Gas Price Posturing

By Anthony Vitarelli

As the United States has become increasingly dependent on petroleum for its commerce, industry, and citizens’ everyday lives, any fluctuations in price profoundly impact the US economy. Recent spikes in gas prices have created great unrest among the American people and, as they tend to do, politicians have scrambled to offer some solution to mollify their constituencies.

Despite their inability to state conclusively whether the cause of the latest price increases lie in our presence in Iraq, price gauging domestic oil companies, or the treachery of Hugo Chavez, politicians have thus far offered numerous panacea proposals that will likely do absolutely nothing to ameliorate this dilemma.

Most prominently, Senate Republicans have proposed sending a $100 check to every American taxpayer to serve as a rebate on the gasoline taxes they have paid recently. Irrespective of the fact that even non-car owners will receive this rebate, this proposal only provides limited and superficial relief without addressing the core causes our economic distress.

From a purely economic standpoint, price will only fall if Americans reduce their aggregate demand for petroleum or if – somehow – aggregate supply increases.

Politicians may feel like they can solve every problem in the world, but their ability to increase the international supply of petroleum is actually quite limited. To that end, Republicans have been urging the opening of the Artic National Wildlife Reserve for years, and they have returned to this issue as another solution to America’s gasoline woes. However, along with its potential for environment devastation, the US Department of Interior has estimated that only 600 million barrels of oil could be recoverable from ANWR over its drilling lifetime, with the potential for more only if technology improves. To put that in context, the US consumes over 7 billion barrels of oil each year. ANWR may alleviate supply pressures to a small degree, but it will not solve our energy shortage.

Similarly, the US has surprisingly little influence over the worldwide supply of oil. American presence in the Middle East has not made it more friends among the OPEC nations, and the US’s rightful opposition toward the Chavez regime in Venezuela does not motivate them to assist the American consumer (with the notable exception of Chavez’s Christmas gift to the South Bronx of eight million gallons of heating oil). Additionally, Iraqi oil production has stagnated and has failed to meet pre-war estimates. In January 2006, Iraq produced only 1.6 million barrels of oil, compared to its 2000 average of 2.5 million barrels per month. Recommitting itself to rehabilitating the Iraqi oil infrastructure will have a moderating effect on oil prices that Americans face at the pump, but as with each supply measure, the core cause of the problem remains ignored.

If politicians truly want to get serious about this problem, they need to address the excess domestic consumer and industrial demand for petroleum.

Since the market has failed in realizing the negative externality associated with petroleum consumption (including pollution, as well as the foreign policy ramifications), the US government should offer financial incentives to consume otherwise. For instance, the government already offers a tax write-off for purchasing a hybrid car. While this measure is well-intentioned, the government must be far more aggressive.

The government should not only offer tax breaks for purchasing environmentally-friendly cars, they should offer grants for the development of more cost-effective renewable energy infrastructure industry-wide. While solar and wind power and frequently dismissed as impractical, this argument can only persist as long as solar panels and wind turbines remain prohibitively expensive to produce and to operate. Coupling renewable energies with the production of fuel cell technology would have a dramatic and sweeping impact on our demand for oil. Such a reduction in demand would lower overall energy prices and have an enormously positive impact on the cost of doing business in the United States. The impact on the American economy would be dramatic, including increased productivity, reduced waste, and the creation of many more jobs as overhead costs plummet.

Moving forward with such a proposal would take a monumental financial investment on the behalf of the American government. Unfortunately, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, the probability of such a measure coming to pass seems highly unlikely given our budget deficit and their aversion to spending on anything but defense and prescription drug boondoggles.

However, this proposal cannot be framed as a government spending program, but rather an investment in the future of the United States economy. American simply cannot continue to demand oil at its present levels and expect to remain competitive internationally. Without a serious investment in renewable energy technologies, the US will remain shackled to the gas pump, enslaved to Middle East oil, and crippled by our inability to crawl away from the 20^th century.

When the Internet Generation Runs for Office

By Andrew Collins

Iceberg in the water! Almost every member of the 18-to-24 bracket has an array of infamous images, shady exploits, and indiscreet screeds plastered all over the Internet. Yet, someday, a few of these characters will run for office and attempt to withstand a ubiquitious, diffuse, and infinitely armed enemy-media complex.

Yikes.

Blackmail and image defamation are par for the course when it comes to national candidacies. How can an aspiring politician in the digital era survive a detailed, maybe permanent account of his or her inevitably wasted youth?

Giving up hope of elected office is one option. For some embarassment-averse souls, the public damnation of a major election—bad enough now, surely worse in the future—will not be worth the trouble. In some cases, this is the nation’s great loss.

But for those who venture forward, it is worth considering whether they have a chance to claim higher office with a bit of dignity and even mystery intact.

