The Death of The Republican Party

By

Benjamin Barasch

One of the few constant truths in Washington is that any major policy change, appointment, or ruling is surrounded by intense scrutiny and controversy from the media. It is necessary for the American people to be involved in the political process and know what is happening in our national government, but the media takes advantage of the desire to be informed by creating sensational stories. Recently, President Obama has announced the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to replace Supreme Court Judge David Souter. Since this is Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment, the Conservative media naturally gave reasons to be skeptical of her appointment. I think its fair (and even helpful) for respectable journalists such as Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic to question her abilities to take over such a crucial position, but when the likes of influential right wing radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, Representative Tom Tancredo, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich add their two cents about the subject, the Republican party is left looking like a bitter ten year old after losing a game of kickball.

The most controversial part of Sotomayor’s past is that she made a speech in 2001 in which she said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” In politics, any remark about race, no matter what the context, is a colossal faux pas, this remark ranks very low on the provocative scale. Plus Obama, after reading the whole speech himself, thought the comment was not meant to offend but rather to show Sotomayor’s pride towards being a Latina. Still, Limbaugh branded Sotomayor a “reverse racist” on his show and even went as far to compare her to former KKK leader David Duke. The problem isn’t even that Limabugh makes claims like this, its not even that he once referred to our president in a bit as “Barack the Magic Negro,” the real problem is that too many influential people in the republican party are too afraid to oppose Limbaugh because of his influence. Sadly, there are also too many people in the Republican party who agree with Limbaugh. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo supported Limbaugh’s claim by telling CNN that a civil rights group Sotomayor is a member of known as National Council of La Raza is “Latino KKK without the hoods and nooses.” Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich insinuated that Sotomayor was a racist (on his twitter account, no less). Sure there are some such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) who are willing to dismiss such claims, but when influential Republicans make claims as ridiculous as Limbaugh’s, Tancredo’s, and Gingrich’s, the party needs to show a unified front against the comments. It is not in the best interest of the Republican party to allow their most influential members to make imbecilic comments.

With the total failure of GW Bush’s presidency, Barack Obama’s overwhelming victory in the election, and even Arlen Spector’s switch of party; the Republican party is losing its footing as an equal to the Democratic party. The leaders of the GOP need to wake up and not allow for the likes of Limbaugh and Gingrich to represent the views of their party. Also, the population of Hispanics in the United States is expected to be around 16% by 2010; how can a major party succeed while alienating such a large demographic? Although I can’t say that I am a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter), I believe it is important to have at least two powerful political parties in this country to balance each other out, but if the Republican party continues down this spiral, it will cease to exist.

