Presidential debates as job interview

The so-called 'foreign policy debate' with Gov. Romney and President Obama was the last of 3 Presidential and 1 Vice-Presidential debates staged for this election cycle.  Presidents and Governors are Executive level positions, spoken with the capital E for government as a branch of government, and often with a lower case E for positions that are heads of companies, institutions and charities.  What Presidents are, by and large, are the ones that need to execute on policy and run day-to-day affairs of whatever organization they are in charge of.  Being an executive is not a mandatory position, not a position one is coerced into doing but a position one must volunteer for through application for it.  For the Executive position of the United States this means going through a long cycle of party primaries and contests, lots of travel, working to form up policy positions, putting forward one's vision of how the policy of this Nation should change (or not change) for it to be successful, and then, if one is skilled and lucky enough, to then interview for the position via 'debates' with one's final opponent to see who gets the job.  Each citizen that is eligible to vote can cast a ballot (and I urge the eligible to do so) to help decide at their district and State level which candidate is to be backed.  As a representative democratic system in service to a republican form of government, this is an honor and a sacred duty to our fellow citizens as they ask it of us by this form of government.

With the final debate now passed I can only offer a few insights into it, but they are critical ones.

First off is that foreign policy is the most difficult for any challenger to accomplish unless they have held a Governorship for a State that has extensive foreign business contacts.  An incumbent President gets a head-start on this, and this should be the time to demonstrate competence, capacity and a clear foreign policy vision for the future path of our Nation amongst our brother Nations.

In theme and tenor, then, President Obama must offer a vision to show that after 4 years he understands what foreign policy is, why it works the way it does, and state quite explicitly what that vision is for the next 4 years.   The past 4 years should offer a plethora of examples of this on low (at the detailed levels) and on high (in our affairs with other Nations), and this area should be the strong point of any President seeking re-election.  Unfortunately President Obama came out to score points against his opponent, belittle his opponent, mock his opponent and then offer no clear and decisive examples of how the course of the Nation is better for having him in charge.  Indeed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to end hostilities in Iraq is a transition agreement to slowly withdraw Coalition forces while letting Iraqi Forces stand up.  It is a regularized turn-over and weaknesses in structure in the new Iraqi Forces can be found and examined, solutions proposed and such an agreement put on hold to allow structural weaknesses in the Iraqi government to be addressed.  After WWII this took nearly a decade in Japan, a bit shorter in Germany and in both instances the withdrawal was not a set date or year, but a set of conditions to be met for the capacity and trustworthiness of the new government to actually do its job with bunches of neophytes doing it.  Similarly, in Afghanistan, a time-table is not necessary, but an end goal of a capable Afghani set of forces that are accountable for their actions, have internal safeguards against corruption, and a means to address new problems as they arise are paramount to leaving a relatively stable government in a very rough neighborhood of Rock 3 from the star Sol.  In both cases President Obama is looking to score points (to get out of Iraq and set a time-table for Afghanistan that is rigid) and misses the concept of having an end set of accountable structures in place.  Indeed President Obama ran on getting a SOFA with Iraq and failed, utterly, to do so, which meant that any structural problems Iraqis would meet up with now must be handled on their own without any experienced outside resources to call upon.  In Afghanistan the rigid time-table that brooks no accommodation to problems, that allows for no shifting of schedule to meet unexpected weaknesses or unforeseen changes on the ground means that it is a hard, knife edge cut-off. 

Is that preferable to having forces in Germany, South Korea and other places for decades?  Perhaps, yes, but that case has not been made.  Nor has the case been made as to why continued presence in those Nations is actually to the interest of the US today.  A foreign policy would give hard and fast grounding to just how long the US can and should stay in a Nation post-war, and what the means and methodology for leaving actually are in broad overview.  Why leave hastily from Iraq after ticking off the locals and stay in Germany or South Korea?  What is the policy involved?  Why is it different in each locale?  And since the Korean war hasn't actually ended by treaty, just why is it that decades of presence without a final conclusion is acceptable?  President Barack Obama is incapable of stating his foreign policy goals for post-war systems of turn-over to local control of governments, and so you will never know why he does what he does and does not do what he does not do.

Gov. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has less he has to put forward but all that he must put forward is in the policy arena.  For a challenger this is the time to look confident, capable, relatively fluent with the course of external events, and to tie those events together and how he would approach them into a foreign policy.  In these areas it is best when you have a general foreign policy overview that can be clearly stated and advanced.  Owing to his business experience, Gov. Mitt Romney ties foreign policy back to economics, trade and National capacity to advance prosperity so that we can be the ones who decide when and how to act, not merely re-act to events.  Whilst all Nations are equal, we understand that they differ based on size, economy and moral outlook, so that even the mightiest of Nations can be made humble before a good example and that those seeking to tear down Nations will fear a commitment to liberty and freedom backed by the local population.  By constantly and consistently tying foreign policy strongest to the economic realm, Gov. Romney brought understanding to his outlooks on foreign policy to drive out the practical implementation of it in the way of plans.  Plans, therefore, follow policy and are in service to it, not the other way around, and this is a key understanding of the role of an executive (writ large and small), which is to set out policy, formulate plans and implement said plans within the limitations of power and what can be accomplished by policy.

Beyond that a challenger must offer up continuity with the current President, that the boat will not be turned over, that changes will occur over months or years, and that good works are applauded even when they must be adjusted to fit new conditions on the ground.  Differences can be offered in the way forward, but they are built-upon what is inherited, and wholesale changes cannot happen quickly if at all with foreign policy.  In short the job of the challenger is to make a foreign policy bridge continuity with the current President and yet offer enough differences in policy so that a changed path can be seen.  During the Cold War this was mostly absent as the bi-polar world view set in and things that the US would not have stood for pre-war (coddling tyrants and dictators who were anti-Soviet if not pro-freedom) and the expediency of keeping the continuity going was done in the light of global nuclear war if one wrong decision was made.  By 1980, however, the stark differences between a US in decline and a USSR going into multiple overseas excursions could be seen and the foreign policy of President Carter could be starkly contrasted to the benefit of a challenger who seemed to have a more coherent world-view.  In this first area of policy presentation and Executive readiness, Gov. Romney needed to only state the understanding of what has gone on during President Obama's term, that some changes will be made but not quickly and always done to a different viewpoint of economic liberty in search of increased security to other Nations and our own.  An explicit foreign policy would be nice, yes, but not required at this point in time.

Secondly in the foreign policy area is tenor and style, especially when substance lacks, but tenor and style cannot be divorced from history nor past events.  A smiling, laughing Joe Biden during discussion of what a nuclear armed Iran would mean was jarring, disconcerting and actually quite horrible to behold as this individual could become President with one heart-attack or fall down a flight of stairs or slipping in the bathtub by President Obama.  There is a solemnity to these topics that are the course of the Nation in the world that must be taken seriously, because not to do so could wind up with global consequences of unseen proportion with just one misstep.  Again the sitting Executive should have this area hands-down: being Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Armies and the Navies should give this realm of tenor and style a weight far different than other realms of discussion for the President's job.

Here President Obama did a disservice to himself by trying to tear down his opponent while not properly putting his service into context.  When criticizing Gov. Romney that we don't need a Navy the size of what it was in pre-WWI times, that we have better technology and that we no longer used horses and bayonets, the President in attempting to demean his opponent actually demonstrated that he is lacking a grasp of importance of the US Navy to our own shipping overseas.  Oversight by satellites and drones is not the same as having a warship on the spot to deal with shipping problems fostered by modern Pirates which are just terrorists taken to sea.  The only way to get a sniper to take care of a hostage situation at sea is to have a Navy that is widely deployed and can offer timely assets appropriate to the threat involved.  That means that not only nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, but surface combatants and the capacity to field remotely operated or unmanned assets to be coordinated for local sea-going operations is required.  Indeed it is mandatory if a Nation is to have independent trade capacity and not depend upon other Nations for seagoing safety and support. 

Even worse, of course, is that the military still uses horses (particularly in Afghanistan where gasoline powered vehicles must be re-supplied with gasoline) and not only does it still use bayonets but also issues knives as a supplement.  The soldier has a three level threat system that has a specific order: the rifle for long range threats, the pistol for that stuff under 50 yards, and the knife or bayonet affixed to the rifle as form of pole-arm, for that stuff that is up-close and personal.  I would dare say we have MORE knives and bayonets amongst all the services issued to our troops than we did pre-WWI.  By trying to belittle and demean a mere civil opponent, the President demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of just how the soldier on the ground thinks and that there is no such thing as having too many knives or a bayonet mounted to the appropriate platform for it.  If we stress the knife more than the bayonet, it is due to those very technical circumstances the President brought up, not due to the lack of our soldiers needing a close-in weapon.  In attempting to 'score points' on an opponent, President Obama began removing them from his own column, instead.

Does the US Navy need more surface combatants, not just aircraft carrier battle groups and nuclear submarines?  One candidate does and the other does not, looking to replace physical capacity with remote surveillance and distant ships.  If China, say, decided to go after Taiwan and Hugo Chavez thought that seizure of Panama might help his tyrannical ends, then the US would be caught up in two Naval conflicts both requiring ships and support vessels, the full panoply of overhead assets and then be left wondering just who is guarding the Somali coast and the Straights of Hormuz.  If the Panama Canal becomes a US no-go zone and the South China Sea becomes the staging ground for an invasion outwards by China, the US is suddenly faced by having to see most of its shipping go through the Suez and Gibraltar.  Anything that put those at risk would be a crippling blow to the US and to the global economy if the US requirement for free passage cannot be asserted by military power during conflicts in which our foes were hitting at vital trade lines.

Today the modern nuclear ship force cannot be made into a 'Ghost Fleet' as the diesel ships had done to them.  When the nuclear reactor of these vessels is no longer enough to operate it and must be removed, then the entire ship is broken up to get at the reactor itself.  A few of these vessels that are from the first generation of vessels are nearing that point in time, and the end of their sustainment life is coming.  While replacements are being constructed (and some are in service) the idea that nuclear only fleet can do the task of safeguarding US commerce overseas is misguided and misapplied.  While we can make more mighty vessels (like the proposed and shelved DDX platform) the capacity to fine-tune response with firepower that is small, exacting and precise requires a human system at sea.  Be it for stop and search of cargo vessels for war materiel contraband or using a sniper to remove a few terrorists, these things cannot be done well (and sometimes not at all) by large vessels but only by small ones.  Littoral, near coastal, coastal and deep marine requirements all have their own necessities so that the modern US Navy is still covering areas from Brown Water to Blue Water, although less with gunboats and more with delivery systems for both arms and personnel, as well as lethal missiles, so that the role remains the same, the actual spatial area has remained the same or increased, and human capacity to deal with individual situations has to meet the new inputs from all these systems.  Technology has changed, yes, but the nature of the threat is so widely distributed that it cannot be dealt with by our current force mix.  This does not mean more of bigger and badder, but, like with GPS equipped munitions, often smaller, more accurate and less lethal delivered with precision.  It is very possible that a modern version of the WWII Jeep Carrier, that is a small aircraft carrier, light carrier or escort carrier, might become a platform for UAV/UCAVs or for ROVs or for VTOL systems all mixed together on one vessel.  Smaller and more versatile to cover a larger role and relieve stress off the larger battle groups means they can serve as a massive response to situations gone out of control, with the smaller forces serving to deal with localized threats from Pirates and threats that a large battle group just isn't made for.