The Facebook and Myspace are good places to start. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that an aspiring politician’s profile is assiduously maintained and never contains evidence of criminal mischief or other behavior that would jeopardize a run for office. So basically, we are talking about maybe 40 percent of Facebook profiles and 10 percent of Myspace profiles. Then you have his friends’ pictures of him; whether or not he removes the tags, the pictures are not going away. Then there’s everyone else’s profile and various comments on his and others’ respective message boards.

It is hard to imagine the successful politicians of the present day and earlier faring well with their youth permanently recorded on the Internet. Say a young frat star named George grew up in the 2000s, not the 1960s, and had all his exploits posted on the Facebook. There might have been a picture of him taking a bong rip or making a hammered pass at a young floozy. Maybe there'd be a classic quote from him about what you have to do to avoid the cops when driving drunk. Maybe someone would have posted a comment on his wall about the snow falling really hard.

So instead of a few black-and-white party photos in the wrong hands, which easily could have been fixed by some strategically distributed unmarked bills, George 2K would have to contend with an overwhelming amount of damaging information in the possession of anyone with a broadband connection. Dangnabbit!

It gets worse, since the Facebook and Myspace are only the tip of this iceberg. Between online photo galleries, membership records of dubious organizations, message boards, and indefinitely stored caches of—gulp—blogs and—oh man—emails—almost everyone in the 18-to-24 bracket has the potential to be essentially ruined by youthful indiscretion.

Something, clearly, will have to give. If the current puritanical attitudes toward past indiscretions were to persist through the Internet age, the American people would soon only have a handful of geeks on house arrest in which to put their hopes and aspirations. That seems an unlikely future scenario.

One source of potential relief for young would-be office-seekers is that the escalation of technology and increasingly abundant information will work to obscure as well as reveal their dalliances and minor criminal brushes. For instance, professional photo manipulation can practically show anyone doing anything anywhere. In the future, available technology will likely make professional quality manipulation easy for amateurs, causing an explosion in the number of fictional images. It is possible—difficult as it is to imagine in an era in which “a picture is worth a thousand words”—that images will someday not be credible records of the truth without human corroboration. So when a picture surfaces of the 2040 Vice Presidential candidate sniffing coke back in 2000, maybe the public reaction will not be less, “Drop him,” and more, “Yeah, right.”

Another possible mitigation of the coming tide could be a shift in public attitudes toward the youthful indiscretions of politicians. Faced with the inevitability of imperfection, the American people, ever adaptive, might simply change their definition of perfection. It is possible to imagine a future in which vividly documented illegal substance use and sexual escapades are overlooked, condoned, or even viewed warmly as signal posts to be passed by a great leader en route to maturity. Not in today’s America, to be sure, but who knows what the future will bring?

It seems clear that the ever-increasing amount of available information will change the way political attacking takes place. The role of the private eye-type, the paid or unpaid informant who scavenges and cajoles for old dirt, will be reduced as information becomes available for all. More important will be the communications teams that tie various strands of information together into a cohesive image and successfully market the resulting bite-sized politico to the magnifying forces of media and wealthy interests. In other words, the picture of the naked ice party is going to be there, as will the candidate’s vaguely racist remarks on a chat site in 1996. The unknown will be whether her team can market the frigid revelry and digital morality dip into something constructive. Cynical stuff, but such is life in the belly of the beast.

Oh, and in case you aspiring Kennedys or Reagans were wondering, “deleting” that post or picture probably won’t help you. The Internet plays for keeps.

The Necessity of a Foreign Policy Consensus

By Robert Samuel

Globalization is bound to change domestic politics throughout the industrialized world. Issues no longer conveniently align themselves with fixed ideological positions. For example, it is logically impossible for an individual to be both part of the highly pro-globalization wing of the Republican Party and position oneself with the virulent anti-immigration right. Anyone who claims to hold both positions is intellectually dishonest at best or a swindling political opportunist at worst.

Gradual political affiliation change has already begun, and by the time it is complete, the realignment will be massive. Anyone doubting this must look at traditional conservatives growing admiration of CNN’s Lou Dobbs because of his maniacal anti-outsourcing views.

Political parties should be both optimistic and fearful of this coming change. The opportunity to gain voters of new demographics will be countered with the loss of traditional political allies.

Whatever the challenges of globalization create domestically, there is a renewed opportunity for consensus in foreign policy amongst developed countries. As globalization continues to advance and democracy and markets continue to open, liberals, conservatives, and centrists alike have every reason to promote freedom and Liberal values abroad.

In a globalized world, it makes little sense to exclude nations or peoples from the opportunities that arise from this worldwide system. In fact, international terrorism can be seen as the result of groups frustrated by their inability to function in the global community. They feel they are denied access to the opportunities of this system, therefore they feel exploited by it.

Because of this chance of history, it is in the interest of groups of every Western political persuasion to promote democracy, rather than give excuses as to why it does not and cannot exist in certain regions of the world.

Obviously, much of the elected Democratic Party already shares this view. But there are too many members of the Liberal elite, most notably in the artistic and academic world, who use their power to temper the rhetorical and policy aims of America’s left-leaning party.

