Professor Yasheng Huang of the Sloan School of Management at MIT wrote an article in the July/August issue of Foreign Policy magazine entitled THE NEXT ASIAN MIRACLE. His central premise addresses the idea that authoritarian forms of government suppress economic development. He compares and contrasts China's rapid expansion with India's significantly slower growth. While many people might expect that a democratic form of government would foster greater economic expansion, the examples of India and China will make us think otherwise. Indeed, we might come to the conclusion that China's rapid growth is due to its more authoritarian style of government, and India's slower growth is the result of greater political freedoms in that country. However, Professor Huang concludes that China's real expansion occurred in the 80s when the government significantly reduced intrusions on the lives of its citizens and, on the other side of the coin, India's slow growth was due to Indira Gandhi’s unaccountable and corrupt government.

This line of thinking made me wonder what effect eight years of the Bush administration has had on the American economy and how if a Barack Obama or John McCain presidency might either reverse or perpetuate our current economic course. Although certainly not a hard and fast rule, historically the American business cycle has trended towards a pattern of eight years of growth followed by three years of hardship. Our last real recession, which occurred in 1991 (remember, “It’s the economy, stupid.”?), was followed by eight years of historic growth. So in the year 2000 I would've expected that whichever candidate won the battle for the US presidency in Florida would have been presided over three years of economic downturn. Of course, as with any generalization, unexpected variables will always throw a monkey wrench into the system. The events of September 11, 2001, were just such a monkey wrench. The downturn, which I expected during the first Bush administration, never came and the significant upturn, which I would've expected during a second Bush administration, also never came. However, the events of 9/11 did allow the Bush and Cheney administration to begin the largest accumulation of executive power since the Great Depression.

I should note that all though I am no Bill Clinton fan, I have always been willing to give him credit for meddling little with the US economy during his eight years in office. As most people can tell you, new leadership usually brings change--whether it is needed or not. New leaders want to be seen as having put their imprint on the systems they oversee. They want to validate the ideas that facilitated their rise to power in the first place. So it's very common for new Presidents, CEOs, and even mid-level managers to make change for the sake of change even when no change is warranted. Thus it is with mild dismay that I give President Clinton his due for essentially leaving the US economy alone during his eight years in office. He was smart enough to see that the economic engine of the United States was purring along nicely after 12 years of Republican governance. In hindsight, and in light of Professor Huang's article, I wonder now if his liberal approach to managing the economy (and by liberal I mean being released from government intrusion) might have actually been high-octane fuel for an economic engine already running at high RPMs. And I wonder if the accumulation of executive power by the Bush administration during the last eight years has been a swift application of the breaks to America's motor.

What is important to note from Professor Huang's article is that it is not the actual form of government that is critical to economic acceleration. Had that been the case, China's authoritarian rule would never have allowed for the rapid economic expansion from which China continues to reap the benefits today. Moreover, India would have seen a significantly more rapid growth in its economy given its well-formed democratic government. No, the key seems to be the perception of the people regarding the direction in which government is moving. Citizens in India, blessed with a democratic constitution, endured Indira Gandhi's administration’s accumulation of power, restrictions on freedoms, and suppression of states rights. This trend seems to have made investors, entrepreneurs and creative people skittish about the security of their money. Likewise in China, the big bang for their economic growth was Deng Xiaoping's very liberal reforms in the early 80s. Quoting Professor Huang, “China did not take off because it was authoritarian. Rather, it took off because the liberal political reforms of the 1980s made the country less authoritarian. Like India, when China reversed its political reforms and saw governance worsen in the 1990s, citizens well-being declined.” Professor Huang concludes that while the actual number of individuals affected by specific Chinese policies was small, that, “symbolism mattered.” Professor Huang says, “The change in direction of China's politics was sufficiently credible to encourage millions of entrepreneurs to go into business for themselves.”

Authentic conservatives, who have been arguing for smaller federal government, will not be surprised by these conclusions. Big government restrictions on citizens and businesses are viewed as a threat to the intellectual capital behind economic growth—creativity, risk-tolerance, investment, venture funding, etc.

This makes me wonder which of the two presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, would be most likely to change the perception of how our executive branch of government is functioning. The easy answer would be Barack Obama. He has been campaigning for the better part of a year on a platform of change. And no doubt a Barack Obama presidency would usher in a great deal of change. However, would this change result in less government intrusion or more? Given his standing as the most liberal senator in Washington and some of his policy ideas like increasing federal regulation on the banking industry and implementation of a single payer health care system, I can only imagine that his presidency would include vastly more government restraints than we see today.

John McCain has certainly been bucking the system and his party for the better part of his political career. As a Republican, at least in theoretical ideology, we would expect him to relax federal regulation, reduce taxes, and free the components of the economic engine to operate with less friction. But as much as he likes to place himself outside of the establishment, he is still a senator who has served his political career in Washington during a time when both parties have gotten into the habit of providing more and more from the public coffers to special interests and niche political groups. Additionally, McCain -- Feingold cannot leave us with much optimism about his desire to let Americans operate unencumbered.

