Death of a Giant; Start of a Quagmire

Saturday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died.  With his death, the Court lost what one observer said was the most important jurist of the second half of the 20th-century.  His death should be an occasion for great tribute and reflection on an amazing career.  The focus should be on the career of an unparalleled judge that was an intellectual giant with with a colorful personality.  However, the political world has pivoted with breakneck speed towards the reality in which it dwells - who will be the replacement for Justice Scalia and who should do the nominating.

Antonin Scalia was born to Sicilian immigrants and grew up in Queens.  The devout Catholic received a Jesuit education at Georgetown before entering Harvard Law School.  He worked as a lawyer in Cleveland before entering academia in Virginia.  He was nominated to the Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan and unanimously confirmed by the Senate.  Prior to, he had worked within the Nixon and Ford administrations.  His impact was felt immediately.  Less than a decade on the bench, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said that of all of his 15,000 votes he had cast, his biggest regret was in confirming Justice Scalia because "he was so effective."  

Justice Scalia declared himself an originalist, a textualist when deciding cases.  He considered it his goal in life to reinforce the Constitution as it was originally designed and written.  A judge should do no more or less.  He was bombastic, sarcastic, biting and had the ability to reduce the arguments of lawyers before the bench into a jumbled mess.  His rapier wit was seen most often in his interactions with the aforementioned lawyers as well as in his decisions - particular when he wrote for the dissent.  His writings on the Affordable Care Act in dissent should be required reading for those who feel the law is dull or not relevant.

Some people loved him, others feared and hated him - mainly because they could not out think or out maneuver his points.  He was seen by many who did not know him as only a conservative judge who saw things through that prism.  However, he called himself neither a conservative or liberal - simply constitutional.  He was also not afraid of others who held differing opinions.  His long-lasting friendship with colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a noted activist judge, was testimony to his love of debate.  One law clerk, who Justice Scalia often referred to as his token liberal, said the judge insisted that he needed minds like the clerk to debate his positions - he needed the intellectual challenge to make sure his points were on target.

Now that this historical figure has passed, the political reality does not allow for proper mourning or honoring.  The Senate Republicans have said that nothing will be done in the way of confirming or hearing a new appointee until the next president is in place.  The Democrats, led by Harry Reid of Nevada, have insisted that President Obama should nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia and that the Senate has a Constitutional duty to honestly and in full-faith consider such a candidate. While I would never side with Harry Reid on purpose, it does seem a bit childish for the Republicans to refuse to hear a candidate from the president.

However, the Democrats are being disingenuous.  Their shameful behavior when President Reagan appointed Robert Bork is a great example.  So, I'm more than a little cynical and suspicious by the "outrage" of the Democrats.  The Republicans, on the other hand, are at a precipice.  Several senators, led by Marco Rubio of Florida, have stated that there is no way that the upper house will consider a nomination.  What happens if the president proposes a moderate?  The Republicans stand to lose - not just in the precipitous fall in public opinion of the Senate but also in the general election in November.  The party needs to tread carefully.

Justice Scalia was a giant of a man - intellectually, influentially, judicially.  Justice Ginsberg said that his critiques made her a better judge.  The two, diametrically opposed to one another, were nevertheless close colleagues and friends.  They typified what is possible even though political differences are sharp.  The last thing the Republicans need is to act petulant.  Mimicking the poor behavior of politicians past is not a recipe for any kind of success.  They should do their jobs, do it with honor and the public will follow.

Terrorism and Indecisiveness

Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, France, Mali.  Terrorists like the Islamic State have been busy over the last weeks and months.  In their wake is a string of shattered cities and devastated lives.  For the western democracies, it needs to be a time to not just hunker down or lash out but to re-evaluate.  France’s intelligence network’s failure to pick up on the events that shattered its capital is more than that – it is a sign that things are evolving and adapting.  The West must do the same.