The Effect of the Recession on Colleges and Universities

Ben Barasch

With about a half of the school year remaining, to high school seniors there is not a more diverse set of emotions towards a single issue than college acceptance. A portion of the senior class (such as my Purple Youth colleagues Max, Jon, and Gabe) is already in college; for them the rest of their high school career is about as challenging as criticizing George W. Bush. The remaining seniors are faced with a long road ahead filled with last minute applications, college visitations, and counselor meetings. As someone who witnessed another (my sister) agonize until spring break, let’s just say that I am happy that I am a junior (words that have are rarely spoken). Unfortunately the current economic climate is going to make the college experience, from applicants, to students, to educators, to admission board members, more challenging than it was before.
Basically colleges are run very much like large corporations. Because they usually generate more expenses than they can pay for from tuition, universities and colleges rely on earnings from their endowments and gifts to cover their costs. As we all know, investments in general have not really been in the green of late, and those of universities and colleges are no exception. Endowments are way down due to a combination of the failing economy and fewer people are willing to donate money. Harvard, a school that most would expect to be immune to such a crisis, has  lost 22% of its endowments which equals about an $8 billion loss.  Endowments are not the only financial hit that these education institutions face. As mentioned above, now that people generally have less money, donations are decreasing.
In theory, the amount of money that a parent has should have nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the chance of a student to get into the school of their choice. Many of our best schools have adopted “need-blind” admissions policies.  Now, this egalitarian practice may be at risk. It may turn out that parents who can afford tuition give their children better chance to be admitted to the schools of their choice. That would be unfortunate.
Another problem caused by the recession, is how the universities are going to deal with having less operating money. Less money for colleges and universities is bad news for everyone. Less money means that schools that were looking to expand need to put projects on hold and in some cases schools will shrink or even worse close their doors. Certain improvements that were proposed and were feasible two years ago are no longer economically viable and have been put on the back burner.
An added concern for applicants caused by the recession is price elasticity of   demand for schools now that money is tight. Price elasticity of demand is a measurement of how much interest waivers/increases as prices rise/fall respectively. For example if a top flight student from Illinois gets into a Princeton or a Yale, will he or she now be more inclined to attend their state universities where they can still receive a good education for a lot less? The answer is yes and no depending on the financial situation and circumstance of that particular family. Because of the reputations of the top schools, many parents will spring to send their children to the top private universities. This may spell trouble however for the less distinguished private universities where the tuition is still higher than state schools. It is a no brainer for a student to attend their state school as opposed to a private college/university where they are getting a similar education for a lot less.
Fortunately, amidst all of the financial issues facing schools, most schools have not yet cut into their financial aid programs to free up money. If Wall Street continues to deteriorate, financial aid may be the next thing in jeopardy in this economic crisis.

Why Israel Attacked and What It Means

Gabriel Rom

“We are now going to find out whether those lessons from 2006 – on military preparation, on the need for effective military-political coordination, on operating in an immensely complex regional and global context, and on setting realistic goals for the use of military force – were indeed well learned.”

In retaliation to unyielding rocket attacks into Southern Israel, numbering recently to almost 200 a day, Israel launched a series of Airstrikes on Hamas positions, killing over 200 people. Hamas military installations, police stations, and residences of officials were all targeted. What we are seeing is possibly the most intense military action taken by Israel since the June 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

Some sort of Israeli military action was to be expected, but the intensity and haste in which these strikes were carried out made today’s events a sign of radical reshifting in Israeli military policy. Today’s attacks were a refutation of what many Israelis see as pointless diplomacy as well as ambivalent military incursions lasting for short periods of time, with usually minimal or negative results. As one analyst put it: “Israel’s policy of restraint is over”.

The rationale behind these strikes is a simple one: Pressure. The game is all about pressure. Israel, since the election of Hamas, has been trying to force Hamas to cease all their military operations, suicide recruitment, and on a basic level at least start to entertain the option that Israel will not be wiped of the face of the earth. All such things are relatively tough to achieve diplomatically when the group Israel trying to convince through talks and sanctions will not even recognize their existence, or right to exist. Diplomacy doesn’t work when political entities put religious ideals over the well being of their fellow citizens.

Today’s strikes are the beginning of an Israeli plan to dismantle the infrastructure of Hamas. What we are witnessing is monumental, it is the beginning of a plan to completely eliminate Hamas from the political and diplomatic landscape. Many Israelis see Hamas as the chief impediment to peace talks, and after Western support of Fatah, Hamas’s rival faction, resulted in nothing but heightened Gaza tension and even more Hamas sway, Israel has decided to do what it does best, take matters into their own hands.

Many parallels can be made to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, which was considered by many a stalemate or even a defeat for Israel. The geopolitical context in which Israel has attacked Hamas is immensely complex: Will Egypt who has taken the always risky route of mediation between Hamas and Israel, be forced to abandon talks due to these attacks? Will Iran supply Hamas with weapons, and intelligence to retaliate against Israel? In a conflict with so many actors, any small event sends of a wave of political, economic, and military shocks and aftershocks – and it is quite clear that today’s events were by no means “small”.

Israel has put herself back into the fire, the fire of international scrutiny, the fire of Arab retaliation, the fire of possible failure. Yet I strongly believe that this is a necessary fire. With the looming specter of a nuclear Iran, and no cessation of aggression for over 60 years from her neighbors, the nation of Israel has said enough is enough.