If perceived reality is indeed more important than reality itself, then perhaps we should simply believe that the marketing campaigns of each candidate have already provided us with the answer to this question. In a recent poll in which likely voters were asked to say the first word that comes to mind when prompted with each candidate's name, the runaway front runner for Obama was “change” and the leader for McCain was “old.” Even not being an Obama supporter, I, too, would have thought, “change” first, even as I resisted saying it out loud. Whether or not this perception of change will be sufficient to overcome the likely reality of growth in federal government and intrusion is obviously cause for speculation. But at least he would enter the office cloaked in the perception of being a change agent. Given the direction of this discussion, I find scant cause for optimism when considering a McCain presidency. The last year of campaigning has done little to separate him from President Bush. Of course, upon taking office, he could change whatever perception he arrives in the Oval Office with by spending his first 100 days freeing Americans from many of the regulations and government intrusions we are currently saddled with.

As is always the case, the success of our great nation depends on the behavior of its individual citizens. We can choose to respond any way we wish. Regardless of whom we elect as President, we can look for the areas in which we are regaining liberties, not losing them. One thing Senator Obama has right: we must BE the change we wish to become. He, or Senator McCain will have less to do with our national success than each of us will. At least that’s my perception.

I don't have a problem with four-dollar gas.  Or five-dollar gas.  Or six dollars or seven.  Maybe it's my own shallowness that causes me to simply want to be a part of something bigger than myself.  Though I served in Gulf War one, I don't really think that my military experience gave me the sense of participation in a great national struggle. 


So maybe I long to be a part of such a struggle, such an opportunity, where the future of the world turns on the behavior of the generations involved in that struggle.  Then again maybe my motivation runs deeper.  Maybe I simply believe in the greatness of America so much so that I understand that without America's participation in any global struggle there will never be the positive outcome that the world desires.

 It should come as no surprise that Americans need a kick in the butt to get involved in any global struggle. World War I, which began in 1914, raged for over three years before the United States was co-opted into full participation.  The fighting of World War II began in 1939 yet it was more than two years before the United States became fully involved in that global conflict and then only after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.  So I'm not surprised that high gas prices in other countries a few years back, when gas prices here in America were still a tolerable two dollars a gallon, were insufficient to spur the great American economy into action.  We were able to sit back and relax knowing that this enemy wasn’t disembarking on our shores.   But now the battle has been brought directly to our homeland.  Gasoline prices are spiking, as never before, and regardless of who's to blame, the bottom line is that each and every American who pays for gasoline is acutely aware that changes are needed in our energy policy.

 My fear is that quickly rectifying the situation in a manner that returns gas to below three dollars a gallon would remove the impetus to action on the part of Americans. This is exactly what happened in the late 70s. President Carter put forth an ambitious energy policy that the Reagan administration promptly abandoned after prices returned to normal.

Fortunately, four-dollar gas is not the violent, instantaneous call to action that Pearl Harbor or 9/11 was.  Four-dollar gas at American pumps is not the type of catastrophe with ripples that are felt for months and even years in the American psyche.  If gas returns to a tolerable level tomorrow we will quickly forget how thin our wallets have been over the past year and return to our gluttony of the world's oil supply.  But it should now be clear to every American that long-term and permanent changes need to be made to American energy policy.

 "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me," the adage goes.  A century ago we committed to creating a petroleum-based economy.  Who could have foreseen the unintended consequences that occurred in the last hundred years?  But with hindsight as a counselor, we can now see the follies of many of our decisions.  Notwithstanding that every war is a war over resources, the last two wars the United States has been involved in have clearly been wars for access to oil.

 Applying all of the greatness of America's creativity, ingenuity and economic might to the problem, I suspect that since it took nearly a century to create the problem we now face, it will take at least half as much time to change our course.  Fifty years--half a century--to undo what we have done.  The constant pain inflicted on Americans by four dollar a gallon gasoline is the necessary catalyst to jumpstart America's complete involvement in solving the current conundrum in which we now find ourselves.

 There have been many studies done attempting to predict the point at which the world will reach peak oil production, that point in time at which the world will have produced the most oil it can at a given point in time after which oil production will steadily decline.  Regardless of whether you believe peak oil production will occur in 10 years 20 years or 30 years, given the fact that oil is a limited resource, that day will one day arrive. If gasoline were to return to two dollars a gallon tomorrow, the past year of rising oil prices rising gas prices and economic woes caused by those conditions should be a clear glimpse into the future when oil production is, without a doubt, on the decline. This is the time for the United States to act.  This is the time for the United States to reclaim our role as world leader--by accepting the reality of the situation and accepting the challenges that this situation presents for our great nation.

 Already we've seen Americans begin to make great changes.  Studies are showing that individuals and families are driving fewer miles than they did a year ago and carpooling is up.  Cities are investing in new mass transportation and the use of current mass transportation is on the rise.  Local and state governments are taking the initiative to try various tactics to decrease gas and energy usage, from Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm proposing a reduction of the speed limit to 55 to Utah's governor instituting a four-day workweek.  Every day it seems I read about another start-up automobile company investing in the development of car powered by alternative energy sources.  Homebuilders are, more and more, constructing their products with greater energy efficiency and incorporating newer technologies to reduce energy usage in the home.  All in all, America is beginning, once again, to demonstrate its willingness and ability to rise to any challenge it faces.  The sign of our greatness will not be our ability to quickly return gasoline prices to two dollars a gallon but rather our willingness and ability to learn from the lessons of the last century and incorporate those lessons into new energy policy that becomes a benchmark for the next century and for every other country on the planet.

 It's human nature to take the path of least resistance.  When gas is cheap, there's virtually no resistance and certainly no reason to change direction.  But when gasoline is four dollars or more per gallon, resistance is great and there becomes a national consensus that a new direction is needed that provides less resistance than the current course of action.