Gandhi was once asked whether his approach to conflict resolution would have adequately dealt with Hitler.  He said yes but it would have taken much longer.  Europe and the United States do not have time if recent attacks across three continents in the last month or so are any indication.  French President Francois Holland is increasing the militarily targeting of the Islamic State but he is also seeking to change how the French do business in-country by changing police procedures and tactics against suspected terrorists. 

M. Holland’s attempt to change the constitution to meet new security needs have faced opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.  However, he clearly sees the need for a change and he is trying to adapt to a new reality.  By all accounts, French intelligence was taken off guard by the events of 13 November.  Whether the French leader will be able to impose his will or not remains to be seen but a requirement to be on the qui vive has gripped parts of the French population. 

Regarding President Obama, he presented the most confounding reaction to the events of the last month or so.  My observations are not unique.  Many have been dismayed over the near blasé approach to the events and how the United States should respond.  The president, who days before Beirut and Paris, said that the Islamic State was contained, maintained that a change in philosophy or approach to the terrorists is not required.  The present modus operandi was sufficient and it was important not to over-react.  Yes, an over-reaction would not be prudent but certainly a re-evaluation is necessary because American intelligence proved to be as unaware as its French counterparts.  His comments from Ankara would suggest that is also not necessary.  However, there is push back. 

Former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell suggested with Charlie Rose that the president’s response needs to be on the same level as if the target was not Paris but New York City.  Combat veteran and Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HA) has criticized the president for failing to grasp the core element of dealing with the terrorists by refusing to use the word.  Last week, when a bi-partisan measure in Congress sought to make a seemingly common sense improvement in the screening process for incoming Syrians, the president responded by mocking Congressional Republicans as being scared of little old ladies and orphans.  This was in the face of reports suggesting that at least one of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as a refugee. 

It is a nasty world out there and it will not improve any time soon.  It is not just international groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS but also regional groups like the Mourabitounes, the West African terrorist group that attacked the Radisson hotel in Bamako, Mali.  The rise of these groups would be a difficult challenge for any president but our commander in chief needs get into a locked room with military and terrorist experts and consider a new way of doing things.  The West was surprised by the Parisian attacks.  We need to find out why and contemplate a new approach.  The enemy already has.

The Fight for 2016

As I watch Donald Trump in the news, this modern-day incarnation of Narcissus travels the country seemingly trying to derail his own campaign with one ridiculous statement after another.  And indicative of an age of runaway Ritalin prescriptions, some angry and misguided people are popping Mr. Trump’s missives like pills.  From a political party that can call its own the likes of Lincoln and Reagan, this vaudeville barker is muddling the message of real conservatives who could make a serious and honorable run for the Oval Office. 

A good friend, and a very intelligent one, refers to Mr. Trump as revolutionary.  I disagree.  There is nothing revolutionary, new or extraordinary about the businessman-turned-demagogue.  History is replete with fringe characters (some good, others not) aspiring for the White House – Aaron Burr in 1800, Hugh White in 1836, Henry Wallace in 1948, George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992.  Beyond U.S. history, a string of such people have sought power and had their supporters and popularity.  Mr. Trump does not represent anything new but he is a new incarnation of an old idea.  Appealing to our baser instincts elevates nothing and will ultimately produce nothing but more acrimony. 

For all the talk from Democrats regarding the homogeneity of conservatism, there are some varied and powerful ideas coming from the candidates who, sadly, are not being heard or so we thought.  In the last few weeks, some of the Republican candidates are making progress in the polls.  For the most part, they are also seen as outsiders without the toxic, ad hominem nature of the front runner.  As we are still nearly a half a year out of Iowa, it is hoped that some of these candidates will be able to dispatch Mr. Trump and allow him to return to whatever he was doing a year ago.

Recently surging in the polls is retired surgeon Ben Carson.  In debates and in conversations, he has shown a serious, quietly humorous and mature voice on the campaign trail.  As the head of the Republican National Convention said, I’m not sure about one who has no political experience gaining the nomination but he stands as a respectful and thoughtful voice.  His measured and articulate position on why the Affordable Care Act is not workable and his support for a guest worker program has earned him some attention.