That is the sort of analysis a Commander in Chief and Head of State must perform so as to clearly state just what the role, size and needs of our military are and should be in the future, not passing off what we have as 'good enough' just because it is relatively modern.  The people doing the threatening are using speed boats, semi-submersibles, cheap drones, and boarding ships with AK-47s, which is an entirely different threat matrix than dealing with Russia or China, say.  Yet the US Navy is required to deal with ALL OF IT.  Does a smaller navy relying on heavier vessels sound 'modern' at all in this context?  If so, then President Obama needs to make the case for that, which he did not do.

The Third major area, and the one that consumed the most time, was economics, but this concentrated more on domestic situations than our foreign trade.  Trade amongst Nations and how our Nation participates in such trade is a thing that the President gets much oversight and needs to foster agreement in the Senate to put trade agreements forward.  In this realm Gov. Romney performed well, as he put forward a clear vision of trade between the US and S. American Nations that would seek to build up their economic capacity and liberalize their trade, which would bolster them and the US, both.  Trade is something that can be 'win-win' for both sides when it is mutual and beneficial to both to have such trade.  This has been stated clearly as far back as 1776 by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, and continues to be true to this very day.  Gov. Romney later tied this to the expansion of small business in the US to participate vigorously in foreign trade and to set an example by doing so.  One of the greatest differences between President Obama and Gov. Romney is in this realm and President Obama was unprepared to offer up ideas on expanding trade in S. America at all, and only on an extremely limited basis in Asia, while Gov. Romney put forward that better trade relations lessen tensions between Nations and requires less military worries than poor or lacking trade relations.  On the flip side trade is to be between Nations that respect the sovereignty of other Nations and do not export Piracy in the form of terrorism to advance National goals by terrorizing the innocent.

In the non-military part of dealing with Iran, for example, Gov. Romney deployed something close to the unused but thoroughly Constitutional and tested framework of laws regarding Piracy in the US Code which I have handled multiple times, but is most clearly seen by me in this post.  A President gets wide latitude in dealing with Piracy as it is a threat not just to the US but to the system of Nation States, and those performing it are a threat to all mankind.  Gov. Romney put forward that more than just sanctions, and yet far less than war, can be done to the Iranian government by going after those that trade with them, and bringing those companies to heel via vigorous prosecution of them.  This requires that a President is fluent in the treaties the US has with various flag Nations and their vessels, and then be able to cite where their activities are contrary to their treaty agreements in regards to safeguarding trade and not trading with rogue Nations.  By dovetailing both trade and accountability for trade, Gov. Romney put forward a framework far deeper than anything President Obama has ever stated in this realm.  It is well and good of talking about treaties, but they are contracts between Nations and other Nations must be held accountable to what they have agreed to in this process.  In this area of foreign policy, the one that ties Nations together most intimately via trade, the President must be not only fluent but have a coherent outlook on it.  By having no response in general, and by not being able to deploy anything constructive to his foreign policy, President Obama lost not just stylistically (by trying to import that Gov. Romney is a warmonger) but also in substance by not even understanding the scope and depth of this Presidential suite of powers.

Now to the bits and pieces.

One of the stunning bits I learned from President Obama was just how unready he was for the Presidency.  I'm using the CNN transcript for this:

OBAMA: Governor - here - here's - here's one thing...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: Let him answer...

OBAMA: You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. You just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East.

Now I thought that this was something that ANYONE who ran for President would know right up-front, at the start and not have to do OJT for it.  This is something embedded in the American culture: the US President is clear, precise and tells you just what he expects so as not to befuddle our allies and embolden our enemies.  No one, and I do mean no one, needs to learn this as it as a thoroughly ingrained expectation of the office and has been since President Washington who set the standard for it.

The nation building trope from President Obama is a tired talking point:

But what I think the American people recognize is after a decade of war it's time to do some nation building here at home. And what we can now do is free up some resources, to, for example, put Americans back to work, especially our veterans, rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our schools, making sure that, you know, our veterans are getting the care that they need when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, making sure that the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place.

We, as a Nation, do nation building abroad with Nations that have lost at war with us where the civil population is seen as innocent actors to a malignant government.  Are we war torn at home?  And even if we are, the role of the government is to stand aside and let the American People rebuild the Nation to our desires, not to the ones set out by our government.  Government is to follow the people, not lead the people in this.  Plus aren't the roads and bridges supposed to be FIXED by now due to the awesome power of the STIMULUS?  If not, why aren't they?  And who is being prosecuted for screwing this up so badly?

If the President wishes for the VA to act better, he could get on their case about processing claims in a timely fashion and not allow the backlogs to grow and the time to get something done to expand.

The only way that we can 'free up some resources' is by having government not taking them from the people to run the wars, and that happens once the war funding ends.  The money taken to run the wars is not money normally due to the federal government, and acting as if it IS then becomes an desire to keep spending levels at war time levels but without war time needs.  If America needs to be rebuilt, then it best happens at the local level which is the hardest pressed by war funding.  If the President wishes for things to get better, all he needs to do is stop the spending and not ask for higher taxes to keep spending at war time levels.

A scary-smart thing from Gov. Romney is his knowledge of Pakistan, which is something that President Obama (like South/Latin America) couldn't address properly:

ROMNEY: No, it's not time to divorce a nation on Earth that has 100 nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point, a nation that has serious threats from terrorist groups within its nation, as I indicated before, the Taliban, Haqqani Network.

It's a nation that's not like - like others and it does not have a civilian leadership that is calling the shots there. You have the ISI, their intelligence organization, is probably the most powerful of the - of three branches there. Then you have the military and then you have the civilian government.

This is a nation, which, if it falls apart, if it - if it becomes a failed state, there are nuclear weapons there and you've got - you've got terrorists there who could grab their - their hands onto those nuclear weapons.

ROMNEY: This is - this is an important part of the world for us. Pakistan is - is technically an ally, and they're not acting very much like an ally right now. But we have some work to do. And I - I don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with Pakistan is strained. We - we had to go into Pakistan. We had to go in there to get Osama bin Laden. That was the right thing to do. And - and that upset them, but obviously there was a great deal of anger even before that. But we're going to have to work with the - with the people in Pakistan to try and help them move to a more responsible course than the one that they're on. And it's important for them. It's important for the nuclear weapons.

It's important for the success of Afghanistan. Because inside Pakistan, you have a - a large group of Pashtun that are - that are Taliban. They're going to come rushing back in to Afghanistan when we go. And that's one of the reasons the Afghan Security Forces have so much work to do to be able to fight against that. But it's important for us to recognize that we can't just walk away from Pakistan. But we do need to make sure that as we - as we send support for them, that this is tied to them making progress on - on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society.

If there was a Leftist critique of Afghanistan post-USSR, it was that the US just cut and run from it, to leave the Islamists to fight for control of the place.  Remember that the Taliban were not all that nice towards women, not allowing them to go to school and even executing those who disagreed with the regime publicly in a soccer stadium.  That criticism of not staying behind to help get a better result in Afghanistan was harped upon by the Left, until just after 9/11, where it became the 'vital war' and is now just seen as a place to run away from and Pakistan with it.  Thus repeating the same mistake with Afghanistan they decried, but with a nuclear armed State.

Even though there was material that Gov. Romney 'left on the table' that he could have attacked President Obama with, there was plenty of material he also left on the table that President Obama couldn't address in trade, foreign relations, and military size and scope.  Not every attack needs to be answered in a foreign policy forum, and one can choose to leave attack points aside while putting out statements for which an opponent has no answer.

To try and pick a 'winner' on 'points' for this realm of information is, perhaps, misguided: it isn't about points but continuity of the Nation overseas and putting a clearly defined set of goals in place that people can understand.

Neither candidate did that well, to be sure, but a President should be able to do it fluently, easily and even disdain from attacking his opponent in the one area where continuity is paramount no matter how deep the disagreements.  President Obama would have been well served by having the cool, aloof Obama show up tonight, the one who kept to himself and just played it straight without attacking Gov. Romney.

In this series of debates it is clear that one candidate has a job, but doesn't really know how to interview for it a second time, while the other has interviewed for a few such positions in the past and understands what the role of an executive is.  

That set of characteristics of what makes an executive on small and on large was demonstrated during this 'debate'.  Experience does matter and what you have to learn also matters, as well, and the question of who is better prepared to learn is left up to the individual to decide.  Because you are the one who receives the interview material and must make the hiring decision.  Even if you are outvoted, you must make the best choice of who is to be an executive that will govern in the way you think is more clearly suited to not just yourself but to the Nation as a whole.

Duty not ideology

Jennifer Rubin has five reasons why the 'Gates-Gate' matters, but I find myself having problems with that list as it is missing a lead item.  Indeed, all the talk about Henry Louis Gates Jr. did or did not do comes with a problem when President Obama opined upon it.  This is a point that transcends race in America, one that goes beyond petty ideology.  This is a point about the Presidency and all individuals who serve in that capacity, and it has a catch phrase that is one that has been used for decades and should be well understood.

The President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Nation.

He gets that by the powers to execute the Laws of the Land, thus is the Executive on law enforcement.

His duties are delimited by the US Constitution to Federal and National venues.

Yet, over decades, how a President does his job has become an important factor in the tone and tenor of law enforcement across the Nation.  Most Presidents of the post-WWII era have been bogged down by so many laws, rules and regulations to enforce that they cannot enforce them all.  Congress has been unwilling to pay up for proper enforcement of all such things it passes and the subsidiary regulations that are put in place upon the Nation.  Indeed all such regulations based on bureaucratic rules stemming from the laws passed by Acts of Congress to be enforced by the President are so numerous, so wide-spread, so deep that you are probably already breaking Federal law on a daily basis, as Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy points out (H/t: Instapundit).  In 1998 the Federal government had seen 2/3 of all regulations come into being since 1970 as seen by the pages of the Code of Federal Regulation.  As government has not stopped passing Acts of Congress to add to this body, the number of regulations continues to swell as the Federal government reaches out with such to encompass more of your daily life.

