Hoover Institution: Karl W. Eikenberry: A Grand Strategy For Failed States

Source:Hoover Institution.

Source:The New Democrat

Here’s my definition of a failed state. A state that can’t defend itself even against domestic threats whether the government is a good peaceful responsible government, or an authoritarian regime with a bad human rights record. That would be Libya right now and you could make a case for Syria as well, because without Russia, the Assad Regime might have failed by now. A state where the current government is in trouble and about to fall, where members of the government or administration are looking to escape their own country because the rebels are about to take over. Iran comes to mind in 1978-79 as a failed stated under the Shah.

So what does this mean to America and how can America prevent future failed states and why should it if it should at all.

The last thing the civilized world needs are armed terrorist groups with their own territory and land about the size of a large country that wants to occupy further territory and even take over Western allies. So the West doesn’t want ISIS or someone else being able to occupy Somalia or Libya, Yemen to use as examples, or Syria or Iraq. But at the same time we shouldn’t be subsidizing and arming authoritarian regimes in countries either. One, because of the bad human rights records of those countries. But the practical reasons being that the behavior of those countries towards their own people just feeds extremism and gives it birth. And rebels who might be just as bad as their government reason to want to overthrow the current regime.

What America should do is when one of these authoritarian states falls like in Libya, Tunisia and Yemen and the rebels aren’t as bad or as the people they are replacing and want a responsible government instead, which is what we saw in Afghanistan even with all the problems that, that country has and still has, is work with the people there to build a responsible government and modern country. That can defend itself and create an environment where their people can thrive and succeed. Where foreign countries would want to invest and everything else that developing countries have to have.

If anything the last 15-20 years have taught us is that America can’t police the world by itself. That we are limited in what we can do and have to be smart with our resources and smarter with our resources than we have in the past. That we have to work with our allies and have to be smart with rebels that want to overthrow their regimes. That you can’t work with people simply because they are against the current government that you want to see out of office. Because the rebels might be as bad if not worst than the people before them. That we shouldn’t be subsidizing authoritarian states, but we shouldn’t be subsidizing terrorists and other authoritarians either.

America should be about promoting democracy and freedom liberal or otherwise in countries that actually want it especially if they don’t already have that. Not trying to force it on people who didn’t ask for it especially if they don’t have any history of it. When you don’t subsidize and arm authoritarian states and terrorists the people in those countries don’t have reason to want to hurt you. And as a result terrorists groups are going to have fewer people that they can recruit against you. Because people they would target don’t see you as the enemy and perhaps even as a potential ally.

The American Mind: Charles Kesler & William Voegeli: 'Ending The Welfare State'

Source:The New Democrat

This blog has already laid out why it is against the negative income tax. Handing people who up to this point at least haven’t been responsible with their lives in too many cases to the point not they are jobless and on public assistance is not a good idea and a bad taxpayer investment. So I think that would be the bad libertarian alternative to the safety net in America. The bad progressive or even socialist alternative to the safety net in America would be to give everyone a check of let's say forty-thousand-dollars a year to pay all of their bills so no one lives in poverty. Which is what is called the minimum income or national basic income.

The problem with monopolies private or public is that they don’t work. Oh you want more than that. Fine I’ll give you more since you asked. But with a monopoly you give an organization private or public the complete market in whatever they are involved in. Which means they are no longer incentivized to improve and give the best service that they can. Why should they unless they are saints or angels, because their customers have no other options to turn to. And why not charge as much as you can get away with, because again what alternatives do your customers have to turn to. And that I think is an issue with the safety net in America, that it is not a total monopoly, but it does take resources that could be used in non-profit private sector.

I don’t like the term welfare state because that implies that the state meaning the government is now responsible for their citizens welfare. No longer just their safety and protecting their freedom, but their welfare as well and responsible in seeing that everyone is taken care of and has enough food, health care, housing and everything else. I like terms like safety net and social insurance. Because these are things that people can turn to when they are in need. When they are out of work or do not make enough money to support themselves, but they are working. And that you can collect from this social insurance to help you survive in the short-term. But you are also getting assistance to get on your feet and become economically independent.

The safety net in America shouldn’t be about government running it or not having government involved at all. We as a country public and private sectors should be involved in it. Government programs helping people in need run at the state and local levels with the Feds serving as a regulator and no longer as a director. While at the same time empowering non-profits and even for-profits who want to get involved in empowering people in poverty live better lives and be able to escape poverty. That we as a country help people in need not just get by, but help them get themselves on their feet. We should look at social insurance the way we look at homeowners insurance. That when you are in trouble you have money in the short-term. But also assistance to help you get back on your feet.

