Nature of State

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Friday, April 29, 2011

The True Cost of Our Long War

We do not bear the cost of war.

We are not encouraged to consider the cost of war, nor do we encourage one another.

When the overinflated picture of normalcy upon which many of us were gazing was attacked, we were so genuinely shocked by the unbelievable nature of terror and death that we gave all of our time to mourning and none to contemplation. Perhaps, had we thought it through, we would have realized that our bombs, if dropped, would only be the first to fall, but certainly not the last or the only ones. Perhaps we would have asked our grandfathers what might happen if we stir up multinational conflict. Perhaps we would have considered the true cost of war, the sacrifices that will eventually be demanded of each of us, and the shores to which this growing fire may very well spread.

But we did not.

We quickly fired back, justifiably angry, but also pretty drunk on prosperity. Things had never been so good, and it seemed as if they could only get better! With less people on welfare and more money in the bank than ever, we were doing quite well. America was strong. Americans were dreaming. But suddenly, under attack, we trembled. We feared. We froze. And while we were frozen, a decision was made. Bombs fell, and we remained mostly frozen. When we could finally move again, we found that there was little to be done other than that which we had always done. We still had our jobs. We still had to go to them. Bombs fell, and we went to work, because there was still work. Bombs are still falling, and there are a few less people here and there, but it’s hard to tell. And that makes it easy to ignore.

So we go about our business, most of us, and occasionally we look a little more nervous than we once did, but we just keep going. The auto makers keep making autos. People keep going on vacation. Drastic measures are, so far, uncalled for. The long lines to give blood, the boys rolling tin foil into balls for collection, the women working their absent husbands’ machinery , and the yellow ribbons 'round the oak trees have not yet been seen. But will it stay that way? Will our incursions not force us again to labor solely for the war effort?

As we consider the way forward, as our burdens grow heavier and we begin to tire, we must weigh the cost of continuing to defend aging notions. The American dream can be realized modestly and moderately, and hopefully, if we don’t melt it down and turn it into a centrifuge, it can go on living just a little longer.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Funding the Future: Which Side Are You On?

Last week, I asked a small consortium of middle school students, with which I discuss a variety of world issues on a weekly basis, to list five current news stories that they believed were worth debating. “The issues that you choose must be debatable. We have to be able to choose sides.” A long list of issues was produced, including presidential approval, the length of the school day, gas prices, and immigration (particularly the DREAM Act). Curious, I asked if anybody was interested in debating the looming education cuts. The response was encouraging, and leads me to my purpose here.

I cannot seem to find one person who thinks that it is a good idea to cut education spending in Dallas (or anywhere else in Texas, for that matter). It has become our new H1N1, a monster threat to our future and the safety of our young ones. Nobody wants it. Nobody would dare ask for it. Nobody would purposefully give it to a child. Yet, unlike the swine flu, nobody has a damn clue how to prevent it. For this reason, I must insist, as my students have done, that there is little room for debate, and when it comes to education funding in Texas and the nation as a whole, I must implore my leaders to leave their party lines in their desk drawers, ignore the aisle across which it is so hard to reach these days, and understand that we finally have a foe against which we can all fight.

Perhaps you’re skeptical of my research, so I will entertain you with a bit of verification. In previous debates, this sampling of students has always split into two groups (for and against a particular argument). Twenty five percent supported teacher pay raises, with a majority voting against them. When asked about lengthening the school day, they were split 50/50. This is a bipartisan group, and yet they all agree that our schools need money to continue functioning and any cuts to current funding levels are, simply put, a really bad idea.

Argue for a cut in government spending if you feel that it is important. Argue for reductions in defense spending, funding of public radio, administrative positions, government subsidization and tax breaks for companies that are turning billions in tax-free profits (ahem…General Electric…ahem). Argue if you must about those things, but understand, dear leaders, that there is no room for pros or cons when we’re talking about the needs of the classroom. Teachers, supplies, and technology are absolute necessities, and we need more of all of them. You gave us a pipedream with No Child Left Behind, and even then, you failed to provide what you had promised. When the bill came, you stiffed us and hid behind an unnecessary war, for which there seemed to be no shortage of extra cash.