Thus President Obama, the Chief Executive on such enforcement, is put into a position of leading the tone and tenor of what he can't enforce and what he can't do because Congress will not and can not fund proper enforcement of all the 'good ideas' it has passed into being via legislation.  Indeed, if any President properly made a budget to address the needs of all the 'good ideas' passed by Congress, we would have a staggering budget today,that would eat up much of the National wealth.  As Presidents have this oversight of the National Laws and is the individual who has oversight of the enforcement of those laws, what he says and does in that realm under any auspices is an indication of just what sort of law enforcement we can expect from the Nation.

If we decry the abuses of President Nixon in utilizing the CIA to thwart the FBI in investigations and the meddling in those powers to political ends, then that exact, same standard must be applied to all subsequent Presidents.  Especially when they speak out about law enforcement involving a supporter and contributor to his political rise as all law enforcement must see all citizens as equal before the law.

The Duty, then, of a President is to ensure that respect for the law and all of its Officers is upheld across the Nation.  While he gains no power over local venues outside federal regulation, and that is a huge power in the last 40 years, it then becomes incumbent upon the President to ensure that the basic necessities of respect for the law is upheld.  That means not speaking out of turn, letting individuals do their job and letting the process of law enforcement proceed without comment or meddling from its highest office in the land.

That is part of the job of the President and not understanding that job and crossing its bounds to comment or otherwise opine on the local process of the law is neglect of that job by not understanding the Duty that comes with it.  A President only gets a few special cases via the Constitution with respect to himself and his office.  As those Powers that go with the job of President are at the same level as those in the other two branches of the Federal government, any President must take especial care not to abuse nor diminish those powers entrusted to the holder of that office.  It has taken decades to slowly regain public respect for the FBI due to the problems associated with a temporary office holder.  Going down deeper into the structure of law enforcement outside of the jurisdiction of the federal to speak of another level outside of the President's control is not part of the job of President and the respect of other Executive branches in the States must be upheld for the good of the Union.  Thus his duty is to respect the other Executive Branches in the States who have sole say over State laws and needs.

In running for the job of President, Barack Obama has a slate of powers, responsibilities and duties that he temporarily wields for the good of the Nation and those must be respected so that they may be passed on to future office holders.

Because that is an office for all Americans to look to without respect to age, gender, race or sexual outlook.

Silence is Golden when one does not have the facts at their fingertips.

Duty requires such Silence when it effects other Executive branches trying to do their job.

Uniform treatment under the law is a requirement for all of those executing the law at all levels.

It is a minor incident, of course, but it reveals much about President and his ability, or lack of same, to understand just what it is he has taken on in this job.  While his power does not reach down that far, his visibility does.  He wanted that job with that visibility and now has the duties that comes with it for equal enforcement of the law for all citizens... and no special exemptions for political backers. 

Something the Left would be aghast about if this were someone they didn't like in office, but then ethical outlook from the Left is not something anyone expects these days as partisanship now comes first, last and at all points in between.  That leads to no good place at all, when we become a Nation of Men not a Nation of Laws.

The Responsibilities of those running for President

The following is a cross-posting from The Jacksonian Party.

The following is a personal outlook paper of The Jacksonian Party.

Every four years America gets a look at the political class' aspirants for the office of President of the United States. This office has a heavy load to it for one individual, and has far and wide ranging powers in foreign affairs, military deployments, choosing who will be giving oversight to the federal government and nominating Judges to the federal courts. There is also the power to pardon and the more general 'head of state' concept for all things external to the Nation. These powers are vast, but closely delimited and stringently scoped so as to give the office checks and balances with the other branches of the federal system (Legislative and Judicial), plus requiring some ability to work with the States and address subjects to the People about how government is being run.

Thus, every four years these are not the things that are talked about!

While certain candidates will talk about one thing or another off of the list, very few will tackle the entire concept of the Executive branch in-full. Mostly this is due either to inexperience (even for incumbents there is much that is never learned about the Presidency) or to being familiar with a more limited scope of responsibilities and powers. Those coming from the Legislative branch have some belief they actually know what the Executive power actually *is* but only see it from their legislative perspective, often in the negative and do not realize that there is very little positive on the legislative side for the Executive.

Presidents can, for example, send a budget for the Federal Government to Congress. Congress then, using its authority to start all appropriations in the House, tosses that document to the side and makes up its own budget. That is an over-simplification, of course, and many budgetary items get shifted directly over, but Congress feels impelled to micro-manage by adding staff, items, budget and so on to areas of the government and often removing Executive items. That is part of the job of Congress, but that micro-management outlook means that they are stepping into the Executive area and trying to have a direct hand on the course of government instead of *its* negative duty to stop the Executive from abusing its control. Together these form a shiftless bureaucracy that then plays Executive against Legislative to meet bureaucratic needs set by that bureaucracy, and not by the political will of the Nation via the Executive and Legislative branches.

So, whenever you hear a Presidential candidate put forth that they will 'trim or cut back' government, realize that they have no ability to do so beyond very, very limited terms. That size is set by Congress and the Executive has the job of carrying out the functions of what government is to do and does so within the confines set by the Legislative branch. And as Congress has seen fit to manage all the way down to the individual program level, the actual ability of a President to change outlook within government is encroached upon by the Legislative branch. That is a 'soft' usurpation of power by Congress believing that it can manage government at the finest detail level, while it has no actual capability to do so as management is on the Executive side. By trying to add in more and more organizations for 'oversight', Congress is basically saying: ignore the Executive, do as we say, report to us.

It is in that tension between Executive and Legislative branches that increases 'oversight' but decreases accountability of government to the Executive to report to the American People. Congress does, yeah and verily, point to its role in mandating, funding and obligating the government, but to then try and manage such things via additional organizations with less Executive control and accountability, the Federal structure, internally, is weakened.

The result of that weakening is plain: runaway expenses, programs that cannot be killed, heightening of inter-agency and even intra-agency fighting and turf wars. By creating a Director of National Intelligence, the various parts of existing 'turf' that were threatened then responded by increased intransigence, less cooperation and a feeling that their expertise was being questioned. Well, it was, and for good reason, but the standing up of a wholly separate organization for 'oversight' added a new layer in bureaucracy, added overhead, reduced efficiency, decreased timeliness of information and, generally, made the problem worse.

To get more efficient cross-specialty Intelligence work done, a framework that crosses all of the Intel Community needed to be established that was: organic, cooperative, and shared resources and removed 'turf'. That did not happen, and so the already watered down National Intelligence Estimate now gets further dilution by the DNI. Dots not only don't get connected, they are now further away from each other by the separation of the 'oversight' provided by DNI: to this day there is no organic IC solution that crosses civilian and military needs together into a common IC framework. Oversight has increased, accountability has decreased and what little knowledge there is gets further separated by the higher level of bureaucracy involved.

The Executive power over the Civil Service is limited, with the laws and regulations set up to support the employees over doing a good job. Even at places like the CIA, where your pay grade could vary greatly depending on performance, the actual utility of that didn't allow flexibility in outlook to enter into the place. With mid-1980's predictions the USSR and Soviet Bloc would be around at least until past 2010 and probably past 2030, the actual collapse of it was a stunning slap on the face to the entire IC. No better has been the Dept. of Agriculture in supporting the concept of 'family farms' with payments mandated by Congress going to folks who farm so very little or none at all, that the utility of the Department is called into question.

If you can't support citizen farming could you at least stop supporting Big Agribusiness? Well, not if Congress has a say in that, which it does. Problems in the IRS and FBI with automation, and the inability of either to adapt readily to the modern world, has led to antiquated systems or, even worse, multiple non-integrated systems that house different data sets being unavailable to one person at one place at one time. That is the IC problem, written on the domestic side. And as the system is not set up to change, and is defended by partisans for their 'turf' and budget, the ability *to* change decreases. Firing is a help, but not a remedy so long as the office structures exist across government.

The thing the Executive does have is, in its own way, extremely powerful: mandating work rules, grading systems for work and, at the highest end, the ability to fire the civilian hired interface between Agencies and the rest of government. That last part is a key understanding of the power of the President, beyond just appointing cabinet level officers, judges and such. The hired Senior Service comes on with *contracts*, typically for a base year and up to four option years. A federal government power is the ability to do something with a contract called T4C: Terminate for Convenience of the government.

T4C is the instant firing power the President has over the Senior Executive (or Intelligence) Service. Those individuals tend to be long-term ones, eve with the 1 + 4 arrangement, as they come out of the Civil Service or are brought in from other parts of government or the private sector. In many Agencies the SES/SIS goes down to the Directorate level of government, which is usually a major sub-component of the Agency. The head of a Personnel Directorate would be SES/SIS, and would have senior Civil Service employees as Department heads under the Directorate. In some few Agencies that Department level is becoming an SES/SIS one, which means the direct power of the President reaches very, very far into the government. To express displeasure with an Agency that purposefully will not supply information or offer its obedience to the President, the folks heading up Directorates and on upwards can all be *fired*. This has so rarely been exercised it has almost been forgotten, but the laws of the 1970's make that clear. Such individuals serve at the convenience of the President to help run the Civil Service.

Any President who was *serious* about dissolving an Agency, could tell the SES for it to start the plans to scope it out, what can be dropped completely and what few parts need to go to a different part of government. If the Civil Service will not carry out this task, the President can weight it to be a primary one for all ratings - don't do the work, and your rating drops. Do that for a couple of years and the wheels could be started to actually try and get rid of a civil service employee... don't bet on that, though. Any member of the SES who can't carry out such directives can also be fired via a T4C. In short, no matter what Congress *does*, this is an exercise of Executive Power by the Executive saying: this part of government is useless to the Nation and does not need to exist in the federal government. Getting any work done in such an environment would be difficult, at best, and the more intransigent the civil service gets, the worse in looks. Congress can step in to say *why* it thinks an Agency is needed, mandate it and fund it. The Executive can flip that around and tell such Agencies to demonstrate how little they do for the American People as compared to State or Private concerns, and to be put on life support while the President asks for a plan to dissolve the thing.

I don't hear much about that from candidates on the trail, as they are not *used* to having such power. Very few individuals *are* used to that, and most of those were the business tycoons of the 19th century. Such work can and should spark National debate on the utility and function of such things, beyond the payment transfers that go on... or maybe *because* of such transfers. It is a valid stance for a Presidential candidate to say: 'This boat needs rocking and I intend to rock the excess overboard.'

That is just one of the Head of Government powers the President gets, and it is a tool to enact policy by the elected President upon the government of the People. Congress gets its say for funding and support, but basic needs and oversight is the Executive purview, and calling waste and suspect parts of government into question for dissolving them is a major duty of the President... not that you will ever hear that on the campaign trail, either.