The Next Great Civil RIghts Movement?

Max Godnick

In the wake of Prop 8, many have begun to speculate over whether or not we are currently witnessing the next great Civil Rights movement. Women and African Americans had their eras of civil rights reform, so it seems likely that homosexuals would be the next minority group to aggressively push for all natural rights. The current political and social atmospheres seem like a perfect environment for a new movement to arise in. With gays and lesbians becoming an almost regular presence in movies and television shows, a new liberal mood for the country, and the passage of Proposition Eight in California (as well as a number of similar cases around the country) the country seems to be warming up to the ideas of wide spread social revolution. Movies like Milk are gaining widespread notoriety, and many film critics think that the current social atmosphere might bring Oscar gold to Sean Penn and the rest of the cast of Milk in February.

During the civil rights movements of the 1920’s and 1960’s, blacks and women were able to get significant amounts of legislation passed through congress primarily because they had a significant connection in congress that rallied for their causes. For black’s it was President Lyndon Johnson and his crusade for the Civil Rights Act and for women it was President Wilson’s public support of the eighteenth amendment. However, gays have not yet received the public support of a president, a sufficient amount of members of congress, or an overwhelming amount of the public. Even in the new “change obsessed” environment of the present day, Obama probably could have not been elected if he had publicly declared his support of gay marriage. In order for gays to begin a civil rights movement of the same size and scope of the ones seen in the sixties or twenties, they must be able to gain the support of powerful public officials who will make it their sole duty to have justice shown. Unfortunately, with the current state of the economy and America’s involvement in two wars, it seems as if it might be a couple of years before social issues become the dominant debate in Washington and on the Hill. Still, America is clearly restless, and the passage of Prop 8 has ignited an important debate that must be resolved in order for America to truly claim that “All men are created equal”.

Failure to Act Ensures Failure to protect life–where security trumps sovereignty

With more and more evidence pointing to Pakistani militant groups being responsible for last weeks Mumbai Massacre, many, including myself, are beginning to wonder if international rights of sovereignty can be ignored for the sake of global security. Bob Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and senior intelligence advisor to Barack Obama, came out with a report as part of a government panel’s investigation on the likelihood of a weapon of mass destruction reaching American soil. What they found was startling. “it was our conclusion based on 250 interviews with academics, scientists, and military and political  intelligence  officials, that it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in some place in the world prior to the end of the year 2013. We also found that it was more likely that that weapon would be biological than nuclear. We also found that our margin of safety has been diminishing…there have been changes in the environment in which we have been operating particularly as it relates to biological weapons which have become more accessible to potential terrorists.” Graham goes on to say in an interview with Newsweek Magazine that the WMD will most likely come out of Pakistan.

Research by Graham and others has shown that potentially catastrophic biological weapons could become available to terrorists with ease. He cites the 1918 flu epidemic that killed over 40 million people. Imagine for a moment if terrorists released a biological weapon containing the influenza in several US cities. The casualties would be unprecedented–a 9/11 of exponential proportions. The United States could never recover from such an attack. How much longer can we really take the ideological viewpoint that all nations boarders are sanctified and should always remain respected? Is this notion of holiness worth the potential loss of hundreds of millions of people? Absolutely not. Pakistan has been an unstable government since the moment it broke away from India. Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan not long before Pakistan’s independence and the country is still devastated from Afghani refugees during the Cold War and Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorial reign. Many analysts believe that  the Pakistani militants received aid from not only Al-Qaeda, but former Pakistani military officials as well.  While it may not be President Zadari’s fault that these attacks occurred in Mumbai and attacks against NATO forces in cross-boarder raids in Afghanistan keep occurring, it is his responsibility to quell them. If he cannot stop his country from continuing to be a safe-haven for terrorists, Pakistan’s sovereignty is void.