 Difficulties are part of life.  There's no avoiding them.  But rising fuel costs need not be the cataclysmic event most people think it is. The question becomes, will we view ourselves as victims as difficulties mount or will we view these difficulties as opportunities?  America has a history of the latter.  America has a history of not backing down.  Today, with gas at four dollars a gallon and rising, the enemy is clear and our challenges are well defined.  We should view every painful trip to the pump as a reminder that each of us has a part to play in creating America's future for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren.

 
As I dictate this article, I'm making the 150-mile journey from San Antonio, Texas, to Waco, Texas in the family minivan.  I'm acutely aware of the fact that I am a part of the problem, as are the myriad of cars that surround me in stop and go traffic through Austin.  I'm acutely aware that the sheer geographic vastness of America, and the development of the automobile 100 years ago have caused each of us to make lifestyle choices which are not easily undone.  I wonder how I might make this trip a decade from now.  I wonder if I-35 will more closely resemble the Flintstones or the Jetsons.  I may be only one American, but I know from conversations with friends over the kitchen counter that many share my concerns but they also share my optimism.  But I'm also enough of a realist to understand that in the absence of an external force acting upon it an object at rest tends to stay at rest.  Four dollar a gallon gasoline is the external force America needs to get the ball rolling.

The job of the Vice-President is much maligned and held in little esteem by those who know the job. In a telegram from Woodrow Wilson’s vice-president, Thomas Marshall, to newly nominated Republican vice presidential candidate Calvin Coolidge, Marshall wrote, “Please accept my sincere sympathy.” Harry Truman wrote of the job, “As useful as a cow’s fifth teat.” Maybe the smartest men are the ones who avoid the indignity in the first place. Daniel Webster, explaining why he declined the vice-presidential nomination in 1848 replied, “I do not choose to be buried until I am really dead.”

In fact, even from its very inception it inspired rancor from its holders. John Adams, America’s first Vice President said, “My country, in its wisdom, contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” But Adams experience demonstrates the extreme irony. As insignificant as the position may seem to its holders, the American public seems to value the experience it provides. Adams, of course, went on to become our second president.

Since John F. Kennedy, we’ve had eight presidents: four have been governors and four have been vice-presidents. This year we will have a Senator rise to the presidency, but clearly this is the exception not the rule.

The bottom line is that while the job may be insignificant in and of itself, the experience of having had the job is by no means insignificant. Which is why I find it so perplexing that still today vice-presidents are selected on their merits as VICE-PRESIDENTS as opposed to PRESIDENTS IN TRAINING. This is, ultimately, the job of the vice-president—to succeed the President in his duties if he (or she) is no longer able. The rest is killing time. Consequently, the one quality a vice-president should possess is to be presidential material. Yet the qualities for which modern-day vice-presidents are selected is their ability to complement the presidential nominee as opposed to their ability to be attractive as a stand-alone candidate who might one day hold the highest office in the land.

An often-investigated “qualification” many vice-presidents are selected for is from where they hail. There is a line of thinking that vice-presidential candidates can help deliver the votes of their home state. This, in fact, seems to have some real merit, at least in the elections since 1960. In the twelve elections beginning in 1960, there have been 24 vice-presidential nominees. Seventeen of these delivered their home state. However, only seven of those 24 candidates could be considered to have come from a “key” state—either big states or swing states. The rest called smaller states home: Wyoming, Connecticut, North Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland, for instance. Of the seven “big state” vice-presidential nominees only George Bush in 1980 and 1984 and Lyndon Johnson in 1960 delivered their home state (Texas in each case). And in the 80s, it’s safe to say Ronald Reagan would have carried Texas with Captain Kangaroo as his vice-presidential nominee. Reagan beat Carter 55% to 41% in 1980 and Mondale 63% to 36 % in 1984.

In the midst of the current election, we find the discussion about a potential Barack Obama running mate centering on someone who has a longer D.C. resume or, more specifically, significant foreign policy experience. Jim Webb fit this bill having been Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy with the added benefit of being a Vietnam War veteran, which theoretically would have helped Obama shore up his position with the pro-military crowd. John McCain, apparently, also lacks a full complement of presidential qualifications, causing the pundits to postulate that a running mate who is more palatable with the social conservatives and evangelicals would make for an attractive dance card. Mike Huckabee and Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin are highly regarded on that list. Furthermore, Senator McCain has a self-acknowledged economic deficit so a running mate with extensive economic experience would be beneficial to his chances of being elected—enter Mitt Romney.

Of course, the practical reality is that the functional relationship between the two High-Office holders is seldom this collaborative. Presidents are not known for humbly calling upon vice-presidents to develop policy initiatives or make decisions in areas in which the president is perceived to have a deficit. I have a hard time imagining President McCain urgently calling Vice-President Romney on his cell: “Mitt, I know you’re at my doctor’s office checking on my health but you’re needed at the big house, pronto. These Cabinet fellas are talking economics and, shucks, I need a little help with this supply and demand chart.”

The reality is that we tend to view potential vice-presidential nominees as the other half of a matchmaking proposition. We look for VP yin for the nominee’s yang. We wonder who would make a cute couple, which potential nominee would complement the party’s candidate, who would offset perceived weaknesses, who could take out the trash without complaining while the other is at the office.