As Head of State, beyond appointing Ambassadors and having the foreign policy of the Nation, outside of Treaty approval and regularization, the President gets a sole power which is another of the negative powers of the Office: revoke a Treaty.

The US is part of the UN... by Treaty.
The US is part of NAFTA... by Treaty.
The US has troops deployed in Germany... by Treaty.

Basically, all of how regular functions of the US with foreign Nations is given by Treaty and then supported by enacting legislation. Remove the Treaty, the legislation goes with it. Presidents can and have removed Treaties from their support, most recently the ABM Treaty, which was seen as a detriment to National Defense, but slews of Treaties with Nations that attacked their own people, went totalitarian or started in on open warfare with its neighbors, have also seen this. Any time you hear anything about problems with foreign Nations with regard to trade, illegal immigration, and terrorism spread to the US, the concept of revoking Treaties is one to express the displeasure of the Executive and change the course of the Nation.

Even if immediately impeached (and this is a purely Executive power properly used) the revocation of the Treaty would still *stand*. To get it back would take a willing President with a Senate able to sign-off on the new agreement, which might take *years* to get back as it is starting from *scratch*. A quick-and-easy 'lets just re-instate it' might work... but with so many treaties having problems to them, particularly trade and immigration, the ability to do that may be limited. It is not the easiest of things to revoke a Treaty that has been in place for decades but once done the change in course is nearly impossible to stop. The power of a Treaty is to add a regular function between Nations and to regularize it on a set framework. Remove that and the benefit to both Nations also goes with it. Often that is seen as no loss and of some gain, particularly if things are not working out so well with a Treaty.

Presidents must look at Treaties and their impact on the Nation and decide the utility of such things. Any Treaty that is abrogated by the other side, or that harmfully affects the Nation with little benefit, or NO benefit, needs to be ended. That is a signature to do so and requires no help from the Senate. Both must agree to get a Treaty in place, but that is not required on the ending side of things as that is a regular power of a Head of State. This is a Law of Nations view and President Washington used just that in The Proclamation of Neutrality, to forbid US Citizens from doing *anything* to contravene his foreign policy. Under force of law. And when it pertains to other Nations at war (even with each other without US involvement) the President has the power to tell the Nation to have NOTHING to do with such things.

This Law of Nations view pre-dates the US Constitution and was incorporated into how England worked not only at the National level but the internal legal level, as well. The United States would form a federal republic which is covered under Law of Nations in Book I, paragraph 10:

§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Such were formerly the cities of Greece; such are at present the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, (13) and such the members of the Helvetic body.

Yes, there were other republics and federal republics before the US and beyond confederation is a strong federation of delegating duties to the federal republic by the States. It is interesting that the concepts from the Declaration of Independence are put forth in Law of Nations, especially not changing the constitution of a nation without great cause and with great caution (paras 32-36). In the US we instantiate the sovereign, or individual leading the Nation, to be the President, although the power division between the President and the Legislature is somewhat differently defined than for other forms of Nation (paras 38-55 and electives states 56-71 ).

That is part of the Law of Nations, and the respected differences between Nations is acknowledged while the general outlook of the actual framework of the Laws are respected. Of note for modern times are paragraph 53, on the obedience due a sovereign, and paragraph 54 in what cases they may resist the sovereign. It is a long section (actually in two paragraphs), and puts forth that the actions of a sovereign must be truly odious, of the 'execution unjustly' form of odious not the 'trample on the Constitution but unable to show where and how' form, for such obedience to be resisted. By Book III the right of the sovereign to prevent citizens from taking part in a conflict not of the Nation would be founded. It is of note that it is an explicit view of the sovereign to do that, and President Washington as part of the foreign policy powers exercises that right as Head of State for the Nation. In Book III this is gone over on the question of Neutrality (paras 103-135).

The rights of private persons during time of war are put down in paras 223-232, with 223 reinforcing that citizens may not take up war making on their own, as that is handed only to Nations and the sovereign of a Nation, which President Washington re-iterates on the Neutrality of the US. Foreign recruiters should well be made aware via this that paragraph 15 is also in play, and that those recruiting in the US, when found, are treated thusly: "Foreign recruiters are hanged without mercy, and with great justice." Nor should a citizen join or obey a foreign recruiter in any way, shape or form. This is not only kidnapping, or 'man-stealing', but also a direct contravention of the directive of the sovereign and can, in and of itself, lead directly to war.

That is the power we hand to the federal government and the Executive branch of it: the ability to determine what raises to the level of being something that could involve us in war. When attacked, of course, we are at war with no need to declare it, save as a perfunctory statement (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book III, para 57) to inform the population. In the US system it is only when needing to go on offensive war, or war against enemies that have taken hostile positions and arms or having caused casus belli to us by its actions. In the role of commanding the Armies and the Navies of the Union, the President gains not only the power of field command and disposition of the troops, along with ensuring orderly procedures being followed, but also gains the entire purview over US ships at sea, plus crews.

This is the wartime assurance for US shipping, and neutral shipping to the US, that it shall be unimpeded by war. This is an ancient concept going far beyond the regularized Law of Nations (Vattel, Book I, paras 279-295), and deep into the English common law (as seen in US vs. Wilberger, 1820) all the way to the Black Book of the Admiralty which is a collection of post-Roman trade laws as instantiated in European nations in the 14th century. That power of being the Commander of the Navy allows for such things as piracy to be dealt with along with any external threats to trade for the Nation via the High Seas. Additionally as Commander of the Armies and Head of State, the President gets to set how those overseas activities that are *not* on the high seas, but conducted by means of war are addressed. The Congress may make law on the civil side according to the Law of Nations (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8), but cannot address things outside of the High Seas power (also in Art. I, Section 8) and signed treaties. It may set up justice practices within the Army, but those are only in accordance with regular Nations and treaties, not with those falling outside that framework.

It is this basic dichotomy of power directives that the next President has to deal with and they are ones that have vexed sovereigns back to the 14th century, when parliaments and kings had different areas of concern and the sovereign ruler would see problems outside the realm and other Nations that needed to be dealt with and the parliament would have no ability to enact anything in that realm as it was outside the Nation. Government for a Nation, however, is given the responsibility to protect the Nation and its citizenry first and foremost (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book I, paras 16-21) and to avoid things that would be contrary to that survival (para 22) and then gains the right that derives from the responsibilities to do seek survival and to advance its internal understandings *both* (para 25).

In this era of rights without responsibilities and trying to understand 'why they hate us' we come to a dilemma: a Nation need not care about *why* it is disliked, so long as it is *true to its own nature*. That is the responsibility of government to assure that both can be done simultaneously, and understanding hatred comes a bit after those two things and are not predicated on the understanding first. Even then it is not up to the population to, necessarily, understand 'why someone hates us', but for the government to deal with that. The power of the President in crafting foreign policy is to find a way to enhance the Nation, ensure that it survives and keep us true to our ideals, first and foremost. At no time do we put any other people or Nations ahead of our own needs and outlooks because we would no longer be the United States or *any Nation* if we did that. That is the responsibility given to the President and the rights that grow from that are also in that office.

I am afraid you won't hear much of that on the campaign trail, either.

As of late the right of the other branches of government to impeach a President also comes up, under the high crimes and misdemeanors concept. This, also, is given statement in Law of Nations, with regards to the prince being subject to the law (paras 48-49) and yet the dignity of office making the prince sacred and untouchable (para 50). Yet the population may undo a tyrant (para 51) or seek arbitration with such (para 52). In all cases beyond that, or in which resistance to a barbarous leader (para 54) the public is to show obedience and deference to the orders of that sovereign in his areas of power (para 53). Today we see so many looking at expanding the idea of 'barbarous' and 'tyrant' to include mere political differences, which is not the case with a National sovereign, be he President, King or simple Prime Minister who is also Head of State. A President who shows fidelity to the laws, however, can have indiscretions of them and it is there that we place the Impeachment power, most particularly is paragraph 49 in this instance:

§ 49. In what sense he is subject to the laws.

But it is necessary to explain this submission of the prince to the laws. First, he ought, as we have just seen, to follow their regulations in all the acts of his administration. In the second place, he is himself subject, in his private affairs, to all the laws that relate to property. I say, "in his private affairs;" for when he acts as a sovereign prince, and in the name of the state, he is subject only to the fundamental laws, and the law of nations. In the third place, the prince is subject to certain regulations of general polity, considered by the state as inviolable, unless he be excepted in express terms by the law, or tacitly by a necessary consequence of his dignity. I here speak of the laws that relate to the situation of individuals, and particularly of those that regulate the validity of marriages. These laws are established to ascertain the state of families: now the royal family is that of all others the most important to be certainly known. But, fourthly, we shall observe in general, with respect to this question, that, if the prince is invested with a full, absolute, and unlimited sovereignty, he is above the laws, which derive from him all their force; and he may dispense with his own observance of them, whenever natural justice and equity will permit him. Fifthly, as to the laws relative to morals and good order, the prince ought doubtless to respect them, and to support them by his example. But, sixthly, he is certainly above all civil penal laws, The majesty of a sovereign will not admit of his being punished like a private person; and his functions are too exalted to allow of his being molested under pretence of a fault that does not directly concern the government of the state.

In a federal republic with representative democracy in which a citizen is given the powers of sovereign, we do not see the person of the sovereign as above the civil law, nor is any prince seen likewise - even royalty is accountable to their own law. Civil penal laws, however, of actions by individuals against the individual who is President do have a problem and only for high crimes and misdemeanors should a President be subject to such. The US permits otherwise at its peril, and thus puts pure personal accountability ahead of National needs, when an individual who is President does have a date certain they will no longer be President and such suits may then happen.

This problem of the Presidency shown up in President Clinton was his perjury in a civil matter which many saw as a prosecution that should not have been happening until after he left office. There were many other, and larger problems that got put aside for this, and while none condone his action, the ability of the court to put the Nation into such peril in the FIRST PLACE was and is questionable. Congress adding on to that did not help things, and even guilty of having done such activity, it should never have arisen in the first place. Unconscionable to commit perjury in a private matter? Yes, and definitely. But that is seen in a different light under the Law of Nations and is to be handled *after* the President leaves office as it is associated with a purely personal matter.

That is part of the distrust of the American Public with its government: the Courts have ruled foolishly, individuals out to seek satisfaction put the Nation at risk and then Congress adds to that by increasing risk either via countenancing such activity or actively aiding it. This is a problem in America and the Nation needs to see that a Chief Law Enforcement Officer will also stick to the laws and enforce them, even upon himself. These, too, trace back to Law of Nations (paras 160-163, 166-170, 173-4, 176) which also includes the sovereign pardon power (173). Causing legal mischief in private concerns with a President should be beyond the pale and a firm stance taken against that by all political factions in the Nation: this puts us all at risk.