The stakes are simply too high. A weapon of mass destruction striking a civilian target is simply unacceptable. It falls to the international community to end this potential threat to global security. Failure to act simply ensures a failure to protect lives. I don’t suggest an invasion of ground troops to Pakistan in it’s northwest provinces or Kashmir region, but what I do approve of is the use of highly advanced technology such as the predator program to locate and eliminate terrorist combatants with high precision. If we do not intervene and not only eliminate terrorist cells, but also support the Zadari presidency, it is more than feasible that a rogue militant group with Pakistani army support could stage a coup–and gain control of the 6th largest nuclear power. While ground troops in Pakistan might eventually be necessary to prevent future exponential 9/11′s from occurring if air attacks are unsuccessful, it should be a last resort. Finesse is paramount. Heavy bombing and incursions by international forces through ground troops will only increase the number of terrorists and give new wind to their cause as civilian casualties would ensue. The first step for the international community should be sound intelligence. No cross border predator attacks should be permitted without solid evidence that said attack will significantly cripple Al-Qaeda forces. Such attacks could have minimal progress so it might behoove the international community to involve the UN and draft a resolution.  If analysts determine that we are not safer and less likely to be struck by a WMD out of Pakistan after a year,  a more significant force will be necessary–one that could involve ground intervention in western provinces and the Kashmir region.

The cost of preserving democracy globally is sometimes worth the expense of sovereignty. While the decision to use military force is certainly not an easy one, it is necessary. An unstable nuclear power is a threat to global security. If NATO and the west don’t take the reigns in solving the problem, expect India to–as they would likely be the first target of Pakistani militants with a nuclear weapon. India’s response, would be far less finessed than a NATO one.

The Limits of Pragmatism

Peter Wehner

&

Gabriel Rom

As taken from commentary magazine

We live in an age in which pragmatism is hot and ideology is not.

Barack Obama is being praised for the centrists he is appointing to his Administration. It is said that the Obama team includes “the best and the brightest,” individuals driven by empirical evidence rather than political philosophy. “They [the American people] don’t want ideology,” according to Obama. “They want action and they want effectiveness.” Mr. Obama speaks about his appointments sharing his bent for “pragmatism.” Technocrats and Socratic dialogue are in, while conviction politicians and an adherence to political philosophy seem passé.

As it happens, I’m delighted that the (very early) indications are that President-elect Obama is exhibiting a centrism that was well-disguised during his days as an Illinois state legislator and U.S. Senator, when he amassed a very liberal voting record. His liberalism will undoubtedly reassert itself at various points along the way, and it can’t be stated often enough that we are only at the dawn of the Obama era. It may be that the man named by National Journal as the most liberal member of the Senate governs that way as President. Nevertheless, the selections Obama has made so far are an encouraging sign. In addition, Obama’s cautions about ideology are worth taking into account. It can indeed lead people to ignore facts that challenge their worldview (for example, denying progress of the so-called surge in Iraq long after it was clear it was succeeding).

At the same time, with pragmatism all the rage, it is worth considering its limitations.

When pragmatism–an approach to politics that is characterized by centrist, moderate, deal-cutting instincts rather than a commitment to core political principles–becomes a defining political identity, it often leads to ad hoc policies. Decisions are made discretely, in an unrelated fashion, and are not put within a larger philosophical framework. Pragmatism tends to be process-oriented, reactive, and crisis-driven. And it assumes politics is above all about management.

Politics is of course about the day-to-day management of affairs. But at its best it is about the pursuit of ideals like justice and liberty, partnership for the common good, and fostering the conditions that allow for human flourishing and excellence.

Competence is crucial in the implementation of policies, and success is impossible without it. Bad execution can discredit good ideas. But competence is not a sufficient end in itself. It needs to advance a larger human purpose.

In addition, competence is not courage. When gale-force political winds hit, pragmatists, because they do not have deep-seated convictions, rarely hold shape. Our finest politicians are those who withstand the pressure of the moment to pursue policies precisely because those policies are part of an overarching governing philosophy. A pragmatist avoids hard choices. A great leader makes them.

