You can always tell when Washington's political establishment feels threatened by the rise of someone new. In 2008, opponents of President Barack Obama pitched a certifiable fit over his alleged lack of citizenship in an attempt to disqualify him from the race. It was a debate that lingered until well into his presidency, when he finally produced a "long form" birth certificate and put the charges to rest. Just recently, Herman Cain, the former front-runner in this year's GOP field, was forced to bow out over charges that he made inappropriate sexual advances to several women while he was president of the National Restaurant Association. And now, there's the controversy surrounding another surprising contender, Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Paul, a perennial presidential candidate and well-known libertarian, has enjoyed a surprisingly successful run this time around. As of Friday, he was actually leading in Iowa as that state's caucuses rapidly approach. Right on cue, there came allegations that Paul made racially inflammatory comments in newsletters published under his name during the 1980s and into the 1990s.
Granted, the comments highlighted in recent news reports are, to say the least, insensitive, if not outright racist. Among other things, a comment on the 1992 L.A. riots, said, in effect, that the violence would stop "when the blacks stopped to pick up their welfare checks." Another comment referenced a coming race war. But should those unfortunate comments be enough to knock Paul out of the race? I don't think so.
What makes this situation particularly distressing is Paul's surprisingly naive response, especially since he's such a veteran politician. In response to the allegations of racism, he has basically said that not only did he not write the comments, but he was unaware of them because he failed to read his own newsletter. Even worse, he failed to keep track of what was being written in his name. That seems almost inconceivable to me.
How can Paul, who has served honorably in Congress for more than a decade, be so tone-deaf to what his own people are writing in newsletters that are published under his name? Are we really to believe that he never reads his own newsletters?
If I were Paul, I would do much more than simply disavow the comments, as he did recently. The first thing he should do is find the people who made the comments. If they're still working for him, they should be fired. Lay down a rule that nothing is to go out in any newsletter with his name on it without explicit final approval from him. Then, call a news conference to address the comments directly. Let the media and the American people know exactly what his current stance is on race relations. Answer all questions directly. Then, it's time to move on.
Let me be very clear. I in no way like or support the kinds of comments being attributed to Paul in his newsletters. Personally, I think someone who holds such antiquated views has no place as the leader of the free world, or our richly diverse nation. But the comments aren't recent. They're all 20 years old or older. Even if he held those views at one time, there's no guarantee he still feels that way. People change, and Paul should be judged on who he is NOW, not who he was 20 years ago.
I don't believe Ron Paul will be our next president. I don't even believe he has a realistic shot to be the GOP nominee. But I do believe he is someone who has maintained consistent support among a sizable bloc of Americans over a long period of time. He is someone who, if you stop to listen to him, actually makes sense in a lot of what he says. He is a breath of fresh air in a field of largely stale, career politicians. And he deserves a chance to get his message out to the American people. It should be the voters, not the media, that should be the final judge of Ron Paul's 2012 campaign.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
A day to remember
Today marks the 70th anniversary of the "day that will live in infamy," the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II. While much has changed since that fateful day, I think it is important that we pause today to remember those who gave their lives on that Sunday morning and in the four years after. I think it is important to remember the lessons we should have learned from that world-altering experience.
The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States finally into the war that had gripped the world since Sept. 1, 1939, when Adolph Hitler overwhelmed Poland. At the end of that war, we had become the world's first nuclear power, and the undisputed superpower. It has been a position we have held ever since, though some would argue that we're beginning to slip from that lofty perch.
World War II is notable in that it is the last war we fought that was strictly constitutional and that was actually declared by Congress. We've had plenty of military engagements since then -- Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan -- but World War II was the last war where we were attacked first, and that was completely justified.
World War II also was notable because it ushered in the age of nuclear warfare. For the first time, we had created a weapon so powerful that we finally had the ability to destroy ourselves. It put an end to America's previous policy of isolationism. And it firmly established us as the world's most powerful nation.
Since that "infamous" day and the end of World War II, we have used that unbridled power to prevent the spread of communism (Korea, Vietnam) and to help others (removing Manuel Noriega in Panama and the first Gulf War). We have, in effect, become the world's police force. Every time there's a perceived injustice, America swoops in to save the day. That has engendered a lot of goodwill for America in many parts of the world. But have we learned anything from being the world's undisputed No. 1 for the past seven decades? I can think of several lessons we should have learned by now:
1. Creating the nuclear bomb may have been the biggest mistake we ever made: Energy considerations aside, I think any humane person can agree that creating the world's first nuclear weapon was a mistake. Many World War II vets have argued with me over the years, saying that "the bomb" saved thousands, if not millions, of lives, by putting a quick end to the war. That may be true. But it's also true that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the truth is, we could have won the war without ever dropping the first bomb.
