country’s painfully slow recovery on the International Monetary Fund, President Nestor Kirchner has consolidated his power and has seen his popularity soar as he renounces open-market, Washington Consensus-style economic practices.

None of this bodes well for the United States. At the least, regressive economic stances in South America will hamstring global economic development and make broadly beneficial programs like the Free Trade Area of the Americas impossible. This, in turn, may isolate South America politically and make it more likely to be used by terrorists, maniacs, or the next would-be Soviet Union.

A remote but chilling scenario was suggested earlier this winter when Chavez offered to sell cheap fuel to the largely Hispanic residents of the Bronx, NY. Was he trying to establish a foothold here? Given the motivation and the means, an antagonistic South America could pose problems for US integrity and security. Yes, an internal US conflict stirred up by a distant South American despot seems unimaginable—but reverse the participants and you are looking at an eerily familiar mirror image of US meddling in Latin America in the 20th century. We could be at the beginning of a strange and difficult feud.

From our end, handling Latin America by attempting to oust legitimately elected democratic leaders has historically met more failure than success. A covert coup should be rejected as a foolish repetition of calamitous mistakes.

A better way to help advance US interests and the generally good causes of open-market economics and political freedom is by encouraging the development of regional powers like Brazil and Chile. While China gets the headlines, Brazil is poised to gain superpower status as well. And Chile has some of the most open markets in all of Latin America. Strengthening existing trade agreements, perhaps increasing aid, and discussing a shared security framework with these countries would be helpful in nurturing these natural allies.

Even more importantly, the United States could encourage the development of the bilateral relationship between these two countries, which could be a powerful counterweight to regressive socialists like Chavez and Morales. When these leaders’ socialist policies fail economically—and they inevitably will—perhaps the clamoring will not be for nationalization of industry but for mimicking the open economic policies of Brazil and Chile. These two countries are not pursuing perfect models, to be sure, but some strategic development and aid from the United States could assist them along the path on which they have already embarked.

A respectful, indirect approach to South America is long overdue, and would enable South Americans to take leadership over their own affairs. In this way, it is in keeping with US self-determination principles. Such an approach would also inoculate the United States against further anti-Americanism, which would arise in principle from US meddling as well as when the continent faces its next inevitable growing pains. As a result, an indirect, positive approach is also more effective in advancing US interests than a covert coup or economic oppression.

South America is nothing like Iraq as an immediate security threat or political issue—nor may it ever be. But while the public focuses on the main theater, let us hope our men and women on the side stages of government pursue wise policies to keep the hemisphere prosperous, progressive, and peaceful.