And I am pretty certain *this* does not get talked about on the campaign trail, either, especially the use of the pardon power. That has been highly individual to each President, with some dispensing very few and others, apparently, going on sprees to pardon or commute sentences, or even to pre-pardon individuals who may have gotten into trouble.

This upholding of the law is not only the civil law of the US, but our ability to be a sovereign nation and govern ourselves. Citizens have not only the right, but the obligation to uphold their own laws and obey them (Law of Nations Book I, para 30), respect and obey the sovereign who administers the law (para 53), obey the treaties between nations (para 96), work to ensure the prosperity of the nation (para 76, 81, 118) and to love his country (paras 119-120). The sovereign must ensure that the useful arts are protected for the Nation and that there is accord between government and the citizenry on these things. That is the job of any Nation state leader, and falls to the President, also. The power to list those skills necessary for the Nation that we will encourage immigration to the Nation and restrict emigration *from* the Nation also holds true. While Congress holds the immigration to the Nation power, the President oversees the emigration part via passports and such things. In this day and age very few are ever refused passports, but that is the mechanism for the Executive to not only ensure those that may harm other Nations are kept in check, but that those who are of great use to the Nation are retained.

The President gets this from the Head of State and Head of Government power, along with the foreign policy area, but has so become a non-issue in modern America that we may not recognize the right to refuse emigration as one held by the President, and yet that is the case with these cumulative powers.

This is not even a complete listing of the powers the President gets via how nation states work. The Law of Nations set out to regularize that understanding as the ancient civilizations had never done so. By examining all the cases of how a nation works, and properly defining what is held by a nation state and what is *not* and *why*, the founders of the Republic of the United States utilized this framework, along with others so as to create an understanding of what powers rest in government so that the common will of the People could be accurately expressed. These are not the written parts of the Constitution, but the basis for which a Constitution makes sense: without such things as the Law of Nations, understanding of the English common law and how trade developed from the Black Book of the Admiralty and through the Law of Nations, the actual Nation of the United States would not exist.

We live out these ideals and outlooks and yet they are rarely given to us in school or even in advanced studies any more. The modern era takes so much for granted that the concept of a 'post-Westphalian State' is talked about, but it cannot be given meaning as the framework of Nation states by the Law of Nations IS post-Westphalian and developed FROM the Peace of Westphalia. What those talking about a 'post-Westphalian State' are doing are talking about removing the concept of Nation State amongst mankind and imposing something *else* which they dare not define as it would not allow people to secure rights separate from the Nation State. The Law of Nations allows for either view of the source of rights to exist: rights handed down from the State and rights granted to the State by the People. In that flexibility comes wide variation of views and outlooks, so that cultures may find what is best for themselves in governing. It does not ensure liberty or freedom, although that becomes a major point between Nations in their activities, but for the individual it is up to the actual form of government to represent what is needed.

Strange that we will not hear of these basic concepts in times grown rough with outlaws spanning the globe to attack civilization. We need this understanding now more than ever in our history, because such lawless concepts have arisen before and were understood by our very own fore bearers in America. In our ignorance of the past we are dooming ourselves to a less well understood future, and a less safe one. Winning military victories only has meaning if the order and accountability amongst Nations is also restored, and that now slips through our grasp as we cannot figure out how to apply it to ourselves. Because those seeking high office take things for granted and leave unsaid. That, too, is a responsibility of the sovereign of a Nation, as seen in Book I:

§ 111. Instruction.

To succeed in this, it is necessary to instruct the people to seek felicity where it is to be found; that is, in their own perfection, — and to teach them the means of obtaining it. The sovereign cannot, then, take too much pains in instructing and enlightening his people, and in forming them to useful knowledge and wise discipline. Let us leave a hatred of the sciences to the despotic tyrants of the east: they are afraid of having their people instructed, because they choose to rule over slaves. But though they are obeyed with the most abject submission, they frequently experience the effects of disobedience and revolt. A just and wise prince feels no apprehensions from the light of knowledge: he knows that it is ever advantageous to a good government. If men of learning know that liberty is the natural inheritance of mankind; on the other hand they are more fully sensible than their neighbours, how necessary it is, for their own advantage, that this liberty should be subject to a lawful authority: — incapable of being slaves, they are faithful subjects.

We could use some of this in our views on the sciences to this day, lest we become ignorant of them and enslaved to that ignorance. That does require an understanding of what science *is* and how it functions as a body of knowledge. Unfortunately that is beyond what is spoken of by those seeking higher office and so we now seek ignorance. Because if they don't understand it we will become slaves once more in our ignorance of those things that are worthy of free men to think and speak about. Instead we have a quest for power and that, in the end, will leave us poorer and enslaved to ignorance if not countered.

I wonder why that is not talked about on the campaign trail by those seeking such power?

And now the view on the other side

For some reason most folks do tend to consider me to be 'conservative' when, really, I have little to do with that overall part of the spectrum in-depth or detail, just as I have little to do with the 'liberal' part of it. There are some good things in each side, but neither gives a good outlook to my view of the world. While I do castigate those on the Leftist side for being unable to stand up for liberty, freedom and democracy so as to build a better society and give demonstration of such to the world, so, too, does the Right not get free pass on their strange views on economics, trade and a variety of other topics.

As this Presidential season is coming hard upon the two parties, those on the D side of things I find wanting throughout: pacifist, negativist and transnationalist are the credos there. Anything to throw at the other side, no matter how vile you become in doing so! Thus associating with international organized crime, terrorists, and giving credence and legitimacy to 'armed political organizations' abroad turns the world into a worse place in such association and encouragement. On the R side I hear words from the free trade school of religion, that has yet to demonstrate its worth in over 90 years, plus strange ideas that government should step in where the States and the People have power and their rights and just let the federal government decide things for you. By that diminishment of the common good, removal of accountability to foreign Nations via the means of commerce and through this lovely concept of providing well to those picking up arms against liberty and democracy, the world, too, is not made a better place.

To be fair, I do pick overly much upon the D party, but they WERE the party of Jackson before they decided to go all out Socialist and pacifist and anti-West. There are still, to this day, stalwarts of Jackson soldiering on inside the D party, but the walk out of so many during the 1970's has left it threadbare. One man would cash in on that, who could, indeed, get a majority by being one, decent man... but his limits and that of his party left the without the ability to *keep* the disaffected and they wandered further off after him. That man, of course, is Ronald Reagan, and he would run a nearly perfect candidacy in 1980 to win the White House, and then dash the dreams of the disaffected he spoke to so well.

Those looking at the demographics of that era are startled by how quickly the D party went from iron control of both Houses of Congress to actually having them contested and well contested. Forty years of on-going majority rule were broken, but it was in the repudiation of a Democratic President that the disaffection spoke the loudest and clearest. In Congress it is not a factor of people turning from D to R but of individuals so turned off by the system that the D party was hurt worse than the R party, thus giving it parity. There were some cross-over voters, no doubt, and many today have just switched sides if not loyalties. Ronald Reagan would have the message for them of American strength and vitality, of less government and more opportunity: it was a message or Theodore Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson. That promise to halt and reverse the trends of over forty years were considered to be good ones, and the Democratic majority eroded, and even faded in the Senate.

When the R party wishes to put forth that a candidate is strong, they put forth Reagan. Unfortunately he was strong in the ways that those he attracted didn't care for on economic policy, although very vital on National Security and Defense. Make no doubt about it: Ronald Reagan's stalwart confrontation with the USSR and investment in the armed forces were winning cards he played. A pair beats nothing and the USSR had *nothing* when they left Afghanistan, and found that the world was not like chess, but poker. Ronald Reagan won a necessary hand for the survival of the US and mankind.

It was only one hand of many, and he lost the rest.

I do not idolize Ronald Reagan, and when I speak of his term in office it is those two achievements on National Defense and Security causing the final erosion of the USSR that I give him credit for. He kept to the Truman Doctrine when the D party was running from it. It worked! The Nation was not so lucky on other counts.

Consider the activity in Beirut in 1983-84, where the US Embassy was bombed as part of the civil war in Lebanon that was turbocharged by Iranian funds going into an exterior entity known as Hezbollah. With the aid of Syria, Hezbollah would start to kill its way to power not only by guns and bombs, but via kidnapping of nearly anyone that would get them headlines and cash. The USMC was sent in and, along with a contingent from France, they were blown up by simultaneous truck bombs one early morning. While promising to find the culprits and bring peace, President Reagan, instead, retreated and left more and worse conflict behind him. Our thanks would be a second bombing of the US Embassy, to let us know we were not well liked there.

To this day the miscreants have not been brought to any justice, although we know the name behind the immediate work is the terrorist Imad Mugniyah. This is a man who hates the West and the US, has no love for Israel and little love for much else beyond killing from what we have seen of his handiwork. With all the military might of the US available, and a leadership in the USSR that had problems with Syria already, the chances of starting a global confrontation there was *nil*. I have looked at that and marvel that for all the things that those who lionize Ronald Reagan, they cannot see this simple failing of actually understanding that protecting America means just that: protecting her from *all enemies* not just those of the red banner. While many berate the Left today for blindness of ideology, they do not like to look at the same blindness during the Cold War of the 'Cold Warriors'. America needed defenders who could stop her foes, not just those of the glacial sort, and we were and are left the poorer for not having that basic understanding which went and continues to go far past simplistic ideology.


Consider the Iran/Contra Affair, which would see rogue operatives in the White House help one of the most notorious criminals and terrorist supporters the world would ever know make the connections which would make America less well off and bring a high body toll in many lands: Monzer al-Kassar. It is a very strange thing that someone with the ties to Hezbollah, Iran and Syria is seen as someone that the US would want to *help* even after his antipathy of the US is known. Kassar had helped the French get some of their kidnap victims freed by sending cash and equipment payments to Iran, and he would do the same with the US and get roped in to helping expand the arming of the Contras! Just the thing you want to do with an individual with ties to organized crime, one of the highest opium export controlling groups and arms merchants of the world: introduce him to Central and South America with a gold plated 'trusted by America' card! Beyond the asinine and childish view of Ollie North & Co., so that funds could be laundered to hide the US involvement in the deal, the funding, equipment and narcotics trading avenues this would open up led directly to the sprawling narco-terrorist organizations that now infest S. America, Central America, Africa and SE Asia. They existed before, yes, but without operatives given legitimacy by the US, there would have been much slower growth of them over time.

That was starting to be seen even before the end of the Administration, with the Cali and Medellin cartels working out a trade system of cocaine exchanged to Syria for heroin and arms. By the time the Bush (41) Administration was in office, this had blossomed into a full-fledged form of Hezbollah taking root in Argentina and Imad Mugniyah showing up after Monzer al-Kassar had cemented ties with then President Carlos Menem. The Reagan Administration would get the trade between Syria and Argentina for nuclear equipment and long range missile development halted, but that would not have been necessary if Kassar was not already down there. It is a chilling thought to have that Syria could have gained both a good nuclear reactor and advanced long range missile technology if the Reagan and Bush Administrations were just a bit less attentive to things. Such is the fallout of having a 'neat idea' that puts America in such situations.