The American safety net should almost be designed the opposite way it was put together in the 1930s. As close to home as possible, the public and private sectors both involved and designed to help people in the short-term, but long-term help people get on their feet. Because we are such vast country with so many people and resources government shouldn’t be so centralized and instead about empowering people an utilizing all of our people from all around the country to help people in need. So they can get by and not longer have to live in need and finally be able to live in freedom.

Crash Course: John Green- George H.W. Bush & The End of The Cold War

Source: Crash Course-

Source:The New Democrat

George H.W. Bush is fascinating to me even if his personality comes off as more stale, which is surprising because he does have a very good sense of humor and is a very likable man. That people close to him are more than happy to let others know, but that was not the perception of him by 1992 when he ran for reelection. He was seen as stale and out of touch and someone perhaps not aware of what was going on in the country and around the world. And was seen as someone who was past his time and the country was ready for a change.

But even though I’m a Liberal Democrat I see George Bush as a successful and good president. I would give him an 8 or 8.5 as someone who was a transitional figure from a more hard-right president like Ronald Reagan at the end of the Cold War, to a liberal New Democrat in Bill Clinton prepared to take America to the 21st Century. President Bush was someone who took over when America was in pretty good shape at home and around the world. But because of the rising debt and deficit and interest rates and inflation and recession that was about to come in the early 1990s that he inherited, that is what defined his presidency.

In many ways the George H.W. Bush presidency is the presidency that his son George W. should have. That G.W. Bush should’ve learned about and studied his father except being a former government and businessman paid more attention to domestic policy. While going back to his father’s foreign policy of strong at home militarily and economically while engaged around the world so we don’t have to even try to govern the world ourselves. Something by this time we weren’t cable of doing anyway. Instead of having this neoconservative supply side economic policy and force at all costs unilateral foreign policy.

The economic boom that America went through in the 1990s that started in 1993-94 had part to do with President Bush starting in 1990 with his deficit reduction act. That he negotiated with a Democratic Congress and the trade deals that his administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico that became known as NAFTA and GAT in 1992. The technology boom that became famous by 1995 or so with the internet and the cell phone and other devices started under his administration. As far as those devices being available to everyone. The internet and email were already up by 1992 if not 1991 and cell phones were fairly common by 1992 as well.

If you at America’s foreign policy and how we were doing around the world. Again the end of the Cold War which meant America no longer needed such a large and costly military. Which freed up other resources for other priorities. Saddam Hussein was in a box in the Middle East. Russia became an ally of America. Central America was becoming democratic and so was Eastern Europe. President Bush didn’t try to govern the world, but to make sure we were ready to deal with all of these new allies and create new trade partners, which is what he did. His presidency was pretty successful, but not great and deserves more credit for being the president that he was.
Source:Crash Course

Tracy Thatcherite: Margaret Thatcher- The Downing Street Years

Source:Tracy Thatcherite.

Source:The New Democrat

Margaret Thatcher coming to power in Britain in 1979 is very similar to Ronald Reagan coming to power in America in 1981. Both countries economies were in very bad shape with high unemployment, inflation, interest rates. But in Britain’s case their economy was in worst shape with their taxes much higher, more people on public assistance and in poverty and a lot of their economy under control of the U.K. Government. Socialists had dominated Britain post-World War II with a few exceptions and that is the country that Maggie Thatcher inherited.

To understand Margaret Thatcher you have to understand the difference between a British Conservative and an American Conservative especially as it relates to economic policy. Thatcher didn’t run and want to end the British welfare state, but to reform it and create a society where not as many people would need it. Because more people would be working with good jobs and able to take care of themselves. And create a society with high economic and job growth with growing wages and more people paying into the welfare state and fewer taking out of it.

Maggie Thatcher wanted to create a Britain where people who could were expected to work and be able to take care of themselves. With the welfare state there just for the people who truly needed it. And for whatever reasons weren’t able to take care of themselves. And if you at Britain in 1990 when Prime Minister Thatcher left office and compare that with how the country was when she came into office in 1979, she was very successful. And also look at how she changed the Labour Party with Tony Blair. Changing them from less of a socialist party with the super welfare state and more of a new democratic liberal party that wanted to use government to empower people. Instead of trying to take care of everyone.

Modern Lonely TV: Tories- The Course of Margaret Thatcher (2001)

Source:Modern Lonely TV.

Source:The New Democrat

I’m not an expert on British politics obviously, but I do follow their politics and government similar to how British political junkies follow American politics. And what the British Labour Party went through from 1997 after they just lost the U.K. Government and were back in the opposition for the first time since 1979 and really didn’t start recovering until 2008 or 2009 when David Cameron became their leader in opposition, looks very similar to me how the American Republican Party looked in 1961. After they just lost the White House and were now not only the opposition party in America, but the minority party in both chambers of Congress with small minorities at that.