Dearest leaders, there is plenty of fat to be trimmed, and many of us would welcome a rational, calculated approach to scaling back spending. But classroom-level budgets are thin enough. Please keep your carving knives out of our public schools.

RW

Friday, March 11, 2011

Congress is a Carnival (believe it or not)

David Paul Kuhn thinks that the Congressional hearings on Islamic extremism in America are a joke, a “circus” that is, as one Democratic member of Congress puts it, “certainly the equivalent of reality TV.” In his editorial, The Circus Investigates Muslim Extremism, Kuhn asserts that Republican and Democratic participants, as well as those citizens providing testimony, approached the hearings with preconceived notions, planned party-line results, and with no intention of reaching any universal consensus.

Labeled as a right-leaning blog, Real Clear Politics bent, without breaking, its mold, and published the piece, which is no compliment to either righties or lefties. Instead, the editorial criticizes both sides, appealing to an audience that is in no mood to entertain soapbox oratories or lazy investigations that do little more than highlight two “radically different views of radicalism.” Kuhn points out the lack of credible authority and seems to doubt that either side worked very hard when compiling evidence. He also criticizes the use of such icons as the picture of the burning World Trade Center towers, which was hanging on the wall throughout the hearings. In addition to this offense, Kuhn offers multiple examples of over-the-top Republican antics, such as Jeff Duncan’s concern that Sharia law poses a threat to the American Constitution.

Helping the reader understand that he intends to criticize both sides equally, Kuhm wastes little time, moving from Duncan’s “crass generalizations” to a mathematical gaffe by the Democrats, who downplay the role of Islamic extremists in terrorist plots in the U.S. Kuhn also points out the disorganization of Democratic arguments by highlighting a failed attempt to draw support from one witness. These and other jabs at the left solidify the fact that the author was reaching out to an audience of mixed affiliations.

It seems that the purpose of Mr. Kuhn’s editorial is to criticize the hearings, their participants, and the lazy, extreme tactics employed by both sides. This is particularly entertaining when one considers that extremism is the one thing that this commission set out to control. The author impresses this writer by calling out the teenage (dare I say “tweenish?”) nature of the proceedings and by challenging any future hearings, with sheer wit and biting criticisms, to create something worthy of Americans’ time, attention, and tax dollars, not just another carnival of rhetoric.

RW

Friday, February 25, 2011

On Gaddafi and the Balking States

In his recent editorial, Give Gaddafi a Real Message, Washington Post writer Eugene Robinson correctly and convincingly states that the United States must do more than condemn the recent actions of Moammar Gaddafi and his henchmen. We must take immediate, tangible action to prevent further injustice and an impending genocide.

Robinson is clearly speaking to a broad audience, as he is an established journalist for one of the nation’s most well-known papers. He prods the US government to take action by restricting military flight over Libya and vowing prosecution of all Libyan leaders guilty of warring against their unarmed citizens. While such suggestions are for those in control of our war machines, the message encourages us to demand these actions of our leaders, and the author obviously expects for his words to become the words of constituents.

Robinson lucked out when compiling evidence to support his plea; it’s all around us. We know that Gaddafi has ordered attacks on unarmed protestors. We know that Gaddafi has vowed to fight “to the very last drop of blood.” We know that Gaddafi is paying foreign mercenaries to wage war against his own citizens and that he is urging supporters to root out opposition in house-to-house campaigns (recall Rwanda and the massacres there). Once in a while, the network news services all provide the same information, and this is one of those times. There isn’t a single honest person in America defending Gaddafi right now, so it shouldn’t be hard to see why Robinson insists that “watching isn’t nearly enough” and “consequences need to be spelled out.”

Right now, international news means Middle East turmoil. Right now, foreign policy means Middle East turmoil. The eyes of the world are upon the godless actions of this disgusting “leader,” and Eugene Robinson successfully argues that the United States still has the power, and the obligation, to set the standard for the rest of the world by taking real action against Gaddafi and those who enable him to continue down his path of ruin. I firmly believe in restraint and careful consideration prior to the mobilization of force, but in the lead up to such moves, there are introductory steps that can be taken to cripple regimes such as Gaddafi’s. Robinson clearly and correctly maps these steps for our people and our leaders to consider, and I agree with him, not only that steps must be taken, but that they must be taken right now.