The actual effects of the expansion of the triangular trade and market sharing agreements between Syria, the S. American drug cartels, various East European Mafias and African organized crime outfits cannot be underestimated. That trade started the production of heroin in S. America and expanded the proliferation of explosives and automatic weapons not only in S. America but back into the Balkans. Kassar and his US based compatriot, Jean-Bernard Lasnaud (aka. Francois Lasnosky), would be happily shipping arms to the Balkans to supply Iran there by the time President Clinton was dithering on what to do about the area. From 1983 Hezbollah went from a near nothing as an organization, able to kidnap high profile Westerners (including the CIA bureau chief in Lebanon) and blowing up a few hundred US soldiers and their French compatriots to having attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina (1992), blown up the AMIA Jewish cultural center in Argentina (1994) to having a few thousand fighters down in Bosnia and other parts of the Balkans (1994). The very same organization that President Reagan promised to hold accountable. Remember that?

Worked so well that it would be a feature of Osama bin Laden's speeches against the West and how the US wouldn't stand up to anyone who confronted them.


Next up is the international bank of crime du jour: BCCI - Bank of Credit and Commerce International. What a laundry list of people that operation served! By the time it would be fully brought down in 1992, with the last part of it in Hong Kong finally going under, it would be responsible for billions of dollars laundered from tyrannical regimes, organized crime figures, narcotics organizations, arms dealers, gray market goods dealers, human traffickers and just plain, ordinary dictators. The Reagan Administration helped that entire thing along by trying to expand the farm credit program to allow Saddam Hussein to get his hands on commodities at less than market price, resell them at market price and pocket the difference. An entire swindling operation around BNL and its work to launder the funds going to and from Saddam and his attempts to buy arms, high tech goods and equipment would point out massive corruption in BNL and such lovely deals as entire, multi-million dollar shipments of 'farm equipment' just going missing and needing to be re-shipped to Saddam. All paid for with taxpayer funds!

All of that going on, mind you, while Ollie North & Co. were getting anti-tank and other weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages and some cash, and then taking other cash to buy overseas arms (or even US arms) to ship to the Contras. As Henry Kissinger said about the Iran/Iraq war, which all of this circled around: 'it is too bad both sides can't lose'. Well, not for lack of the Reagan Administration *trying* to achieve that! Really, instead of trying to do all of this under the table and through pork spending, if that had just been the stated objective of the Reagan Administration's foreign policy, we would have saved a LOT of heartache! A policy of: we aren't going to supply *new* weapons, but the ammunition market is open to *both*. That would have gotten the political cast going in a tizzy!

'Lets you and him fight!'

Instead we get the support of underworld arms dealers, terrorists, drug runners and money laundering... much of this going through BNL and BCCI. The rogue's gallery of BCCI is amazing: John Keating (of the S&L scandal and having John McCain helping that along), Saddam Hussein, billionaire Jackson Stephens (so helpful to both the R and D party over time that neither wants to talk about him and his connections to North, the Riady's, Hwang, Lippo Bank, Bert Lance, and even, if memory serves, a sports team in Texas and the current President), Monzer al-Kassar, the 'Ollie North Enterprise', Carlos Menem, the Cardoen company (which got advanced US cluster bomb technology that somehow wound up in Iraq way back in the 80's), Abu Nidal, Marc Rich (later to come to infamy in the wild, wild east of Russian industry and finance), Clark Clifford, Robert Altman, President Manuel Noriega (Panama), Pablo Escobar & Rodriguez Gacha & several members of the Ochoa family (Medellin drug cartel), General Zia (Pakistan), Carlos Andres Perez (Venezuela), President Jimmy Carter, Andrew Young, Bert Lance, British Prime Minister James Callahan, United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cueller, and Jesse Jackson. Really, anyone who was anyone had to have an account there and help in moving funds around through its various paper banks. The CIA would only have a little idea of what was going on in 1987 with BCCI, which was only the largest single money laundering and criminal funds transfer system on the planet having compromised First American Bank, BNL, a number of Central banks throughout Latin America, South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Yes, the Central Intelligence Agency didn't have much intelligence about BCCI, either in the actual knowledge of it or in what it did.

It would take a decade until a more complex set-up run by Simon Reuben, Chernoy brothers, Semion Mogilevich and Vyacheslav Ivankov through the Bank of New York with the help of Peter Berlin and Lucy Edwards. That, too, would fly under the CIA radar screen.

Isn't it nice to know that US Federal Farm Credits were shifting into a system of illegal funds transfers, arms deals, equipment procurement, fraud and support of dictators and terrorists globally? Wouldn't an upfront foreign policy have stopped at least *that* part of the operation from prospering and gaining a blind eye from the Administration because of its apparent utility to do the one thing it wanted, while having to ignore the rest because of that and the Administration's own connections to said entity?


I haven't even *gotten* to domestic policy, tax policy and such, and already I see a number of major problems with the Reagan Administration and I *still* appreciate the couple of good things it did!

And since this heads us into domestic policy, lets start with the size of government that President Reagan promised to address on the campaign trail. Remember that? The nefarious octopus of government getting its tentacles into everything and doing so much with waste, fraud and abuse that simply cleaning *that* up would balance the budget? So, what, exactly happened?

Did President Reagan move hard and fast to get rid of the newly minted Dept. of Education?

No.

How about the Dept. of Energy, seen as superfluous?

No.

Was the Dept. of Agriculture cleaned up of Waste, Fraud and Abuse?

No, and just the opposite with the funds going through there to BNL, BCCI, Saddam Hussein and who knows where else. That Department was put on the multi-billion dollar feeding cycle for years, and anywhere Congress tried to stop it, funds got shifted to something else and more got fed into it. Taking a look at the historical US federal budget, in the year Ronald Reagan was elected, the outlays for the budget were roughly $591 billion, which would translate to $848.5 billion in 1988 if there were NO other growth to the federal budget and it is only adjusted for inflation and such. In 1988 the actual outlays were $1.064 trillion, or a 25% real growth in the size of the federal government just in cash spent *alone* and the federal deficit (the annual spending shortfall) doubled over that period, again not only outpacing inflation but expanding to cover the added girth put on by President Reagan.

So the talk of 'smaller government' and Ronald Reagan being a 'small government conservative' is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Those of us who understood that more would need to be spent on National Security and Defense expected that *other* parts of government, like those mentioned above, would take the hit and large sections of them if not entire Departments chopped off, permanently. That would not only reduce the size of government by shifting funds into areas of capital procurement (ships, aircraft, weapons systems) and away from those of high labor with no Constitutional mandate. That did not happen.


To put it very bluntly: Ronald Reagan talked deceitfully about 'small government' on the campaign trail, but governed as a Big Government Conservative.


For those leaving the D party over their inability to see any need to curb government, to get great talk and NO action from the R party really, and for true, puts one off of wanting to associate with them. The lovely 'Big Tent' also contains a huge wallet vacuum cleaner that one must open up and then have bureaucrats examine to make sure that no bills got stuck in the crevices. To get in the 'Big Tent' one has to have lots of wallets sitting around to be able to pay your way. And the expansion of federal government and debt only got a little bit of pay down when the largest bubble economy of the US ran through the high tech sector in the 1990's, actually allowing for taxes to be cut in a meaningful way. Those remain hard fought for cuts, as the D party shows, and is the LAST STAND of the R party to try and put any restraint, whatsoever, on government. Because they sure, as hell, were not put in under Ronald Reagan.

Then there is the expansion of the internal classification procedures for the government, particularly the Intelligence and Defense Communities. A thing that got so encompassing that the steering wheel specifications to the Jeep were classified. Along with the specifications for the $400 hammer which the D party would bash the R party with in the 1992 election. Coming from a part of the government under DoD, I can say that the time spent in reviewing, cataloging and tracking all that classified material cost untold man hours and billions of dollars. Which is why the declassification regulations got put in place to start automatically getting the less necessary *junk* taken out of that system and handed over to the National Archives. That expansion of the use of the classification stamp was, in and of itself, Waste, Fraud and Abuse - Waste of time to cover Fraudulent needs and Abused to cover anything else 'just in case'. The taxpayer pays for a secure government, not a paranoid one, and the paranoia to move nearly everything on the IC and DoD to the classified side was ludicrous. Entire systems were procured under the Black Budget that never got proper GAO or Congressional oversight, and expended billions of dollars in pure waste for systems and equipment that was outdated when it was delivered.

That paranoia was due to President Reagan and the urge to keep *anything* from the hands of the Soviet Union. Even what kind of hammers and toilet seats we bought.

It was also under President Reagan's term that the first analysis of the budget busting ability of Social Security due to demographics was put forth. Ever hear of that little 'entitlement'? The lovely concept of trying to retire out the older part of the workforce on government stipend paid for by the younger part of the workforce? Put in to try and do *something* with the economy during the Great Depression, but wouldn't actually take hold until we NEEDED an older work force to do this thing known as 'work' during WWII? The program with a huge demographic bubble that is caused by the 'baby boom' so that there will soon be very few folks working to pay for all the oldsters on the golf courses, sky diving, bungee jumping, skiing and riding their Harleys all over the place. The one that also gets a lovely medical benefit around the same age that allows for all sorts of extra and unnecessary medical work to be done 'just in case' something gets missed? Heard of them?

Did President Reagan propose ending the system?

Of course NOT, that is political suicide to cut off PAYMENTS to VOTERS. The D party thrashes that about the head and shoulders of the R party until NEITHER will practice any long-term fiscal oversight. This is not a 'social security' this is a BRIBE to get older folks to VOTE for YOUR PARTY. Because people feel ENTITLED to federal funds for their very own needs. That is why it is called an 'entitlement'. The Romans had a name for this: Breads and Circuses. Things to pay the masses that they don't deserve so that they keep docile. So we get a system where money is taken away from those that should be investing in their futures and handed to those who should have planned for their own futures. Many of them *have* done so and are quite well off.

Social Security is stealing from the poor and working and handing it to the well off and retired.

That does not sound like any form of 'conservative values' I have ever heard of, and yet it continues on to this day with lovely little 'tweaks' around the edges trying to get young folks to have money taken from the by the federal government and be GLAD that with any they have left they can invest it. Isn't that lovely? A ponzi scheme endorsed by the R party AND conservatives because they cannot find a good basis to argue against taking money from the poor and handing it to the wealthy by the fiat of Big Government. That is kind of the opposite of fiscal conservatism: take money from those who need it for the future, waste some of it on government overhead which turns out to be 35-45% overhead, and then take what is left to hand it to those who should have demonstrated some competence about planning for things in their lives.

