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

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

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