The crises is less acute on the right, but there remains a sizable minority who believe certain cultures are incapable of prospering and are doomed to create problems for the societies that lead the world.

Great Britain thus far has done the best in creating a consensus on national goals of foreign policy (though there is hysteric disagreement on the tactics used to accomplish the objectives). Characteristic of the new consensus on foreign policy was this month’s creation of the “Euston Manifesto” by a group of “democrats and progressives” (www.eustonmanifest.org). This group is far too leftist to be considered any part of the neoconservative brand. Still, their rhetoric has benefit from realistic assessments of recent history. The group writes:

“Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.”

The group by no means outwardly supports the conduct of the war in Iraq, but the reasonableness at which they address contemporary problems and their observance of the obvious benefits of democracy make the group admirable and an example for all to follow in the West.

A day after Osama bin Laden urged his followers to attack peacekeeping troops in Sudan attempting to prevent genocide, we must understand that the current war is one between good and evil. Though Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have muddied our clarity, bin Laden’s most recent words coupled with his ideology’s past actions must motivate opinion makers and leaders into a consensus on foreign policy strategy.

The future of globalization and prosperity depend on it.

Moving the Pieces

By Anthony Vitarelli

This week, newly anointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten shook up the executive staff by making two high-profile changes. First, he accepted the resignation of Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Second, he reshaped the responsibilities of Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. Rove will now be responsible solely for political strategy and has lost his policy portfolio to former Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Joel Kaplan.

These moves are commendable on a number of levels. Principally, it appears that Bolten is asserting himself over executive operations to a degree Andrew Card never exercised–at least not this publicly. Bolten has made it clear that he is serving as the chief operating officer of the United States government and will direct the staff accordingly. Also, Bolten’s two moves subtly adjust the balance of power away from Texas cronyism and more toward the political mainstream.

McClellan ascended to press secretary in 2003 upon former Press Secretary Ari Fleisher's departure for the private sector. Despite having served as deputy press secretary, McClellan had never faced the media nor served as the primary spokesperson for the administration on a grand scale. McClellan never measured up to Ari Fleisher in terms of forcefully imparting the President’s message while obfuscating the media’s attempts to obtain certain information. Frankly, McClellan had neither the attitude that an excellent press secretary needs to keep the media at bay nor the savvy to earn their respect. Fleisher had both; McClellan got the can.

On the other hand, Rove’s seemingly superficial shifting responsibilities reveal a much deeper shift in philosophy from Bolten.

Under Card, Rove continually accrued responsibilities giving him one of the most diverse and far-reaching set of responsibilities in White House history. He ran the entire political operation of the Bush White House, as well as having sign-off authority on all Republican political activities throughout the nation. Following his personally designed 2004 electoral victory, he was named deputy chief of staff and became responsible for domestic policy.

Typically, chiefs of staff at all political levels intentionally separate political and policy operations to ensure that decisionmakers understand both the optimal policy outcomes and the outcomes that will reap the greatest political rewards. Rove’s unique synergy of both positions allowed him to control the message that reached the President to an unprecedented degree.

Bolten’s shake-up also subtly lessens the Texas influence in the White House in favor of a more mainstream, Washingtonian tenor. Bolten has not named McClellan’s successor, but prominent frontrunners include Fox News personalities and other executive branch chief spokespeople. Bolten's choice of Kaplan as the new deputy chief of staff for policy also reflects this shift. Kaplan, a Harvard educated lawyer, former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, and former US Marine Corps artillery officer, is far more Massachusetts than Texas.

Whether these changes will impact the President’s ability to work with Congress, secure GOP victories in the midterm elections or increase his national approval ratings remains unseen. Bolten must speak candidly about how these new changes will allow the White House to better do the business of the American people and work in greater harmony with Congress.

Needless to say, this administration remains in office for another 30 months and still maintains its ambitious agenda of Social Security privatization, tax code reform, and continuation of the War on Terror abroad and domestically. However, due to the upcoming 2006 elections and the beginning of the Presidential primary season in early 2008, President Bush essentially only has about 12 months between elections to enact any substantive policy measures before he becomes, as they say, a lame duck.

Bolten appears to be steering the Bush ship along a better course, but staffing only goes so far. Staffing changes without policy redirection means nothing. The administration now needs to parlay a potentially brief honeymoon period into serious engagement with Congress and candor with the American people.

Don't Kill Moussaoui

By Andrew Collins

Zacarias Moussaoui has emerged as one of the most sinister figures to pass through the American legal system.

His plotting against America and failure to inform authorities about the 9/11 scheme are profound crimes that reflect moral bankruptcy. And his conduct during his trial in Alexandria, Va., has showed further depravity. Whether bragging about using his trial as a soapbox from which to preach Islamic fundamentalism, shouting “God curse you all” to the court, or expressing satisfaction at the sight of a weeping American serviceman, Moussaoui has proven beyond doubt that he is an evil man. He has also plead guilty to federal crimes.