In the early years of his presidency, for example, Ronald Reagan pursued a tight monetary policy and provided unyielding support for Paul Volcker, then head of the Federal Reserve, despite a nasty recession which saw the unemployment rate exceed 10 percent, Reagan’s approval rating stuck in the mid-30s, and substantial mid-term election losses in 1982. But these policies were vital to wringing inflation out of the system, and they began what was then the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. A politician less committed to a set of economic principles would have given up in the face of the ferocious criticism President Reagan received.

Mr. Obama’s victory has been compared to Reagan’s, but Obama may turn out to be the anti-Reagan. When he found himself in Hyde Park, he easily adjusted to his surroundings, and when he ran in the Democratic primary, Obama became the hope of the Left. But once he secured the nomination, he transformed himself into a centrist. That trend is continuing in the transition.

Obama’s victory, then, was based largely on his (appealing) personality and ethereal promises of “change,” not on a set of ideas. After having run for President for 21 months, and having been elected four weeks ago, no one can yet articulate what Obama-ism as a political philosophy is. He appears to believe he should be president because of who he is, rather than what he believes. Mr. Obama’s self-assurance seems to derive from his enormously high confidence in himself, rather than confidence anchored in a coherent worldview.

President-elect Obama’s apparent pragmatism is certainly preferable to liberalism; no worldview at all beats a misguided one. But we should bear in mind that a philosophical embrace of pragmatism has a cost as well. It inevitably robs politics of its higher, ennobling aims.

Those touting pragmatism as a balm and downplaying the role of political philosophy in our politics should also recall that the greatest figures in our history–including Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Reagan–believed in a fighting faith. They cared deeply about political ideas, and it was their fidelity to those (good) ideas, rather than an attachment to pragmatism or a captivating personality, which left a deep, lasting imprint on our nation.

Pragmatism surely has an important place in our politics. But for some of us, it is still conviction politicians who create the great appeal and great drama of American politics.

For the past twenty years, the Middle East has been the face of American opposition. Just as the Soviet Union was the poster boy of anti American aggression for most of the 20^th century, the Middle East has been tied to all things anti-American since the Persian Gulf War. However, with the Mumbai terrorist attacks and political unrest in Thailand, the War on Terror may very well shift out of the Gulf region and further into Eastern Asia.

The situation could be viewed as ironic. Just as America shows some signs of learning how to deal with terrorist insurgents on the streets of Baghdad, the troubles seem to be moving elsewhere. As the War in Iraq begins its final stages and America begins to adopt a new global strategy, the global playing field of terrorism and conflict seems poised to expand.

The attacks in Mumbai are without precedent. For the past decade, terrorist attacks have either been large scale coordinated attacks like 9/11 or the London bombings, or they have been single suicide bombings like the ones frequently seen in Israel. Mumbai straddles the line between the two types of attacks. Unlike 9/11, the London bombings, or the Madrid bombings, the attacks cannot be concentrated into a single image or purpose; they were widespread and targeted a number of locations.  The Mumbai attacks are more likely to resemble smaller scale terrorist attacks. However, while these small scale attacks consist of one bombing or one shooting, the Mumbai attacks were large scale, finely tuned, and were capable of wrecking havoc on the world’s largest developing city.

The world has never seen an attack like this and it does not yet know how to deal with it. Acts of violence like this are able to fly under the radar, as they do not require large purchases, reservations, or lots of people.  As the world shifts away from Middle Eastern terrorist warfare, America and its allies will have to draft new strategies in response to these new wave attacks.

Ben Barasch 

 Saying that the United States government conforms to the mold that has been set by other countries is like saying that Kevin Federline has a bright future in Rap. Sure, there are some situations where our government takes an opposing stance to the rest of the world (see the Kyoto Protocol), but in other cases, the United States is simply behind the rest of the world’s advanced nations and a prime example of this is our lack of universal health care.