At the time of the first bombing, Allied forces were engaged in a campaign of "island hopping," and were approaching Tokyo. Allied forces in Europe were on the verge of capturing Berlin. It might have taken longer, but we could have won the war without slaughtering all those innocent women and children.
And what has the "nuclear age" brought us, in the long term? It was inevitable that other nations would eventually decipher our nuclear secrets. Today, there are five confirmed nuclear states, and three more that are known or believed to possess the weapons. Two of those states -- India and Pakistan -- are sworn enemies. The other -- North Korea -- is led by a reclusive dictator who is widely considered to be unstable. Our world is actually less safe than we were at the end of World War II. We are sitting on a powder keg, and it wouldn't take much for one of our enemies to light the match.
2. With great power comes great responsibility: In large part, I think the United States has done a good job of using its power responsibly. It's hard to argue with fighting to prevent the spread of communism or removing a diabolical dictator from power. But I believe the past decade since 9/11 has shown us the flip side of that equation.
It's not enough to just flex our muscles and remove a leader we don't like. If we're going to play nation-builder, we need to think things through. We need to plan. What happens after the dictator is gone? Are we prepared to stay in that country long-term and rebuild all that we've destroyed? Are we willing to intervene if a civil war breaks out between opposing groups? And how do we decide which countries to go into and which leaders to depose? There are a lot of dastardly dictators in the world. Are we going to get rid of all of them?
The key here is to establish some kind of standard. I have no problem with helping out other countries that can't help themselves. But we don't have the blood or the treasure available to us to fix every country's problem, and we shouldn't try. We have our own problems here at home that need attention before we traipse around the world trying to fix everyone else's.
3. Our veterans are an invaluable untapped resource. They deserve to be taken care of, and we should do all we can to learn from them: One of the things that makes my blood boil is how this country treats its veterans. It seems like every time there's a budget crisis in this country, veterans' benefits are among the first thing to go on the chopping block. That's wrong.
Our veterans have fought and sacrificed to make it possible for us to enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted. Many, especially those from previous generations, were promised that if they would but serve their country, they would be taken care of with free medical care for the rest of their lives. That is a travesty. These brave men and women have earned the right to their benefits. They have sacrificed to take care of us. It is our obligation to take care of them.
I think it is incredibly important that we learn what we can from our veterans of past wars. Veterans are those who have stared death in the face and lived. They have seen the end result of the evil men do. Wouldn't it then benefit this current generation to learn from the mistakes of the past? I think today is a great day to sit down with our veterans and ask them to recount their experiences. And this is something that should be done every day. If we fail to take advantage of our veterans before they're gone. If we fail to learn the lessons they have to teach us, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. And that would be to everyone's detriment.
The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States finally into the war that had gripped the world since Sept. 1, 1939, when Adolph Hitler overwhelmed Poland. At the end of that war, we had become the world's first nuclear power, and the undisputed superpower. It has been a position we have held ever since, though some would argue that we're beginning to slip from that lofty perch.
World War II is notable in that it is the last war we fought that was strictly constitutional and that was actually declared by Congress. We've had plenty of military engagements since then -- Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan -- but World War II was the last war where we were attacked first, and that was completely justified.
World War II also was notable because it ushered in the age of nuclear warfare. For the first time, we had created a weapon so powerful that we finally had the ability to destroy ourselves. It put an end to America's previous policy of isolationism. And it firmly established us as the world's most powerful nation.
Since that "infamous" day and the end of World War II, we have used that unbridled power to prevent the spread of communism (Korea, Vietnam) and to help others (removing Manuel Noriega in Panama and the first Gulf War). We have, in effect, become the world's police force. Every time there's a perceived injustice, America swoops in to save the day. That has engendered a lot of goodwill for America in many parts of the world. But have we learned anything from being the world's undisputed No. 1 for the past seven decades? I can think of several lessons we should have learned by now:
1. Creating the nuclear bomb may have been the biggest mistake we ever made: Energy considerations aside, I think any humane person can agree that creating the world's first nuclear weapon was a mistake. Many World War II vets have argued with me over the years, saying that "the bomb" saved thousands, if not millions, of lives, by putting a quick end to the war. That may be true. But it's also true that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the truth is, we could have won the war without ever dropping the first bomb.