It looks increasingly likely that Moussaoui will be sentenced to death. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani testified April 6, tapes were played of the Sept. 11 attacks, and emotions have been running high through wrenching hearings.

While it might be emotionally gratifying to give the ultimate punishment to such a zealous enemy of the United States, sentencing Moussaoui to death would be the wrong move. He deserves a long, miserable life in federal prison without parole.

I must begin, as always, with my personal opposition to the death penalty in all cases. This stance is rooted in my ethical belief that the government should never take a human life when another acceptable option exists. When a criminal is captive and unarmed, options are plentiful. The death penalty has not been shown to deter crime, is more expensive than incarceration, may actually be preferable for some criminals, and is irreversible in the case of new evidence. Most importantly, I believe giving the government the right to kill people in non-combat situations is a fundamental violation of the relationship between man and state. In my ethical and religious conception, penalty of death should only be exacted by God.

All that aside, I believe there are four good reasons for even supporters of capital punishment to oppose a death sentence for Zacarias Moussaoui at this time.

The first is justice. The substance of his crimes do not appear to stack up to the standard of capital punishment. He was never accused of murder. Rather, he lied to investigators while in custody in August 2001; had he provided certain information, the prosecution has argued, the FBI could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Well, maybe. But maybe not, and given the FBI's incompetent handling of other leads, such uncertainty seems to ruin the case for capital punishment.

Just as important in the consideration of justice, the government has mishandled Moussaoui's investigation and prosecution to the point that the judge very nearly made him ineligible for the death penalty. Significant questions still surround the tactics used by government and what, exactly, Moussaoui was conspiring to do. Death should not be meted out when there are such gross problems with case practices.

The second argument against executing Moussaoui is precedent. A death sentence would leave criminals who lie to cover up less spectacular crimes at possible risk of capital punishment. Is death a reasonable fate for someone who was involved at the margins of a plot to kill 100 people and then lied to investigators? What if 10 people died? One person? Such a quasi-conspirator deserves a harsh punishment, yes, but death? Given the vagaries of interrogation, the death penalty seems an inappropriate punishment for failure to cooperate with investigators.

Another reason Moussaoui should not face the death penalty is that once dead, there is no longer any possibility that he will intentionally or accidentally pass on intelligence information about al Qaeda activities. Maybe he knows something about future plots against America. While there is a miniscule chance he would aid investigators in protecting national security, that sliver of hope is better than nothing.

Fourthly, and most emotionally salient, Moussaoui wants the death penalty. Sentencing him to execution would be granting this evil man his preference. He seeks to become a martyr and inspiration for al Qaeda, improving recruiting and fueling members' anti-American derangement. While Moussaoui was a marginal figure in the organization, his status as the first al Qaeda operative executed by our legal system would lend him special significance and could fulfill his depraved desire for a stronger al Qaeda.

The American public is vastly, justifiably frustrated with the fact that the 9/11 hijackers are not around to meet justice and Osama bin Laden remains at-large. Our national wounds are still fresh, and even the inadequate satisfaction of seeing the perpetrators face their due punishment is denied us. What we really want is for that terrible day in September to be undone. Failing that, we want bin Laden.

Instead, what we get is Zacarias Moussaoui, a piece of human garbage. He committed a terrible crime by failing to tip off investigators to the 9/11 plot, and deserves a fate no better than life in prison. But we cannot avenge 9/11 through him. His life is not what we want. It would be a mistake to take it.

Robert Samuel is on vacation

His column will return next week.

A Case for Preemption

By Anthony Vitarelli

The Bush administration recently released its updated version of the United States National Security Strategy. Central to the Bush philosophy is the use of preemptive force to forestall violence against the United States domestically.

True to form, Democrats continue to bristle at the notion of “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight there here,” as it seem such a doctrine could be overemployed to justify discretionary conflicts.

However, the uncertain contemporary security environment no longer allows force to be employed only as a last resort. The prevalence of asymmetric threats demands a thorough examination of the theoretical underpinnings of justifications for force deployment.

First, preclusion of early action diminishes force’s potential to prevent and preempt future attacks and even human rights atrocities. Often, once sufficient damage has been done to justify non-preemptive force, horrible losses have been suffered that could have been avoided. That is, early and targeted utilization of force can avoid costly interventions in the midst of existing heavy conflict.

For instance, a study that analyzed the Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia conflicts estimated that preventive efforts cost roughly 50 percent less than the full military engagement required once the situations escalate. Increased spending on diplomatic efforts and preemptive peacekeeping forces represent an investment to avoid a significant future cost. Additionally, preventative efforts in Macedonia illustrate a case in which diplomatic efforts overcame intense ethnic tensions and have resulted in a stable democratic government

Second, the US threats of force against rogue actors carry far more credibility when the nation has affirmed its willingness to act preemptively in its National Security Strategy. If state actors–or more likely rogue actors within a state–credibly believe that the United States is capable of action with military force preemptively, and without other nations if necessary, they will be less likely to defy international norms.