Rewarding incompetence!

Such a grand thing for government to do, isn't it?

Then there is this entire 'free trade' religion that the R party has gotten. I will not get on that *again*, as I really have beaten that about a bit. To put it simply: having unencumbered trade with those under despotic regimes rewards those regimes with trinkets to keep their population docile while the regime holds all authority to take such away if the government needs it. This is NOT rewarding liberty or freedom, but giving bribes to keep tyranny and despotic governments in place without ANY cost to trading with the US. This 'free trade' allows the stuff that went on with BCCI to happen, so that terrorist organizations can be guaranteed to get as much as they can pay for in the way of arms and explosives anywhere on the planet. Part of the current fun in Iraq is seeing that al Qaeda had tens of millions to spend on such things, but couldn't find enough people to entice to GUARD the stuff. Apparently people are far more expensive than the equipment they use, which is a basic fact of life anyone running a business can tell you about. Human capital is far more expensive than goods, which is why 'free trade' should be kept to those who are free and restrained from those who are under tyrannical regimes to deprive those regimes of any advancement in their work force.

When the fruits of liberty are spent handing more chains to those that are not free, so that those who are can make a profit, then you are putting your own liberty at risk. That is why the Middle East, which has been exposed to 90 years of this doctrine, is in the state it is today: the trade has let the regimes go on unopposed save for those elements that have radicalized to make things worse and live on the lovely things we hand out cheaply to them. 30 years of that in China has only made them free in comparison to the absolute despotic state as it was under Mao, but the average liberty and freedom is no better than it was under an individual like Stalin in the USSR or places like Venezuela as of late. When will we stop making a profit off of the oppressed and start encouraging them to seek liberty so they can benefit from the fruits of freedom, rather than handing them those fruits and having us gain the benefit in cash, while paying for it in oppression?

President Reagan obviously had no qualms about US companies making money off of the oppressed. There is a difference between foreign aid to save lives and encourage folks to stand up on their own, and foreign trade meant to make a profit for companies while impoverishing those that have no liberty to *compete* so as to gain the full fruits of their labor without oppressive government to remove those from them. When the US would not cut off aid or trade to China when it spilled blood to end a student rebellion for freedom, we could see in the bloody streets just what the US supported in its foreign policy. It obviously wasn't freedom. And that, too, was a holdover of the Reagan Administration to the Bush follow-on. Today no one even thinks about that nor about the lack of freedom in China... they have so much to buy!!


Except their souls. We are getting paid to keep those right where they are.


Today when I hear someone from the Republican Party lauding this or that candidate as 'just like Reagan', I know what they are talking about... but this, apparently, has a different meaning to me than to them. Ronald Reagan was a good and big hearted fellow, really! I can easily imagine hiking with him or going fishing and having a great time under the sun, and chatting around a campfire. It is not the goodness of the spirit I have problems with.

It is the results of his handiwork that trouble me the most.

He did get a few things *right* and was the final one to help end the USSR and remove the threat of sudden, global, thermonuclear war.

He also started a process of erosion of support for Western values by not confronting lesser evils so that they would grow stronger and bolder as time went on. So that sudden immolation would look *good* compared to eternal enslavement under those that would bring an age of barbarism back to us, by making unaccountable war upon civilization with the help of our system of trade. I would prefer that we not hand over the easy power of weapons at low cost to those seeking to impose their will upon the world and shift it to their views.

President Reagan could have gone after them and hard in 1983, and start forcing that back even before it found a hard foothold in the world.

He did not do that.

And I sincerely hope we never see his likes again in the Oval Office as the world cannot afford an America that will shirk from defending herself from wolves and hold such accountable for their actions by ending them.

May I suggest ending the plaudits and comparisons and start addressing those that have attacked us without retribution for decades?

Or is keeping the *word* of President Reagan too difficult?

It was for him, that is for certain.

Can we find someone better to do that job and not flinch from it?

Someone to keep the word of a good man, who was incapable of doing so, himself.

Moribund politics in America

When one examines the suite of Presidential candidates, political movements and the actual political parties themselves in America, one comes away with the feeling that something is highly dysfunctional with them. Lets take a few 'issues' from around the campaigns and parties to get a feel for what is not going on with them. Yes, this will be dull but, with any luck, instructive.

I will be using for this look at things from a few sites to get a feel for past and present outlooks. Getting the actual issues based stance, however, can be difficult as many campaigns and similar sites by candidates don't actually want to come out and say *what* their issue stance is... that alone should be worrying to those wishing to examine candidates. It is also possible that candidates will *change* their position from past times! Yes, on various outlooks candidates suddenly find a stance from 4 or 6 or 10 years ago to be 'out of step' with the voters. Amazing that one can change one's idea of marching from goose-step to duck waddle to something out of the Dept. of Silly Walks and still maintain integrity....

First up is health care, and as the folks at the Pew Forum seem to have a handle on organizing issues, I will use them first. Throughout I will do my best to just pick up a few random candidates so as not to skew this over much:

Hillary Clinton
Clinton has been a long-time supporter of universal health care that would provide government health insurance to all Americans. While first lady, she chaired an ultimately unsuccessful National Task Force for Health Care Reform. She has called universal coverage "a moral and health imperative" and says that she hopes to make health care "the No. 1 voting issue in the 2008 election." In the April 2007 Democratic debate, Clinton said that "we've got to control and decrease costs for everyone" and that the health care problem "is not just about the uninsured."

Mike Huckabee
After losing more than 100 pounds in two years while he was governor of Arkansas, Huckabee focused on eliminating obesity and improving public health. Huckabee calls the American health care system "irreparably broken" and calls for more preventative care. He is against universal health insurance coverage and says that the U.S. needs a system "where there are incentives for healthy behavior and for management of one's health-care expenses." While governor, Huckabee created the ARKids First program to provide health insurance for many uninsured children.

Bill Richardson
Richardson has said that if he were elected president and more Democrats were in Congress, he would enact universal health care coverage within the first year of his administration. To achieve this, he would offer tax credits for buying insurance and an option for 55-64-year-olds to buy coverage through Medicare. He would also "get out of Iraq" and redirect money from the military to health care. In addition, he would duplicate some of the public health measures he implemented in New Mexico, including reducing "junk food" in schools and banning smoking in most workplaces.

Mitt Romney
Romney supports making health insurance more affordable through market reforms. As Massachusetts governor, he implemented a major health care reform plan that required all citizens to enroll in Medicaid or purchase health insurance. The plan provides subsidies to help low-income residents buy private health insurance.

There, that ought to be a relatively quick concept between what the differences in the two parties are! Apparently we have one party that likes 'Universal Health Care' and the other that likes a 'government based market approach'. No, really I am SURE there is a difference there! I mean, if the government is going to get involved for EVERYONE then what is the difference between such bureaucracies? One is a 'soup to nuts' turning the soup into a very thing broth with bureaucrats tut-tutting everywhere and the other is a 'here is the soup can you figure out who sells the best can opener so long as we keep track of you' deal.

Yes, I suppose there is a 'dime's worth of difference' in there, someplace. But in each case you will: 1) register with the government, 2) fill out lots of forms, 3) have lots of bureaucrats added to the bureaucracy, 4) government overhead on 'managing' health care. Plus *more* money going from government taken from *you* to do these things! Is it any wonder why so many do without health insurance at all? Who really wants to give more and more personal information on themselves to the Federal government?

Hold that thought, lets flip over to something that should be a strong distinguisher between the two parties! For that the general foreign policy area will be used, which will exclude Iraq but look elsewhere to see what there is to be seen. Now some candidates get mighty picky about things so some generalization will be used where indicated with [..]:

Duncan Hunter - from his web site
Foreign Policy

20. Major foreign policy objectives and philosophy:
I believe in peace through strength. I believe in a policy that supports U.S. interests by spreading freedom within the limits of U.S. capability. I also believe in ending the one-way street on trade.

21. Advancement of human rights and religious freedom:
The greatest protection of human rights in this decade has been the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Religious freedom is part and parcel of any free society the U.S. stands up.

22. The nation of Israel and the needed steps in the Middle East:
As House Armed Services Chairman, I recognize Israel as America’s most important ally in the Middle East region. As a result, I strongly support Israel’s right to exist and efforts to defend itself and I have consistently voted in favor of providing federal funding for Israel’s defense systems, including missile defense.

I also strongly support U.S. efforts to establish free societies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
International Law & Institutions

23. Changing our relationship with the United Nations:
I would increase the burden-sharing by member nations other than the U.S. In addition, I voted in favor of H.R. 2745 (Hyde-IL), the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, implementing significant reforms that will create a more accountable and focused United Nations.

24. The use of UN Conventions or other treaties to control domestic matters such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Treaties that infringe on basic U.S. sovereignty should be rejected while international treaties that rein in tyrants may be of value.

For many years, I have been concerned with the United Nations’ programs that promote abortion as an acceptable alternative in family planning efforts. Since 1973, U.S. law has prohibited the direct use of federal funds to pay for abortions overseas and I have supported restrictions, known as Mexico City Policy, which prohibit federal funding to international family planning groups that provide abortion or counseling services.
[..]
I have also supported the Bush Administration's decision to withhold funding from the United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNFPA) [..]


Joseph Biden - from his website
Using Diplomacy to Keep America Safe: Joe Biden knows that the Bush Administration has left the next president with virtually no margin of error diplomatically. With decades of experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and now its chairman, Joe Biden is the most qualified candidate to clean up the mess George Bush has made. Russia is rising on the world stage using oil as a weapon and China is becoming a greater force, both politically and militarily. Democracy is struggling in Latin America and oil has empowered dictators around the world who hold us hostage with their high prices. We need to end the genocide in Darfur as well as check Iran and North Korea's progress on nuclear weapons and prevent them from increasing their nuclear arsenal. America needs a president with Joe Biden's experience to address these global challenges. As president, Joe Biden's foreign policy will draw upon all of America's strengths, including our ideas and our ideals, as well as our military might. A Biden Administration would:

Rebuild Relationships: Joe Biden knows that the most effective way of fighting radical fundamentalists is working with our allies around the world. Joe Biden will rebuild alliances in international law enforcement, intelligence and financial circles, strengthening our forces in the fight against radical fundamentalism and restoring America's standing in the world

Secure Weapons: Joe Biden knows loose nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union and other weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to the United States if they fall into the hands of extremist networks. As president, Joe Biden will work to disrupt these extremist networks and improve detection systems to seek out these weapons before they harm the United States or our allies.

Advance Democracy: Joe Biden believes that democracy cannot be forced on any people and he will work to help build the political infrastructure to support democracies and prevent extremists from taking hold of weaker, growing democracies.