At the time of the first bombing, Allied forces were engaged in a campaign of "island hopping," and were approaching Tokyo. Allied forces in Europe were on the verge of capturing Berlin. It might have taken longer, but we could have won the war without slaughtering all those innocent women and children.
And what has the "nuclear age" brought us, in the long term? It was inevitable that other nations would eventually decipher our nuclear secrets. Today, there are five confirmed nuclear states, and three more that are known or believed to possess the weapons. Two of those states -- India and Pakistan -- are sworn enemies. The other -- North Korea -- is led by a reclusive dictator who is widely considered to be unstable. Our world is actually less safe than we were at the end of World War II. We are sitting on a powder keg, and it wouldn't take much for one of our enemies to light the match.
2. With great power comes great responsibility: In large part, I think the United States has done a good job of using its power responsibly. It's hard to argue with fighting to prevent the spread of communism or removing a diabolical dictator from power. But I believe the past decade since 9/11 has shown us the flip side of that equation.
It's not enough to just flex our muscles and remove a leader we don't like. If we're going to play nation-builder, we need to think things through. We need to plan. What happens after the dictator is gone? Are we prepared to stay in that country long-term and rebuild all that we've destroyed? Are we willing to intervene if a civil war breaks out between opposing groups? And how do we decide which countries to go into and which leaders to depose? There are a lot of dastardly dictators in the world. Are we going to get rid of all of them?
The key here is to establish some kind of standard. I have no problem with helping out other countries that can't help themselves. But we don't have the blood or the treasure available to us to fix every country's problem, and we shouldn't try. We have our own problems here at home that need attention before we traipse around the world trying to fix everyone else's.
3. Our veterans are an invaluable untapped resource. They deserve to be taken care of, and we should do all we can to learn from them: One of the things that makes my blood boil is how this country treats its veterans. It seems like every time there's a budget crisis in this country, veterans' benefits are among the first thing to go on the chopping block. That's wrong.
Our veterans have fought and sacrificed to make it possible for us to enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted. Many, especially those from previous generations, were promised that if they would but serve their country, they would be taken care of with free medical care for the rest of their lives. That is a travesty. These brave men and women have earned the right to their benefits. They have sacrificed to take care of us. It is our obligation to take care of them.
I think it is incredibly important that we learn what we can from our veterans of past wars. Veterans are those who have stared death in the face and lived. They have seen the end result of the evil men do. Wouldn't it then benefit this current generation to learn from the mistakes of the past? I think today is a great day to sit down with our veterans and ask them to recount their experiences. And this is something that should be done every day. If we fail to take advantage of our veterans before they're gone. If we fail to learn the lessons they have to teach us, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. And that would be to everyone's detriment.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
R.I.P. Herman Cain
It took a little longer than expected, but it should come as no surprise that former GOP front-runner Herman Cain bowed out of the presidential race last weekend. Cain was simply overwhelmed with the mounting allegations of sexual misconduct. And instead of dealing with them head-on, he continued to believe that by simply ignoring the charges, they would go away. That shows a shocking degree of naivete about how the national media and the national political scene works, and is just one reason Cain wasn't fit to occupy the White House. It's also a damning indicator of just how broken our current political system is.
I must admit, I watched with some fascination as Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO, rose from near obscurity to the front of a crowded field of vastly more experienced candidates. And make no mistake. Cain brought a lot to the table. He was as close to a political outsider as we're ever likely to see anymore. He's been active in politics behind the scenes for awhile. But other than a lone Congressional run in his home state of Georgia, he had no big-time political experience. That makes what he managed to accomplish even more remarkable.
Cain had perhaps the best backstory of any of the candidates. He beat stage 4 liver and colon cancer. His "9-9-9" tax plan, which called for a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax, was fatally flawed and hoplessly regressive, unfairly penalizing the poorest Americans. But for awhile, it managed to stimulate a much-needed discussion on the shortcomings of our current tax code.
I have said from the beginning that, while Cain wasn't quite ready for prime time, he would make a great Cabinet secretary for someone someday. I've even touted him as a potential dark horse pick to be vice president. Now, unfortunately, due to the merciless "chew'em up and spit'em out" nature of our political system, that is unlikely to happen. What a shame.