To that end, the United States must take every step possible to secure international endorsement of and participation in any preemptive action. While obtaining support from other nations slows implementation of the conflict, their consent pays enormous dividends in future combat scenarios, as well as in diplomatic situations unrelated to force.

Unfortunately, a shortcoming of the Bush administration has been its frequent eschewing of the considerations of our international allies. It is an admittedly difficult balancing act to weigh the importance of international endorsement with the necessity of swift and decisive action when an imminent threat appears. For instance, the administration intervened under a pretense of urgency and in so doing, sacrificed international participation.

This system of multilateral participation and preemption leaves the United States in a precarious position. Aware of its unparalleled ability to exercise force in its interest, the US must determine when international institutions (such as the United Nations) have failed or have become incapable of acting on issues of prevention (Darfur comes to mind) or actions against asymmetric threats.

As early force offers more benefits to "last resort" usage and as the costs of preventive action offset future expenses, the US should ideally make this decision more frequently than it has in the last decade–particularly in cases of human rights atrocities. However, it must actively recruit allies, regardless of its success with international institutions. Only with a firm commitment to multilateralism can this strategy of preemption and prevention remain tenable in the long-term.

Fear Itself

By Andrew Collins

Politics is largely about sheltering people from their fears. And that is a pretty scary thing.

Broadly speaking, people are afraid of three things: death, misery, and failure to produce progeny (a genetic result of the fact that the human race ends without reproduction). Accordingly, politicians’ chief obligations are to ensure security, prosperity, and the future.

So far, so good. There is nothing wrong, in theory, with politics aiming to assuage primal fears. The fears are rational and vitally important. If the feared eventualities are avoided, humans will live long, comfortable, and actualized lives. This is exactly the goal of politics.

Problems emerge in practice. Fear is essentially rational but also essentially stupid. The scared individual usually has a legitimate reason to be afraid, but fear leads him or her to seek irrational, foolish means of avoiding a dreaded fate. Take the prisoner trapped in a booby-trapped enemy fortress who must decode a cryptic map in order to exit. Fear makes natural sense; his life is at stake. But fear cannot decode his map, and may even hinder him from making a rational analysis of the situation.

In politics, fear often steers governments away from the most effective policies. Take the wild French uprising against a law, since abandoned, that would have made it easier for businesses to hire and fire workers under age 26. Nearly all economists thought the law was an important step in confronting France’s sky-high unemployment and stagnant economy. But the millions of youths and others who protested over the past few weeks—fearful of job insecurity—irrationally lobbied against France’s development and their own long-run prosperity. Fear, in this case, caused actions that not only harmed the broader collective effort but even the individuals who were most fervent in their protests.

Domestically, fear has wrought some strange and undesirable political results as well. Fear of change has fueled a paleotraditionalist movement that wishes to turn back the clock and deny centuries of progress. Fear of cultural and economic uncertainty has led to inefficient and racist stances on immigration and civil rights. And fear for life has produced a criminal justice system that is ineffective in fighting crime compared to less wantonly punitive systems.

Politicians operate as soothsayers, constantly addressing public fears in a posture of reassurance and sometimes anesthetization. This occurs in deed, when troops are ordered to sack a foreign terrorist camp. It also occurs in words, when a politician promises to “leave no child behind” and “preserve the American way of life.” Fears are calmed in substance, as when a candidate is well versed in foreign and domestic policy and possessed of impressive degrees. They are also calmed by an image of virility and strength—broad shoulders, plenty of hair, and a resounding voice. Sometimes addressing fears is productive, like when President Bush assured the nation after 9/11 that he would not let al Qaeda get away with terrorizing the United States. Other times, the politics of fear is silly or harmful, like when the Bush campaign ran an ad in 2004 featuring vicious, prowling wolves with a voiceover alleging that John Kerry wanted to “weaken America’s defenses.”

All of this, of course, distracts from the business of sound policymaking. How to better address the most basic desires of the people without necessarily following their fear-fevered lead into sometimes inefficient, immoral, or dangerous policies?

Past political systems have attempted to remove fear-induced irrationality from the policymaking process by concentrating power in “experts,” whether intellectual elites, clerics, a professional class, or a monarch. These systems are unsuccessful because they introduce new inefficiencies and possibilities for corruption; fail to protect the people from the death, poverty, and extinction they fear; and exist structurally unbound from responding to pressing fears, leading to exacerbation of fear, panic, unrest and ultimately revolution. Even if the first two flaws were not present in an ideally functioning nondemocratic state, the structural inability of the ideal state to respond to irrational fears would eventually produce its unfortunate demise.

Returning to the realm of the feasible, small steps must be taken to bridge the gap between the primal goal of the people (“avoid feared eventualities”) and the often counterproductive, irrational means of striving toward this goal.