It makes me wonder if Samantha Daniels, the Manhattan Matchmaker specializing in discreet setups for the rich and famous has contemplated political consulting. Better yet, it might be easier to find the best candidate if those in need of a (running) mate registered at “veep-Harmony.com.”

First Name: Senator

I’m Currently: Campaigning

I’m a (circle one): man seeking man, man seeking woman, woman seeking woman, woman seeking man

Racial Preference: no preference/ black/ Hispanic/ Asian/ Other

Age Preference (circle one): older/ younger/ +/- 5 years

Postal Code: 20500

Country: Duh

Email: info@partyheadquarters.com

Password: Feingold/NotAMuslim

How did you hear about us (circle one): O’Reilly, Olberman, Limbaugh, Colbert, Direct Mail, Referred by “friend,” other.

At least THIS process would put the proven power of the Internet and current technological advances to work on creating the best match possible given our current standards for qualification.

Then again, maybe the Founding Fathers had it right from the beginning. The vice-president was the presidential candidate who came in second, thus assuring that American citizens had a vice-president who many already thought worthy of the Presidency. I’m not advocating a return to that system, but I am suggesting that the best vice-president is also someone we can imagine being president, not simply on the president’s elbow throughout the campaign.

This time of each election year is the ultimate exercise in self-indulgent palaver by those of us who make our living by saying or writing, “What he SHOULD do is…” We get so caught up in creating the perfect match that we forget the potential importance of the vice-presidency. Ultimately, the choice makes little difference whatsoever—at least not for four more years when this year’s VWM (vetted white male) becomes our next Man Seeking (wo)man.

A few weeks ago, I was asked to write an article sharing my thoughts on race in America. What follows was published in the San Antonio Express News on June 16, 2008.

I’m 43 and I don’t know that there’s ever been a time in my life when I’ve thought as much about race in America as I have in the last year, and I have Barrack Obama’s presidential candidacy to thank for that. I was not raised in an ethnically diverse area. My career choices have not placed me in ethnically diverse career fields.  These facts are not my fault, nor necessarily a problem, but they are the facts and so I must always be careful about the formulation of ideas in such isolation.


I find it beneficial to look at race from two vantage points: first, what I expect of myself and, second, what I think we should expect from others.  What I expect from myself first is an awareness that “I don’t understand.”  As a white man I can never fully understand what life is like in America for blacks. I also expect that I will continue to grow and learn ONLY by listening to the voices that have experienced black-America.  I expect that I will thoughtfully process those shared experiences through the filter of the values I cherish as an American.  I expect that I will be able to identify the perpetuation of stereotypes when they occur.

I expect to be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. I believe that even major change begins with small steps at home. I want to be proactive in looking past race. I want to, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, judge a man, not on the color of his skin but on the content of his character. I expect to be aware of my prejudices and fearlessly act in spite of them.

And here is what I expect from others: I expect that my homogeneous background will not be held against me.  I expect that it will be assumed that I am working FOR blacks and not AGAINST blacks until I prove otherwise. When I make mistakes (and inevitably, I will, because I’m human), I expect that my errors will be assumed to be born not of malice but of well meaning, if uninformed, intentions. I don’t expect to be held accountable for the behaviors of people who lived generations ago. I never owned slaves. I have never oppressed blacks. I don’t feel I owe anybody anything other than the simple dignity and respect that every American is entitled to regardless of race, color or creed.

I expect every American to take responsibility for his or her own actions. I expect people to take care of their families and their communities. I expect this of ALL Americans. If I expected something different from blacks, THAT would be racist.

I expect that blacks and whites will be held to the same standards of decency in their speech. It is hypocritical to insist that whites never say “n#$$@r” when the word is so frequently used in the black community. If the word is indecent, if it evokes images of oppression and hatred, if it has no place on white lips, then I expect the same message to be taught within the black community. The word cannot have multiple meanings, and if somehow it does, then those alternate meanings must be open to inclusion in the speech of any and all rhetoricians who choose to use it.

The fear of being labeled a racist has caused many Americans to retreat to indifference.  I want to help, if I can, so I am open to learning and even to being wrong. But when my mistakes get me branded as a racist, it makes me angry and bitter. For whites in America, the fear of being labeled a racist has scared many good people away from open and honest discourse. Words are taken out context. Blacks, and the media afraid of being on the wrong side of political-correctness, presuppose bigotry. Consequently, whites, rather than pursuing learning opportunities, shut down, choosing to say and do nothing.



If it’s true that we fear what we don’t understand, then I DO fear black America. The fact that I don’t understand is a fact shared by many Americans. But most are willing to learn and we are more open to discussion on these issues than we are given credit for and I don’t believe we are well served in the discussion by having white-America instantly on the defensive. Dissent is one of the things that makes America great. But it’s not a zero sum game. It is possible, and desirable that we remember that we can disagree in our discourse and still find common ground as Americans.

This presidential administration is so determined to build a border fence that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, with the authorization of Congress, is busy waiving more than thirty laws in order to see it built quickly. Republicans, in general, seem to favor a border fence. My question is, why?

Of course I’m well acquainted with the arguments, as I suspect you are, so I won’t address them in detail: maintaining our national culture, remaining a country which abides by the rule of law, ensuring procedural fairness vis-à-vis legal immigrants, and protecting American jobs. These are all principles supported by the Republican Party and conservatives alike. But I must admit, I’m still a little flummoxed.