Our current political system is broken. Once, not so long ago, candidates were allowed to have private lives, outside the glare of public scrutiny. Today, thanks to the advent of the 24-hour news channels and the explosion of the Internet, that's no longer so. And our entire country suffers as a result.
I understand that when you declare your candidacy for political office, particularly the presidency, you give up a large part of your status as a private citizen. And some of that increased scrutiny is justified. This is particularly true in Cain's case, since he was largely unknown when he entered the race. Still, I think we've gone too far in our endless quest to get to "know" our candidates.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. I don't care who a candidate is sleeping with, or who he slept with in the past. If he's cheating on his spouse, it's really none of my business. That's a matter best left to be settled between a husband and a wife. It shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.
Likewise, if a candidate experimented with drugs or got a DUI when he was in college, so what? We all do stupid things we wish we hadn't in college. As long as the candidate is not currently addicted to drugs or alcohol, it shouldn't matter. What should matter to voters is who the candidate is NOW, not what he did 20 years ago.
With Cain's exit, we now are left with a field of professional politicians and Washington insiders. That's a shame. Cain was far from perfect. But he was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale political scene. He had vast potential. Unfortunately, our current political system chewed him up and spit him out. That's going to continue to happen, so long as a bloodthirsty, tabloid-crazed public continues to lust after every scrap of information -- relevant or not -- about our politicians. Unless we learn to rein in that instinct and establish some realistic boundaries about what we have a right to know, pretty soon, new candidates will simply decide not to run. And who can blame them? We'll be left with the same flawed candidates and the same stale ideas. We'll be left to hold our nose, pull the lever and cast a vote, not for the best candidate, but for the "lesser of two evils." And our entire country will suffer as a result.
I must admit, I watched with some fascination as Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO, rose from near obscurity to the front of a crowded field of vastly more experienced candidates. And make no mistake. Cain brought a lot to the table. He was as close to a political outsider as we're ever likely to see anymore. He's been active in politics behind the scenes for awhile. But other than a lone Congressional run in his home state of Georgia, he had no big-time political experience. That makes what he managed to accomplish even more remarkable.
Cain had perhaps the best backstory of any of the candidates. He beat stage 4 liver and colon cancer. His "9-9-9" tax plan, which called for a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax, was fatally flawed and hoplessly regressive, unfairly penalizing the poorest Americans. But for awhile, it managed to stimulate a much-needed discussion on the shortcomings of our current tax code.
I have said from the beginning that, while Cain wasn't quite ready for prime time, he would make a great Cabinet secretary for someone someday. I've even touted him as a potential dark horse pick to be vice president. Now, unfortunately, due to the merciless "chew'em up and spit'em out" nature of our political system, that is unlikely to happen. What a shame.
Our current political system is broken. Once, not so long ago, candidates were allowed to have private lives, outside the glare of public scrutiny. Today, thanks to the advent of the 24-hour news channels and the explosion of the Internet, that's no longer so. And our entire country suffers as a result.
I understand that when you declare your candidacy for political office, particularly the presidency, you give up a large part of your status as a private citizen. And some of that increased scrutiny is justified. This is particularly true in Cain's case, since he was largely unknown when he entered the race. Still, I think we've gone too far in our endless quest to get to "know" our candidates.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. I don't care who a candidate is sleeping with, or who he slept with in the past. If he's cheating on his spouse, it's really none of my business. That's a matter best left to be settled between a husband and a wife. It shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.
Likewise, if a candidate experimented with drugs or got a DUI when he was in college, so what? We all do stupid things we wish we hadn't in college. As long as the candidate is not currently addicted to drugs or alcohol, it shouldn't matter. What should matter to voters is who the candidate is NOW, not what he did 20 years ago.
With Cain's exit, we now are left with a field of professional politicians and Washington insiders. That's a shame. Cain was far from perfect. But he was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale political scene. He had vast potential. Unfortunately, our current political system chewed him up and spit him out. That's going to continue to happen, so long as a bloodthirsty, tabloid-crazed public continues to lust after every scrap of information -- relevant or not -- about our politicians. Unless we learn to rein in that instinct and establish some realistic boundaries about what we have a right to know, pretty soon, new candidates will simply decide not to run. And who can blame them? We'll be left with the same flawed candidates and the same stale ideas. We'll be left to hold our nose, pull the lever and cast a vote, not for the best candidate, but for the "lesser of two evils." And our entire country will suffer as a result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)