The key, predictably, is education. If experts are best at finding the best means to ward off fears, it follows that a nation entirely populated by experts would support a more efficient government and elect politicians who would implement better policies. This means more civics, economics, history, religion, and other socially practical subjects taught in school, as well as college education for all. A tall order, but certainly more feasible—and better—than oligarchy.

Another way to help avoid the missteps caused by fear is for people to become more savvy about their own fears. Consciousness of fear is not a fully adequate guard against its irrational effects. The prisoner trapped in a booby-trapped fortress may be fully cognizant that fear is not helpful, yet he is unable to will it away. Nevertheless, awareness of fear—and wariness of those in politics, business, and media who would use it to manipulate people—may be useful in fighting the urge to give in to counterproductive means of addressing fears.

Our most basic fears will never go away. They are genetically programmed, and that’s a good thing. The goal is rationally harnessing our fears and putting them to effective use in the service of our safety, prosperity, and posterity. By improving on that, we will be on our way to solving perhaps the greatest dilemma in the long, ongoing history of human self-governance.

The Romney-Republican Resurgence?

By Robert Samuel

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has obviously learned quite a bit from the Republican takeover of the federal government. The reeling Republican Party now can learn from Romney.

The Reagan and Gingrich revolutions found electoral success, among other things, because of their bold ideas and because of their commitment to federalism. Too often in the 1960s and 1970s, the Republican Party was the anti-party. As Lyndon Johnson unleashed his Great Society programs, declared a War on Poverty, and sent more and more and more troops to Vietnam until the number reached 500,000, Republicans were in almost radical opposition to these policies (rightfully so), but did not provide an alternative vision for America.

Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, worked to correct this problem. By the time Republicans had candidates as attractive as Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, there were ideas such as supply-side economics and freedom-based foreign policy on which to run. These candidates also persuasively discussed the idea of federalism and local control that so connected with voters. The fruits of these efforts are now obvious, with Republicans controlling the presidency and both chambers of Congress and holding significant influence on the judicial branch.

Republicans have by no means become the “no” party again, but there have been very few exciting ideas introduced into government since the Iraq War. This is a problem of creativity more than anything. A bigger problem is the Republicans’ lack of commitment to federalism.

Republicans have always espoused allowing states to do almost anything they pleased in regard to public policy. Previous Republicans would attempt to nationalize a policy only after a state successfully administered it at the local level. Theoretically, Republicans hoped the federal government would never have to nationalize a policy. Voters would see good policies in other states and demand they be enacted in theirs.

Republicans seem to have forgotten about their federalist days. Instead of waiting to see if policies worked in states, Republicans have attempted sweeping policies nationwide, such as No Child Left Behind. This strategy has been largely ineffective, with President Bush unable to even pass his Social Security bill.

Romney’s health insurance plan has reminded Republicans of two of the main reasons they have been so successful with the electorate in recent years: bold ideas and federalism.

Romney’s plan is not a sure guarantee of his own political future. As good as the plan looks on paper, unforeseen problems are bound to emerge and Romney may become the Republican poster child for why governmental programs cannot work. The health insurance plan also raises taxes. Companies are forced to pay a $295 “fee” for all uninsured employees. This fine is not a fee. It is a tax. Many voters in the Republican primaries are vehemently anti-tax, and Romney’s “fee” may become his fatal flaw.

Regardless of what Romney’s health insurance bill does for his political chances or health insurance nationwide, Romney’s plan has reminded Republicans of what they did to get their majorities, and what they must do to continue them.

20th Century France

By Anthony Vitarelli

Recent mass protests in France exemplify the antiquated mindset of many European countries regarding protectionism and general market restriction.

In France, when one obtains a job, the expectation exists that he will retain that job for his entire life. If a private company elects to fire an employee, the government will pay for the employee’s lawyer, as they seek financial redress or to maintain their job. It’s not exactly survival of the fittest.

Such a protective market has resulted in over 23 percent unemployment among younger workers and rates of unemployment in other demographies that are relatively higher than each of their European peers, except Spain. The Wall Street Journal has reported extensively on the direct linkage between labor market inflexibility and joblessness, and France is no exception.

Recently, French President Jacques Chirac urged his Parliament to pass legislation allowing companies to fire employees under the age of 26 if they so wish without being forced to face judicial retribution. The youth of France has reacted with great protest to the prospect of being forced to compete for employment. Incredibly, the French would rather subsist in a remarkably underserved employment model, rather than being held accountable for their work.

In a fit of irony that would make Shakespeare blush, the youth sacked educational institutions, such as the Sorbonne, where these protectionist labor ideas were incubated and promulgated. Indeed, their rage seems misplaced, since the MPs who voted upon the legislation acted against the liberal, elitist ideas of the Sorbonne. One might argue that the youth could express their displeasure at the ballot box, but MPs only come up for reelection every five years – another symptom of the anti-market philosophy that permeates France.