It’s not that I don’t support those principles—I most certainly do. In fact, no one is more supportive of the maintenance of our American culture than I am, nor are you likely to find someone who takes a harder line on rule of law issues. Likewise, I believe that the immigrants who have come to America legally should reap the benefits of their actions and I have nothing but the greatest optimism about the state of the American job market when it is allowed to innovate and operate unencumbered by excessive regulation.

So where, you ask, is my problem? It’s the hypocrisy of the approach. Isn’t the Republican Party supposed to be party of small federal government? Isn’t the GOP supposed to be the party of personal responsibility and accountability? Aren’t Republicans likely to eschew a government solution to problems that can be fixed by personal behavior?

The answers to these questions are historically yes.

I’d like to reiterate two principles that I think ought to guide the behavior of the federal government. First, government should facilitate its citizens doing the right thing. Second, as Ronald Reagan liked to say, government should protect us from each other but not protect us from ourselves. Having said that, the immigration problem begins with us. We--individual families, small business owners, and corporations—have created a market for illegal immigrants by hiring them. Without the ability to work and earn in our country there would be little motivation to come to America. Taking the path of least resistance, some Americans have selfishly justified their own law breaking and illegal hiring practices and, in turn, created paradigms of labor availability for their businesses and job availability for those willing to immigrate illegally to the United States.

The government’s role in today’s illegal immigration problem is that it hasn’t previously done what it must do now—enforce the laws of our country. Asking the federal government to build a border fence is asking for more government, more regulation, and more expenditure. In short, it is the type of suggestion we would normally expect from Democrats.

Going forward, the federal government can help citizens do the right thing by putting America on notice that the laws of our country will be enforced. Critics claim that this is insensitive to the illegal immigrants who have established lives here in the US. This makes as much sense as saying that if the police discovered a family of thieves, they shouldn’t return the stolen TVs and stereos to the rightful owners because the thieves had become accustomed to having them. And since there have been no crimes since the original theft, we’ll skip prosecuting the perpetrators, too.

A border fence, at best, serves only to help protect us from ourselves by slowing a supply for which we created the demand--a role Republicans and conservatives usually don’t believe the federal government should be taking on. A border fence ignores the ingenuity of properly motivated foreigners and is unlikely to stop illegal immigration for any length of time. Only when the supply of jobs is cut will illegal immigration be curbed. At which point, a previously erected border fence becomes an unnecessary eyesore, a maintenance problem, and a monument to our own lack of self-control and imagination.

This issue has become a metaphor for the laments of those Republicans who understand that the GOP has become as much a proponent of big government solutions as the Democrats. The line between the parties has blurred and Americans are left with fewer and fewer real choices.

Republicans and conservatives, as well as many Democrats, value the aforementioned principles involved in the illegal immigration issue. Despite the validity of the competing principles here, Republicans don’t do themselves any favors by not standing up for the broader and more important principles that guide the party. The concepts of limited government and personal accountability and responsibility are the principles that should guide the policies the party pursues. Some will say, “the people have spoken” and the administration is just following the wishes of the people by building the border fence. When did the US stop being a republic? We’ve elected officials, in this case a Republican administration, to do what they think is best for the country. Instead, like beleaguered parents capitulating to the demands of a petulant child who cries to get what he wants, Republican leaders are creating a new generation of party members who don’t understand the fundamental beliefs of the party and who are growing increasingly dependent on government solutions.

We must do for ourselves what government can’t do for us: we must wean ourselves off the tendency to look to the federal government to solve our problems. The Republicans have hopped on board the good ship Largesse, but we don’t have to sail with them. It’s time, as in most issues these days, for us to claim our party back from those who have forgotten what it is Republicans and conservatives want from their party leadership; and on the issue of illegal immigration another federally funded, big government program is not the solution to a problem American citizens can solve all by ourselves.

You would expect a Navy man and a pilot would understand the importance of directional control in order to achieve accurate navigation. From way up here in the cheap seats, it’s difficult to tell what kind of directional control John McCain is providing to his campaign and the development of his platform for a potential presidency. Honestly, I can’t tell if he’s floundering or plodding along. One thing seems certain though, if he doesn’t know where he’s going, he’ll never get there. Leadership is all about the destination. Where are we going? What’s the goal? Presidents must identify those answers and marshal the citizens.

Given McCain’s propensity for disassociating himself from his Republican Party during his 26 years in Congress and the Senate, historical party norms are of little help in identifying where it is he wants to take the United States. He seems very comfortable bucking party trends whenever possible, in order to be seen as different. Apparently, it’s been working, too. In a recent USA TODAY survey, 45% of the people polled described McCain as a “different kind of Republican.” Yes, I think that’s a fair assessment. It has the potential to be a very beneficial assessment, too, since Americans are rather enamored with the idea of change in 2008. Americans aren’t interested in a perpetuation of politics as usual, so McCain’s maverick image, honed since 1982, could help him to separate himself from the Bush Presidency.

Here’s the rub, though. He is flying aimlessly between the twin peaks of Mount AppealToYourBase and Independent’s Mountain. Watching him campaign, I’m left with the feeling that years of boat-rocking and anthill-kicking were the random acts of a politician who couldn’t see the forest through the trees or who simply liked to be different. There is no pattern of behavior. Campaign strategist Steve Schmidt says, “People view him as fundamentally different from what they’re sick of in Washington, which is partisanship for partisanship’s sake. The American people view him as his own man.” On the one hand he supports the war in Iraq, holding to a “the best defense is a good offense” foreign policy, and then talks about the need to engage other world leaders. Each of these positions will have supporters but the task for Senator McCain is tying the two together. The maverick career of John McCain looks to be all about establishing his credentials as being personally “different,” without attempting to advance the veracity of any unique world view, set of values or leadership style.