The United States is the only wealthy, developed, free, and industrialized nation that does not have universal health care. Universal health care can mean several things; in some countries like England and Canada, it is a system in which each taxpaying member of a country automatically receives dental and medical care. A system like this is expensive for the government, which in turn is expensive for the taxpayers. This past election, universal health care was a hot button topic from then democratic candidate Barack Obama. President-elect Obama realizes that it would be politically impossible to implement a single payer system in the US. Instead, he has proposed a universal health care system that within 6 years all Americans would be required have health insurance, either from the government or from a private plan. 
With the economy not improving and tax revenues declining, Obama may be tempted to rethink this prediction since it will be very expensive. However, 46 million Americans are not covered by insurance and the number will only grow as more and more people lose their jobs and go into debt. Some Americans believe that health insurance is a luxury rather than a necessity, which causes them to resist their perceived notion of being forced to pay for other people’s health benefits.

Fortunately, some within Obama’s inner circle such as Rahm “Rambo” Emmanuel have said that the downturn of the economy is a reason to hasten the implementation of universal health care, not delay it. Many studies have shown that universal health care would ultimately make our economy stronger. Currently our corporations and businesses (based on a 2007 study by the National Coalition on Health Care) spend approximately $7,600 per person on health care each year. Having universal health care will eliminate the a heavy cost for American corporations and allowed them to invest more money in their business. This extra money will increase the competitiveness of American products in the world market. Also, it will put more money in the pockets of the American people, which can be put back into the economy through consumption. 
     

  As hard as it will be to spend additional taxpayer money, the time has come for universal health insurance in the US. An estimated 18,000 people die each year because they do not have health insurance and it is about time that the United States got the ball rolling on universal health care.

Links

- India’s suspicion of Pakistan grows

- Behind The Scenes of The Mumbai Attacks

- Troops battle to end seige in Taj

- Oberio, Nariman Secure…Taj Not

- FBI Agents ordered to India to investigate attacks

- Pakistan’s Intel. chief heads to India

- Flickr Photos of Attacks

- Streaming coverage on attacks from Indian TV

- US, UK, Israel aid India with Intel

- Map of Mumbai Attacks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27971837/  (Time Line)

Jon Goldsmith 

Today, the Jewish Orthodox Center run by the Chabad Lubavitch group in Mumbai was stormed by Indian Security forces. Five bodies of hostages were recovered at the scene. It is with great sorrow I write this. One can only be reminded of the Munich Massacre when an atrocity such as this is committed against Jews. Israeli-Jews were not the only targets, however, two americans have been found amongst the dead of another twenty hostage bodies. One thing is clear though–these guys were very well trained and well equipped for a long siege. According to an unnamed member of India’s elite Marine Commando Unit, “It’s obvious they were trained somewhere … Not everyone can handle the AK series of weapons or throw grenades like that,” adding that they were “very determined and remorseless.” 

The United States has sent a team of detectives to India to investigate the situation. Many are wondering what will happen next though. Could Israel potentially set up assassin teams the way they did after the Munich Massacre to kill the people responsible? Will the US step up cross boarder incursions into Pakistan to include the Kashmir region? Time will only tell. 

I wouldn’t expect a major US or western response to this because it is India’s responsibility to punish those responsible for attacks on its own citizens in its own country. Let’s not forget that of the 150+ dead, only 22 foreigners were amongst them. This attack was aimed at Indian organizations as a primary target and at westerns as a secondary one. India and Pakistan need to collectively work together to quell developing terrorism in the Kashmir territory. This reminds us, however, that terrorism is a global fight–not just one aimed at Britain, Israel, and the United States. I’m not calling for a massive worldwide pledge to end terrorism once and for all right now because it simply isn’t feasible. The crumbling economies of many nations will mute any initiative to pledge military or economic aid in the fight. Eventually that day must come when moderate nations band together against terrorism, but today simply isn’t that day. All I’m saying is this issue affects all countries now–especially if this attack indicates an upcoming trend of attack western tourists in foreign countries.