In a world where ideas and products can travel around the world in the blink of an eye, an economy’s dynamism is predicated upon its ability to flexibly shift its factors of production. For a corporation to compete globally, the ability to move, rescale, and adjust its labor supply is imperative. The capitalization of new opportunities and investments in burgeoning fields require a nimbleness that cannot exist under the French system.

While IBM and Google are establishing new facilities and production centers in India and China (two of the most flexible labor markets in the world), large multinational corporations are not scrambling to set up shop in Paris or Provence. This lack of foreign direct investment has resulted in stagnant national economic growth, will ultimately lead to a diminished tax base, and may portend serious civil unrest if the government becomes unable to provide the level of social services to which the French have become accustomed.

To be clear, employee protections are not an economic evil. While they technically reduce labor flexibility, legislation that precludes sweat shops, child labor, and other abuses can actually increase overall productivity and certainly can generate increased sales. On the other hand, systems such as capped weekly working hours, bloated worker’s compensation programs, and mandatory legal redress for termination stymie a company’s ability to compete, and, thus, generate more jobs.

France should take a page out of Ireland’s book, which has recently become a bastion of foreign direct investment, particularly in high-tech industries. Ireland has made educating its workforce for the 21^st century and providing a receptive tax environment cornerstones of its public policy, and the market has responded in kind. Dell now produces more of its computers in Ireland than in any other country, and Tax Notes has reported that Ireland is the most profitable foreign country for US-based corporations. Since liberalizing some of its economic practices, profits generated in Ireland rose from $13.4 billion in 1999 to $26.8 billion in 2002. Naturally, in this same time period, US profits in France stagnated.

As each modern economy is intimately linked through trade and international economic institutions, what’s good for the French economy benefits the rest of the world too. There will have to come a time when some of those youthful protesters figure out how to fix a computer.

Coming to Grips with Modern Immigration

By Andrew Collins

Any discussion of immigration gets off to an odd start with the word “immigrant.” It is laden with antiquated imagery. To me, it invokes huddling masses in a Lower East Side tenement, a child in swaddling rags, and a proud, striving patriarch selling wares. Immigration was a historical phenomenon in which penniless dreamers set sail from Eastern Europe to Ellis Island in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There were no immigrants after FDR.

What we are really talking about in the modern era of immigration are new Americans. Seldom packed in fifth-class cabins of mammoth ocean liners, people who move to the United States these days tend to arrive by plane or automobile. They go to modern schools, work in modern office buildings, and sometimes grill up modern burgers on modern George Foremans. The difference between new Americans and less-new Americans is not as stark as xenophobes would have you believe. Every American family has a date (or dates) of arrival in this country; for some, the date is simply more recent. And every individual conveys his or her unique heritage as a contribution to society; if the contribution has an international flavor, all the better.

Demonizing immigrants as squalid leeches has been insane sport in American society since the country’s inception and especially since the mid-1800s, when Western Europe was displaced as the main source of immigrants. An 1882 law banned Chinese immigration, followed by the 1917 “Asiatic Barred Zone.” The Quota Act of 1921 and McCarren Walter Act of 1924 placed country-specific limits on the number of people who could come to the United States, particularly restricting the inflow from Southern and Eastern Europe. (Must have been the swaddling rags.) And the informal discrimination of “nativist societies,” employers, and individuals has always exceeded official xenophobia.

Not much has changed today. Lou Dobbs berates guests and damn society about immigration every night on his absurd “news” broadcast. US Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) leads an anti-immigrant coterie on Capitol Hill. Plenty of nativist societies still exist, and an even greater number of civic societies are nativist in practice if not letter. The message is as clear as it was at the turn of the last century: You’d better toe every line and jump through every hoop, and even if you do, the best you will be is an outsider taking a job from a “real” American.

Designating new Americans as “others” and ascribing universal, base characteristics to them is a wrongheaded form of discrimination. Politically, attempts to wall off Fortress America and ban certain types of non-Western Europeans from entering the country are equally misguided. But that is not to say becoming American should be utterly free and instantaneous. Just as cutting off the inflow of people does not reflect American values and global realities, having a lax, free-for-all immigration policy fails to account for the exigencies of globalization’s dark side.

Certain immigration procedures, some of which are admittedly labyrinthine, are necessary. The most basic requirement is that the incoming individual not desire to harm the United States; in today’s world, this most immediately means barring terrorists from entry. The specter of terrorism alone would make stringent safeguards necessary, but there are others who would do harm to the United States from within its borders, and they must be screened with equal vigilance. Others must be barred from becoming American for a myriad of reasons, such as carrying a rare communicable disease.

While a profound annoyance or worse for many new Americans, customs and naturalization procedures are absolutely vital for the well being of the country. As these measures are necessary, so is their enforcement. Undermining these procedures—as the United States would with an immigration bill currently being debated in Congress—would be a profound mistake.

The bill offers a path to citizenship for people who enter the United States illegally. These are individuals who made a decision to violate crucial national security laws with what was, in many cases, their first act upon American soil. Granting them citizenship is a dressed-up form of amnesty.