It took the Republican Party in the 1960s really 6-8 years before they started recovering from the 1960 presidential loss with Richard Nixon. They didn’t have that one voice that could unite the whole party together. The Conservatives with the Northeastern Progressives and their growing religious conservative base in the South. The British Conservatives in the late 1990s and 2000s were much worst off actually than the 1960s Republicans. The American and British systems of government are obviously very different. Where in America you can still be in power even without the White House. By controlling either the Senate or House in Congress and having a say in the national agenda.

In Britain winner takes all. The majority party in the House of Commons in Parliament decides who the Prime Minister is and can form the U.K. Government. And because the Conservatives lost in 2001 and 2005 and the fact that Britain doesn’t have what America has in mid-term elections, they were out of power the whole time from 1997 until May of 2010. Thirteen-years and were stuck in the minority in Parliament and as the opposition party as well. And they pre-David Cameron never had that one leader that could bring the whole party together and convince their country that the Conservatives should be back in charge in London and back in government.

The Conservatives were in charge in Britain for eighteen-years from 1979-97. That is a long time to have all the power in one country, especially a country of sixty-million or so. And always having to be responsible for governing the country and having to deal with all the bad and good on your own. And I think they just burned out and the British people wanted a different voice and a different vision in how to lead their country. Which is what Tony Blair represented as New Labour as someone who would use government to try to empower people. And not try to run everything in the country through government. And Tony Blair was able to lead Britain for ten-years with that message.

Ben Shapiro: ‘Why Jews Vote Leftist’

Source:Truth Revolt- right-wing political columnist Ben Shapiro.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Ben Shapiro takes a clear-eyed look at why American Jews vote for the anti-Israel Left.” 

From Ben Shapiro

The two things that I agree with Ben Shapiro on is that American-Jews tend to more identify with their Jewish blood, meaning ethnicity than their Jewish religion. And that a lot of Americans-Jews aren’t Jewish in a religious sense. A lot of Jews are either secular or practice another religion. I have a friend who is half Jewish and half Irish and raised Catholic like a lot of Irish-Americans.

And the other thing being that Jews like a lot of other Americans ethnics (at least of European descent) tend to identify more with their ethnicity than their religion. Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Greek-Americans, Polish-Americans (to use as examples) all fall into this category and all have their own American holiday celebrating their ethnicity and culture.

Now why do American Jews tend to vote Democratic and part of that huge Democratic melting pot that Democrats have to have to win the White House every four years? Part of it I believe has to do with history. A Democratic President FDR saved the Europeans-Jews in World War II after a lot of them were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Another one being that the Republican Party is still tied very tightly with the Far-Right that tends to be Southern and rural based that tends to be Anglo-Saxon and anti-Semitic. The Far-Left in the Democratic Party also tends to be anti-Semitic. The difference being that Democrats don’t need the Far-Left at all in order to win.

If the Republican Party were ever able to dump their Far-Right (which includes part of the Tea Party) they could appeal to American-Jews. Because Jews in America tend to like or are at least opened to things like economic freedom, lower taxes and regulations, strong national defense, at least outside of the Northeast. The Northeast is somewhat dominated by the Far-Left at least when it comes to Jewish voters. But the rest of the country could be decent territory for the GOP in appealing to American-Jews as long as they aren’t seen as anti-Semitic and inline with the Far-Right of the GOP on social issues.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: P.J. O'Rourke Reflects on Life in The Sixties to Today

Source:The New Democrat

The Baby Boom is sort of tough for me to blog about as someone who was born in the mid-1970s the tail end of Generation X. And also as someone whose parents were born in the 1930s and are part of he Silent Generation. So I don’t really have much to go on other than my two of my uncles who were both born in 1944 who I didn’t see very often growing up and who I’m not close with today. Other than Boomers that I’ve talked to, but mostly as an adult. So what I have to go on for the most part is history. Which is generally a great reference to go on even if that is all you have.

Boomer stereotypes are people who were Hippies and looking to escape the 1950s and when that finally happened in college in the 1960s they just sort of exploded and freaked out on marijuana trips. Wait, that’s not so much a stereotype, but is actually true. But there’s more to that because this is a generation that is one of the most productive that America has ever produced whether they are on the Far-Left or Far-Right or somewhere in between. If you looked at what they produced for this country in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s and even today. They are a healthy generation and they are living working longer than any generation we’ve ever produced. Because they want to and are still very good at what they do.

There’s an old American saying that when you are young you are more open to alternative views and lifestyles that they establishment sees as immoral and weird. But as you get older and mature you get more educated and realize that you have responsibilities for yourself and your family and people you work with or for and people who work for you. And there’s a limit to how much of a rebel that you can be. The Boomers were Hippies in the 1960s and 70s, but they also grew up and have become perhaps the most educated, productive, tolerant and open-minded generation that we’ve ever produced. And I give them a lot of credit for that.