It’s not so much that he is flip-flopping, although he is--even if only by degrees, subtle nuances, and semantics. But he’s forced to hunt around for ideas that appease his base and yet attract independents. Expressing his policies to appease both would require great rhetorical skills and oratory deftness, neither of which he possesses in any great measure. By appearances, he is word-smithing his policy ideas in order to please everyone but in reality he is letting the whims of a greedy and entitled electorate determine his policy. With so many competing agendas, McCain sounds like a SummaCumLaude graduate from the Charlie Brown school of Policy Development. Maybe by September this will all sound less disjointed.

Senator McCain has an incredible advantage in this election given the high marks he receives from voters in both parties regarding his integrity and character. When the campaign is focused on personal qualities, McCain is the easy frontrunner. But when the campaign addresses policy he falters.

Questions abound about whether McCain can re-brand the Republican Party. Is his candidacy the first step towards changing the direction of the GOP and stripping power from those who have ascended the ranks in the last 30 years? Or is he the next in line in a succession of Reagan disciples looking to bring back the ‘80s? I suspect the answer is “C, None of the Above.” McCain looks more like a transitional Party Head who can be a caretaker of the GOP until a true heir can be identified. Which is too bad because the time has come for a New Republican torchbearer. Today, McCain is the least imperfect solution to the GOP candidacy for the presidency. His lack of a demonstrable set of values which guide his every decision though, makes it hard to imagine that he could be responsible for branding anything.

His recent tour of economically disadvantaged regions of the country had great promise, if it had been the manifestation of new Republican values championed by the Party’s candidate. Instead, it had all the meaning of a poorly attended benefit dinner. At this point, it is not what he says but why he says it. Does he believe that the poorest in America deserve his attention because he simply wants to be viewed differently than other Republicans, or do they deserve his attention because at its core conservatism values people, communities and investments in our social and economic infrastructure?

We’re about six months from Election Day. It’s time for Senator McCain to tell us where HE wants to take US and why that place is worth going to and then he needs to sell this destination to the American people.

“There’s a lush valley, America, that I’d like to take you to, somewhere between Mount AppealToYourBase and Independent’s Mountain. It sits in the shadow of majestic purple mountains, and is covered in amber waves of grain. Let me tell you more about it and how we’re going to get there.”

Unless you are a bear emerging from hibernation for the first time this spring, I suspect you are aware of the comments Democratic Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama made prior to the Pennsylvania primary last week. For you bears engaging in such decidedly human behavior as reading blogs, here is a recap. Senator Obama, speaking to a group of volunteers in San Francisco said that some voters have grown frustrated. “It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I’ve expressed my dismay with these comments in another post (http://tinyurl.com/5hk8r3) but what has escaped attention are Senator John McCain’s comments in response to Senator Obama’s statement. Senator McCain said, “ These are the people that produced a generation that made the world safe for democracy. These are the people that have fundamental cultural, spiritual and other values that in my opinion have very little to do with their economic condition.”

“These people.” Really? Referring to “these people” demonstrates his lack of understanding of the American electorate as much as Obama’s comments do. There is no “these people” as a subset of American demographics. “These people” are Americans. It is Americans who are deeply spiritual. It is Americans who believe in God. It is Americans who value the right to gun ownership. “These people” are “We the people.” The founding fathers felt so strongly about these two issues specifically that addressed them first in writing the Bill of Rights.

I understand the point Senator McCain was trying to make and he would have been absolutely correct had he also made the point that the people who value religion and gun ownership are represented in every single demographic in the Untied States. Obama’s comments are demeaning in that they imply that the ONLY reason people believe in God or own guns is as a coping mechanism for their lot in life. This trivializes the importance of these issues and it is an arrogant analysis of how he believes people with less than he has OUGHT to feel.

McCain’s comments are equally repugnant. By labeling them “these people” he, too, ties these issues to an underclass of Americans, as if the wealthy don’t attend church or own guns. Additionally, he implies that it was this underclass that made the world safe for democracy, when, in fact, every American demographic has participated in the defense of our country and the spread of democracy.

Senator McCain missed an opportunity to unite Americans through the oratorical follies of Senator Obama. Obama continues to be a divisive candidate in this presidential election, not a unifier. But John McCain is doing no better, even when Obama lobs him a softball. Senator McCain’s comments demonstrate not just his being out of touch with mainstream America and what we believe and why we believe it, but they show him to be equally unable to unite the American electorate around a core set of values. To Americans hunting for a candidate they like, despite the finger pointing, Senator McCain often does little to stand out.

“Supporting the troops” has become synonymous with advocating the war in Iraq, particularly in Republican circles.  But do Americans who want the war to end support the troops any less? Those who advocate bringing them home immediately would say that being an advocate for an end to hostilities is the greatest show of support. The anti-war troop-supporters probably see themselves as lifesavers.  Supporting the troops, however, need not have anything to do with a stance on the war itself.  Supporting the troops can be (and should be) the most non-partisan issue in the American discourse. 