The bill’s numerous supporters argue that it would improve security by requiring illegal immigrants to check in at a government office. This may be true, but at a long-term security price too steep to pay. While those who qualify for citizenship may be outstanding people and hard workers, they are not the source of trouble that would arise from a bill like this one. The real problem lies in the message sent to foreign citizens that US laws are feeble and can be breached at will, and that illegal immigration will later lead to a whole host of new rights and privileges when the political climate turns.

Sending such a message would inspire another wave of foreigners to enter the United States illegally, coming on the heels of the quadrupling of illegal immigrants that has occurred in the last 20 years. Widening the channels of entry makes it more likely that unmonitorable criminals and terrorists would be able to sneak in as well. This is an unacceptable result.

Fairness is important as well. Advocates talk about fairness for illegal immigrants living in the United States without documentation, which is valid. No one should be denied human rights nor a basic standard of living. But what about fairness for those foreigners who did not come to the United States illegally out of respect for US laws? What about those who entered the United States through legal channels, sometimes struggling for years with bureaucracy? What, even, about those who are pressured to risk their lives through illegal entry, sometimes through highly dangerous treks across desert or water? Despite the determination and unquestionable American spirit of some illegal immigrants, there is little that is clearly “fair” about bestowing them with the reward of citizenship.

Reform should include a guest-worker program and a more accepting, less red tape-strewn process of legal immigration, but tighter controls at the borders and no amnesty. Deeming illegal immigrants felons, as suggested by another Congressional bill, is an excessive and inappropriate response. Above all, the question of foreigners entering the United States should be addressed in full recognition of their invaluable contribution to society and our historical propensity to discriminate against them. There is no place for xenophobia in the policymaking process.

Condi's Moment in History

By Robert Samuel

“Having seen much of the world and having lived on planes for years, I am no longer much interested in travel," Colin Powell wrote in his 1995 autobiography My American Journey.

If anything, Powell is no flip-flopper. Even after being confirmed as George W. Bush’s first Secretary of State in 2001, Powell traveled over 45 percent less than his three immediate predecessors. “His first duty is to advise the president on his foreign policy and to manage the department to execute the foreign policy,” State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said in defense of his boss. “That's the job. It's mostly done in Washington.”

As America’s image waned abroad and the Iraq War emerged as the biggest diplomatic crisis amongst Western powers since the Suez incident in the 1950s, Powell stuck to his principles and hardly left Washington.

Now two years into Bush’s second term, it is clear Powell’s philosophy was not in the best interest of the United States. Luckily, Condoleeza Rice has done her best to reverse Powell’s mistakes. In 2006 alone, Condi has visited Ghana, Liberia, England, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Chile, Peru, Indonesia, Australia, the Bahamas, Germany, France, Mauritius, Namibia, Ireland, Senegal, Brazil, and Iraq. This totals 323,341 miles of travel.

This week Rice, along with her British counterpart Jack Straw, made a surprise multi-day trip to Baghdad. The success of Rice’s tenure as secretary of state may very well come down to the accomplishments of her latest trip to Mesopotamia.

Straw and Rice made the journey in order to pressure the elected Iraqi officials to form a government after nearly four months of painfully slow negotiations. The longer the government takes to form, the more emboldened the insurgents will be. The insurgents have drawn their motivation for the latest spike in sectarian violence from the delayed government. If sectarian attacks can prevent the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites from agreeing on a united coalition, then insurgents will have accomplished their goal of seeming more powerful than the Iraqi government.

President Bush finally found an effective, forceful ambassador to Iraq in Zalmay Khalilzad. Rice has proven Bush has also found a secretary of state who understands that after sacrificing 2,300 soldiers and billions of dollars, American officials cannot afford to stand on the sidelines. Whether Rice can be effective is the true question of her powers.

The dispute amongst Iraqi officials is the nomination of Ibrahim Al-Jafaari as Prime Minister by the Shiite party, which won in the Dec. 15, 2005 election. Al-Jafaari served as Prime Minister in the transition government during the past year. Needless to say, his term was far from stellar. Al-Jafaari is a medical doctor with no political charisma. His political behavior has made him far more of a divider than a uniter. In fact, his biggest supporter is the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr has his own private Shi'ite militia and had ties with Iran.

Jafaari only won the leadership position in his party by one vote, and Kurdish and Sunni leaders refuse to allow him to be the nation’s head of government. It is clear that Jafaari is not in the United States’s best interest as prime minister, either.

The United States is in a difficult position with Jafaari. On one hand, the United States cannot force Jafaari to step down as the nominee and replace him with a more acceptable official. This would cause the new Prime Minister to appear as a puppet of the United States and belie the United States’s efforts to create a legitimate democratic regime. But by the same token, the United States simply cannot allow Jafaari to become Prime Minister.

Many wonder how good a Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is. How Rice performs this week in Iraq will settle her status for both current analysts and historians.