Joe Biden: A Career in Foreign Relations
Ending Genocide in Darfur: [..]

Securing and Eliminating the Worst Weapons: [..]

Working for Peace and Justice in the Balkans: [..]

Increasing Alliances: When the Cold War ended and new democracies that emerged in Eastern Europe, Joe Biden led the effort to expand NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. and why he's been a strong supporter of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Fighting Terrorism: Joe Biden knew before 9/11 the threat extremism posed to Americans and urged the Bush Administration to refocus efforts on terrorism he predicted would come “in the belly of a plane.” As president, Joe Biden will continue efforts to secure American ports, rails, chemical plants and infrastructure.

Supporting Funding and Accountability for the United Nations: Joe Biden has been a strong supporter of UN funding and fought to pass groundbreaking legislation providing for payment of U.N. arrears based on organizational reform.

Keeping Drugs out of the United States:[..]


John McCain - from his web site
A Strong Military in a Dangerous World

In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth - and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values - and to keep the peace - America must have the best manned, best equipped, and best supported military in the world.

[..]

As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics

The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.

America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.

In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.

As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and teach the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong - an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

Effective Missile Defense

[..]

Increasing the Size of the American Military

[..]

Modernizing the Armed Services

[..]

Smarter Defense Spending

John McCain has worked aggressively to reform the defense budgeting process to ensure that America enjoys the best military at the best cost. This includes reforming defense procurement to ensure the faithful and efficient expenditure of taxpayer dollars that are made available for defense acquisition. Too often, parochial interests rather than the national interest – have guided our spending decisions. John McCain supports significant reform in our defense acquisition process to ensure that dollars spent actually contribute to U.S. security.

[..]

Taking Care of our Military Personnel and their Families

[..]

Honoring our Nation's Commitments to Veterans and Military Retirees

[..]


Barack Obama - from his web site
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

Strengthening American Security in the 21st Century

[..]

Obama rejects the notion that the American moment has passed and believes that America must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. Obama believes that America must lead the world, by deed and example, and that America cannot meet the threats of the century alone and that the world cannot meet them without America.

Under his leadership America will lead in five specific ways: First, we will bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq and refocus on the critical challenges in the broader region. Second, we will rebuild and transform the military to meet 21st-century threats. Third, we will marshal a global effort to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Fourth, we will renew the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges, such as terrorism and climate change. And fifth, we will strengthen impoverished, weak and ungoverned countries that have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror and pandemic disease and the smuggling of deadly weapons.

Taking Weapons Out of Terrorists' Hands

Today, 80 percent of the world's spending on armaments is on conventional weapons not nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. These conventional weapons are a threat to our security. Since the 1970s, more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, and in recent conflicts around the world, small arms have caused four out of every five casualties. There are countless caches of mortars, landmines and other weapons spread across the globe. Insurgents in Iraq have used these caches against our troops by converting older munitions into roadside bombs.

[..]

Stopping Nuclear Terrorism

The greatest threat our nation faces is a nuclear weapon falling into terrorists' hands. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed 650 cases of illicit trafficking in nuclear and radiological materials worldwide between 1993 and 2004. As little as four kilograms of plutonium - about the size of a soda can - can potentially be enough for a fissile nuclear bomb.

[..]

Preventing an Avian Flu Pandemic

Senator Obama was one of the first legislators to recognize the dangers of a potential avian influenza pandemic, and was successful in securing $25 million that U.S. agencies in Southeast Asia are currently using to combat and contain widespread outbreaks of avian flu. He also worked with other Senators to provide $4 billion in funding to the Centers for Disease Control to combat avian flu which included more than $3 billion to build a stockpile of antiviral drugs that had been in short supply.

Ending the Conflict in Congo

[..]

Stopping the Genocide in Darfur

[..]

Bringing a Brutal Warlord to Justice

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor has been accused of committing war crimes by international prosecutors. [..]

Well that was a bit longer than I would have liked... but we do get the idea here! Whenever any of these candidates mention the following on Foreign Policy, you will know they don't know what a President has as assigned duties: modernizing the Armed Forces, sizing the Armed Forces, committing the Armed Forces overseas for any length of time, homeland security. These are all done by Congress. Perhaps they should try running for an office in that august assemblage... oh, wait!

Yes, whenever you hear intervention in: Darfur, Congo, 'failing Nations', or even properly fund treaty obligations like the UN or weapons restrictions via negotiated treaties; you have just heard an individual that is clueless in wanting the job of President. Those are all things requiring a mandate by Congress as the Clinton Administration found out with its ill-advised concept of sending US Armed Forces everywhere on 'peacekeeping' missions and then wearing them down as Congress was unwilling to pay for such things. Guess what? If Congress doesn't mandate it, then it doesn't get paid for, so unless one is willing to talk about US military intervention to get things done via the regular Armed Forces, they are barking up the wrong tree.

A few things that are brought up that Presidents *can* do is Alliances, negotiating treaties and such. Favorites appear to be nuclear devices and other WMDs. I have some bad news for these future Presidents - there are some Nations out there that are unwilling to sign treaties on these things or abide by them. These include: Syria, Iran, North Korea. Up and coming problem spots include: Russia, China, Venezuela, Columbia, Argentina, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan... a whole raft of Nations heading into troubled waters via WMD, terrorism and just not wanting much to do with the US on some things. Congress is proving to be very, very unhelpful in funding treaty obligations to a few of these places and, in others, the US has already been swindled by regimes. Like the $5 billion in aid to Syria for the Gulf War, back in 1991, which bought us ZERO good will, ZERO signature on the Chemical Weapons Convention and the building up of a nuclear processing and refining capability. That was the big THANK YOU for playing 3-card monte with Syria. North Korea has been even less nice and good about adhering to treaties.

As Mr. Obama brings up conventional weapons, the idea of trying to stop the international arms trade with 'treaties' is nuts. It cannot be done because the suppliers are truly global in scope. Not just Russia, China, France, UK, USA, Spain, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, but also such fine places as the previously mentioned Syria, Iran, Libya, South Africa. There are ways to do this, but not without a wholesale re-orientation of US Foreign Policy, which none of these candidates nor any of them are proposing.


The main and over-riding problem with Presidential candidates is not understanding the role of the Executive Branch in the Federal Government. Presidents Administer the Law and create Foreign Policy, but Treaties only come into being with the Senate and regularization by Congress. This also goes for things like health care and all sorts of other issues, of which Presidents can talk and propose to do many things, but their hands are tied by the Federal system and division of powers.

What is even worse is that the generalized outlook given by candidates, when they give any at all, which in things like health care and law enforcement seem to be lacking, is that it immediately devolves into lovely programs. Lots of programs. Which, by-the-by, have to be written into law by, yes, Congress. The very old cliche is exactly dead-on here: "The President Proposes, Congress Disposes."

The main value of a President is outlook and guidance, plus administration and enforcement of the laws and regulations, plus leading government and being Head of State. Unless a President wins a true, 60%+ 'landslide' victory and gains substantial majorities in both Houses of Congress to actually enact laws to carry out the vision he or she has for the US, it is very, very difficult to get new programs started and even harder to kill old ones. By not offering a clear set of goals and objectives that can be defined, then laying out an administrative basis for them *without* adding new programs, a President is very much stuck with whatever Congress wishes to do in most areas of government.

When new political movements, like the 'netroots' or 'Movement 2.0' come along, and they propose *programs* without defining what the goals of them are and the coherent and consistent ideology they are enacting, then all you are seeing is the same old 'divide and conquer' factionalization of the voting public that has been going on for over four decades. Programs and programmatics and 'policy wonks' have come to mean one thing to the American Public: increased government, decreased oversight and higher taxes. By not being able to state clearly and succinctly what the purpose of government actually *is*, all of these fine programmatics turn into a sticky mass in Washington, DC that get funded and expanded forever, but without any clear idea of just what, exactly, their end purpose is for. The United States existed for nearly 140 years without very much thought given to things like: retirement, health care, education, medications.

As in Zero Laws.

Now we hear the *problems* facing the Union and what are they? Social security, health care, education, illegal drugs... hmmm...

Yes, we can now definitively say that the problem IS Washington, DC as the trend is so close to 1:1 as to not be funny. Whenever the Federal government has tried to *help* it then creates a *problem* which, apparently, only the Federal government can address if we just hand it lots more money. The two Party system is now the single Party of the Emirs of Incumbistan for a reason. Neither Party bothered to take a look in the mirror to recognize the problem. The last President elected who vowed to cut government, be a veritable 'Chainsaw Al' to this monstrosity did not show up with a chainsaw. He showed up with a wheelbarrow of manure and a rake, plus a watering hose. The last majority that won on a 'small government platform' soon found all sorts of things that government just *must* do, and threw away the idea of limited government for its more flexible and expansive form.

The Incumbistanian form.

Now the American People are faced with two Big Government Parties that only differ in how much will be going to government and the rate of expansion of government interference in our lives. There is no lovely 'Movement 2.0' or 'netroots' or similar to express this as the Incumbistanian concept has so disgusted the Citizenry that we now see that we are just subjects in a vassal state called Electistan. This is the result:



The above taken from US Census datasets.

Congress cannot even interest 50% of the population to VOTE FOR IT. Presidential years are hovering in the 55-60% range for decades. That means that the majority of Americans and an overwhelming plurality see NO CHOICE AT ALL between the two parties. This is *not* a 50/50 Nation. At best it is a 30/30/30/10 Nation with that last 10% the perennially disaffected that has hovered between 5-10% on an ongoing basis. And for Congressional elections it turns into a 22/22/46/10 Nation with the trendline being steadily downwards.

Saying that 'only those interested enough to vote should govern' misses the point that this very same attitude is one to turn OFF as many people as possible so that it is only those committed as partisans and lobbyists that see any reason TO VOTE. That is also not a definition of 'representative democracy', as those that are strongly partisan do NOT represent those that feel marginalized by the two Parties, now become one Party. This hyper-partisanship is lethal to democracy which requires a cacophony of voices to be heard well. We no longer hear that as the two Parties have no need to represent everyone and, with their views on programs, now find newer and better ways to say they are doing things *for* the disaffected, but ignore that they are not being voted for by them. That is not 'democracy'. That is using the power of government to bribe people into submission.

It is authoritarianism.

It is on a path to despotism and tyranny of rule by the few over the many.

The strangest thing in the world at this point in time is to see the Armed Forces of the United States helping to knit together a broken society and teach in grassroots democracy, so that they can self govern. All the while we are losing that exact, same thing here in the US. Perhaps we need to stage an invasion to rebuild American society and democracy. A good place to start would be the tiny seat of power of Incumbistan, so that poor Electistan can be freed to learn democracy again.