I recently conducted several interviews regarding the wounded in Iraq and the medical care of our servicemen and women who are wounded in battle.  I also had a chance to view Terry Sanders’ excellent new movie FIGHTING FOR LIFE (www.FightingForLifeTheMovie.com) regarding these very same issues.  Watching our soldiers rehab at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was heart-wrenching. But the most moving part of the movie was watching our troops LEAVE Walter Reed.  The medical community had done what they could for each brave person and at some point there was no more to be done in an inpatient setting.   The soldier returns home.  

Damaged. 

Broken. 

Permanently disabled. 

The medical community moves on to the next patient, but the wounded remain in a sort of suspended reality, trying to learn how to establish a “new normal.”  What will life be like being disabled? How will they relate to their families?  Certainly more questions than answers exist when they arrive home. Their service was temporary but the cost of their service is permanent. 

What support is there for the soldier now?  While overseas, the soldier could at least know that he would return to a country that valued his service. He wouldn’t be spit upon—those days are thirty-plus years behind us.  It’s nice to return home and not be scorned, but goodwill pays few bills. 

Let me suggest a way in which we can clearly and definitively support our troops when they come home, regardless of their physical condition:  hire them. Give them a job.  Yes, I am advocating discriminatory hiring practices—it’s true.  Discriminate in favor of veterans. Nothing could be more supportive of the troops than taking the initiative to care for them, their families and their futures.  We can’t replace limbs, sight or lost relationships, but American citizens can provide hope and a future.  These brave men and women did their duty.  Regardless of why they joined the military, the day came when their Commander-in-Chief called them to service and they responded. They didn’t eschew their commitments.  They fought with their spouses over being “more married to the military” and got on a plane. They cried with their children and made promises they couldn’t know if they’d ever be able to keep.  

It’s our duty now to help them keep those promises. Do you need a receptionist for your office?  Forget the 20-year-old cutie in the little black dress and choose instead the 20-year-old corporal in the little black wheel chair. Make it a priority to interview veterans. Assume first that they’re hired and then make it a priority to find out what it is that would prevent them from doing the job well. I think it’s safe to say they’ve proved their mettle in tough circumstances. They’ve proved their loyalty and ability to work with others. Do you need a team player that can be trained to do anything? Look no further than the Transition Services Office at the nearest military facility. 

What better statement for your company than to be able to say, “We REALLY support the troops?”  What better way to say thank you on behalf of a grateful nation?  When we needed our soldiers to go out on a limb for us, they entered the “how-high” phase of military life.  Most of them might be too proud now to ask you for special treatment. It would be a shame if they had to ask. 

We invest in what we value and if we truly esteem the higher values--Duty, Honor, Country--demonstrated by our all-volunteer military we should make an investment in their future.  Giving a job to a veteran may cost you a little more money—a few extra sick days each year, handicapped accommodations, a little lost productivity--but these are the higher values WE are called to—these are the investments WE can make in America’s future. 

A job is only the beginning of finding a new normal but it is an absolute necessity for a veteran trying to earn his keep in society. So, you want to commit to supporting the troops? You want to commit to demonstrating that you value their service, dedication and protection? Then commit to hire values. 

Barack Obama’s comments this week about American values reveal not just elitism and a lack of understanding about the values most Americans hold dear, but they also expose him as using religion for political gain.

As a reminder, here is what he said. There was a question from some of his donors who asked what they could expect in Pennsylvania when they traveled there to campaign for him. They had to work to do, Obama responded, because voters in a lot of the communities feel beaten down by job losses and betrayed by their government.  “It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said.

Let’s start with the easy part:  It's human nature to project our experiences on to other people--to assume that they have traveled a similar road and that our experiences and conclusions are somewhat universal. Perhaps this is how HE views these issues—that religion is placebo for the problems of the world or that guns make people feel powerful when they have no power. But Obama's comments not only show that he believes the way he lives his life to be better than the way many Americans choose to live their lives, but they also show that he isn't aware of this tendency towards projection.  Which means that if he is given the chance to lead this great nation, he will do so only guided by his own personal view of the American Experience and without even a limited understanding of what the majority of Americans truly believe. He doesn't understand the underlying conservative (not Republican--conservative) values that most Americans hold dear. I’m not saying he has to be able to bowl a 160, or hit a soup can with a 9mm from 50 feet, or even raise his hands in worship.  He just needs to know that a significant number of Americans do--and it's a choice we freely make; if for no other reason than it lets us spend time with our friends and neighbors who like the same things.

His inclusion of religion in his remarks, however, also tells us something about the Illinois Senator.  The inference from his recent comments is that, as Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.”  Religion isn’t something real in our lives. It isn’t a relationship with the Creator.  Religion, Marx and Obama tell us, is a painkiller for what really ails us—economic hardship brought on by others, victimization at the hands of “the man,” powerlessness.  Furthermore, he implies that this phenomenon is unique to the weak members of society who cannot otherwise cope with their predicament.  This is from a man who wrote in his memoirs, “Inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story.”  Are we to assume that he feels the thousands of black church members  are simply looking for a way to deal with their frustrations? Because I didn’t hear him say any of that last month when speaking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Was David clinging to religion when he found the courage to take on Goliath? Were the members of Trinity United Church of Christ clinging to religion as they dealt with the frustrations Reverend Wright prattled on about from the pulpit?
 
Campaigning in South Carolina last fall, Obama trumpeted the power and salvation of faith and asked a church audience to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth."  Would that be the Kingdom of Bitterland, Senator?