-RW

Thursday, February 3, 2011

A little commentary on a little commentary...

The year is 2017, and it appears that the once-divided, tea-infused Republican Party was right. “Obamacare” has failed, and it has been replaced by a fresh-faced, albeit nameless, health care bill that is warmly embraced by lawmakers left and right. It is truly popular, receiving support from members of both major political parties, and its champion, a newly elected Commander-in-Chief, has touted it as the solution to the nation’s health care woes for nearly three decades. She (that’s right, she) signs the bill into law, and finally, our people have cast aside the partisan rhetoric that once shackled and debilitated “Obamacare”, and our nation, now united behind a workable solution, steps forward into the light of a new day.

In his futuristic musing, “Health care's federal future, brought to you by the GOP,” Washington Post columnist Matt Miller offers an entertaining, arguably plausible, prediction of the future of state-sponsored health care. He highlights major flaws in the GOP’s unyielding opposition to the current healthcare initiative, namely the failure to provide countermeasures that actually provide coverage for the vast number of Americans who need it. In the end, Miller’s light-hearted jabs at partisan politics conclude with the resolution for which we are all hoping: a true, practical solution that is embraced by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, that provides quality care for all Americans, and that finally lays to rest the unhealthy bickering that amounts to little more than salt on our system’s gaping wounds

-RW

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

For the Sake of the Republic

The citizens of the United States of America must continue to embrace electronic methods as a means to gather, collaborate, and plan. Those who understand these methods must educate those who do not, and we must use these tools, wisely and frequently, to accelerate progress and equality. The Internet and the seemingly unstoppable sharing and dissemination of information are invaluable assets to the well-being of our citizens. However, the adoption of an electronic direct democracy would be a step in the wrong direction and an invitation to disaster.

Even with the surge in voter turnout and political interest that was sparked by the futuristic nature of the 2008 presidential election (including the unprecedented amount of online citizen action), I believe that it is too early to profess faith in the staying power of this renewed interest in our government’s actions. Therefore, it is too early to claim that the primary methods by which President Obama’s campaign successfully educated and mobilized voters (electronic methods) are the solution to an unaware, uninvolved, and uneducated populace. James Crabtree, in “Civic hacking: a new agenda for e-democracy,” says it all boils down to one "basic problem: if someone isn’t interested in politics, and they don’t see the point in taking part, doing it online is not going to help.” While we did see an inspiring rise in voter interest and turnout in 2008, it was primarily an interest in the election for the Presidency, and I think we can all agree that it will take an act of God for anyone to get anywhere near as excited about the race for Secretary of Agriculture (much less the many facets of a proposition to allot taxpayer money for a variety of new construction projects).

What I fear most about putting our democracy (flawed as our representation may be) directly in the hands of those citizens who are willing and able to get to a computer and cast a vote is the immense power and certain involvement of those individuals and entities who will make it their business to motivate and influence these same voters. At a time when our focus lies everywhere but Washington, when the average citizen is trying to find work, keep work, keep the kids in good schools, keep the wife happy, and keep the car running, there is little time to devote to staying abreast of every issue on the ballot. This means that we simply do not have the time to make the informed decisions necessary to participate in a successful direct democracy. Way back in 2006, while discussing the implementation of such a system, Professor Nat Irvin, of the Babcock School of Management at Wake Forest University, suggested that “the challenge that we face with… too many of these initiatives… is that basically people just don't know what they are voting for.” That quote is from a radio broadcast, which proves difficult to edit, and I encourage you to listen to the whole discussion here. Professor Irvin goes on to summarize what I (and other opponents of an electronic direct democracy) fear most: “And what happens is the people that have the most money will sway public opinion, and I think that's one of those downsides of having a direct democracy.”

Government is big, almost unimaginably so. The decisions being made daily in Washington, and in state capitals across the nation, simply do not cross the mind of the average working American. As much as we need to continue changing the way business is done in Washington, it would be disastrous to begin doing all of the business ourselves. Instead, we must simplify the processes of government, strengthen communities by helping them help themselves, and continue to carefully choose leaders who will represent us honestly, accurately, and efficiently.

-RW