After his highly regarded speech on race in America, he was discussing his grandmother.  He allowed as how she didn’t believe when she was alive, as he does, that Jesus was God and died for our sins. And yet he asserted his confidence that she is in heaven.  I’m sorry, Senator. You can’t have it both ways.  You cannot speak of the power of salvation through Jesus Christ and then say Grammy’s in heaven even though she didn’t believe.  There are many who might agree that a life well lived is sufficient and God will judge accordingly. But they do not also speak of salvation through Jesus.  I would be happy to overlook religious views different than my own—I do it every election.  What I can’t do is ignore the hypocrisy of a man whose core values seem to change depending on his audience.  Either, Senator Obama, you believe Jesus saves or you don’t.   

Either, Senator Obama, you believe religion provides freedom, survival and hope or you believe religion is a bad drug.

Make up your mind, Senator.  Make a decision. Take a stand.

Senator Obama believes in the power of his own palaver. He has created a platform of hope that many Americans are desperate to hear and believe. He has sought to tempt conservative Americans with talk of personal responsibility and with stories of his life of faith.  He sketched out a plan for the presidency and it looked like genius.  Leonardo da Vinci sketched a helicopter in 1483.  When a prototype was built from the diagrams a few years ago, it never flew.  Like Barack Obama’s oratory, it all looks good on paper, but it will never fly.

Elitism? Absolutely. But we can live with elitism.  I don’t believe Senators Clinton or McCain to be any less elitist. But we must begin to see Obama for who he is.  We must look beyond our own desire for a message of hope and seek real leadership from a candidate with a plan for America’s continued preeminence that consists of something more than just an artist’s rendering of the future.

It’s a habit of human nature that today’s Generals use the strategies and tactics of the past, and more specifically those that proved decisive in the most recent war, in order to achieve victory today.  In fact, this tendency is right in line with one of my favorite sayings, “Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.”  We must learn from the past because those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.  

What these clichés lack, true though they may be, is an affinity for prognostication.  They are only successful if the enemy fails to abide by them himself and elects to engage his enemy using the failed strategies of the past.  I, for one, am inclined to learn the ONE lesson that seems universal—the enemy ain’t as stupid as we wish he were. 

What lessons might we be learning right now about any future U.S. conflict?  Avoid the war in the first place, perhaps? (Woe to our next ally who finds itself in need of a U.S. military intervention, eh?) If we do fight, mass our troops from the outset?  These seem like obvious places to start.  But I believe history is giving us a glimpse of the future and, my friend, I find it none too pretty. 

Colonel Nathan Jessup, the fictional character in the 1993 movie A FEW GOOD MEN, famously said, “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, ‘Thank you,’ and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.”  So I shall heed his advice on both fronts:  first, to our military and to our elected officials who are standing firm and fighting the good fight against radical Islamic terrorism, “Thank you.”  I do sleep better for your efforts.  I am not afraid, as I put finger to keyboard, for my family’s safety. 

But I AM worried that the real lessons of our efforts in Iraq are not lessons from the battlefield, but rather foreshadowing as to how war will be waged against the United States in the future.  I am troubled by the prospect of economic warfare and our vulnerability to it at this point in our nation’s history. 

In our successful attempt to thwart Islamofacism, we have left ourselves vulnerable to a major economic attack. China, specifically, has us in an extremely tenuous position by virtue of the overwhelming amount of our foreign debt they hold.  It is not ridiculous hyperbole to suggest that China has financed a major portion of our war effort in the Middle East.  The Congressional Research Service, in a January 2008 report for Congress, reported that, “From December 2001 to December 2006, China’s share of total foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities rose from 7.6% to 18.8%.”  China holds almost $400 billion in U.S. Treasury securities.  The effect of China dumping those securities on the open market would be an economic nuclear bomb for the United States.  

China has many reasons to buy U.S securities, first and foremost of which is to keep its own currency, the yuan, at its present exchange rate with the dollar.  Additionally, China has at least one major reason not to use their great weapon—it would have a significant negative impact on their economy as well. The United States is China’s largest trading partner with a more than $20 billion trade deficit each year in their favor.  (Although, I suppose you could make the case that a crippled U.S. economy would actually increase demand for cheap Chinese products as our Gucci-buying citizens suddenly discover coupons and Wal-Mart.)

Without ever firing a shot, and while playing the global economic game by its rules, a nation like China is learning that it can position itself to do serious damage to the United States if it ever feels compelled to do so.  

Not only does the U.S. find itself vulnerable at this very hour, but the global community is discovering that even in a one-superpower world, there may be more than one power player. Alliances with China need not be undertaken with military purposes in mind but rather with economic purposes. Other countries will want to be aligned with a winner and the U.S. is looking very vulnerable at the moment. 

We can see that our ability to influence the behavior of despotic regimes is at risk.  In March the United States removed China from its list of the Ten Worst Human Rights Violators.  Within a week, Chinese troops were aggressively on the move in Tibet.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  But we are in a precarious spot when it comes to playing hardball with our banker. 

China is now becoming a model of repressive success.  The excitement over Deng Xiaoping’s reforms has led to Chinese capitalist success, but without the ensuing liberal, democratic freedoms for which our republic stands.  Power hungry leaders in countries like Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and even perhaps African nations looking to align, see an example of how to realize economic gains without having to share their power with their burdensome citizens. 

Much of this might have happened without China financing our anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East, but while a threat to individual liberty may be rising in the Far East, we have handed it a weapon to use against us as we attempt to counter their rise. 

So having extended our gratitude to Col. Je