Carly Fiorina is another polished and thoughtful voice in the Republican race.  The former CEO of Hewlett Packard earned rave reviews after her appearance in the matinee debate a few weeks back.  There is a bevy of videos that show Ms. Fiorina being harangued by one reporter after another on various issues but she has shown poise, what the French call sangfroid.  Her position on a simplified tax code has drawn some interest as well as her criticism of President Obama’s net neutrality policy. 

He is not an outsider but I’ve been a fan of Florida Senator Marco Rubio for a while now.  As a junior senator, he has shown a great deal of political courage for putting out on record his plan to deal with issues such as immigration and budgetary concerns.  Given his background as the son of Cuban refugees, it is not surprising Senator Rubio has steadfastly opposed the president’s moves to normalize relations with Cuba.  It might have been a losing position but his willingness to put himself out there and support his constituents is admirable.  He is young, passionate and articulate.  He represents the potential future of the conservative movement.

There is so much substance among some of the candidates in this Republican preliminary fight that it makes it all the more puzzling that Mr. Trump continues to dominate the political scene.  Some pundits believe that there is no way he will still be around come January but they are likely the same bunch who said the same things months before.  In some ways, Mr. Trump is the realization of the worst fears of cultural critics.  In other ways, he is simply the latest in a long line of societal agitators.  Let us hope that another can appeal to the “better angels of our nature.”

The New Chamberlain

At the onset of President Obama’s term in office, there seemed a desire to deal with Iran.  Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama has sought a deal with the totalitarian state to inhibit through diplomacy its nuclear ambitions.  This might be seen as a continuation of the type of diplomacy that began under President Nixon to limit our adversaries’ nuclear capabilities.  However, previous agreements have been done from a position of strength.  The president, so anxious to get any deal done, has created the opposite and the Iranians are better for it.

For the Iranians, the biggest hurdle to overcome is the elimination of international sanctions that have been in place for so long that the Iranian economy’s decline is in an inverse relationship with civil unrest.  The Iranian leadership, exhibiting a dictatorial nature that they once bemoaned personified in the Shah, is cracking down on dissent while trying to turn the corner on their own Great Depression. 

Just as the Iranian government was left grasping for answers, they received a bit of salvation in a rather obliging deal with the U.S.  The fact that the Iranians are praising the deal while threatening to build nuclear weapons if anyone backs out should give the powers that be pause.  The Israelis are particular concern because their relationship with Iran is not diplomatic but pragmatic.  It is they who stand to face obliteration at the hands of a nuclear Iran.  While the president opines rhetorically, the Israelis are faced with a very real problem.  For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is not a personal ambition but a national one given the results of recent elections that returned him to power.

The blithe sanguinity with which the president sees Iran’s compliance is thankfully not shared by the Congress.  The ball is now in their court to put some teeth back into this deal or nix it altogether.  Still, while Congress can frame the approach, it still lies with the president to act on it and Mr. Obama does not seem keen to do so.  With a naïveté reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter with the Russians and President Woodrow Wilson with the European Powers, President Obama is banking his entire approach on the “will of good men” in Iran.  Never mind that Iran has done nothing to give the impression that such men exist within its government, the president’s approach continues to hold the faith. 

I must admit that I admired initially the president’s willingness to speak to Iran.  He is right that nothing can be achieved without communication.  However, cock-eyed optimism is no way to deal with such an adversary.  There must be iron in our words and a willingness to lower the hammer if our interests are ignored.  We have taken on the responsibility to negotiate and the worst thing that we can do is to disregard our commitment to friends and regional peace by settling for anything at any price.  The president, in a way not unlike pre-World War II British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, has done just that.

Troublespots in 2015

As we enter 2015, here is an obligatory look ahead of some of the major issues that the United States might deal with over the next year.  Hopefully, it is not only the U.S. but given the trend over the last decade or so, international cooperation has been difficult to secure.  For those who blamed the overly aggressive approach of President Bush as being divisive, President Obama’s overly conciliatory approach has won fewer friends.  In fact, many countries have lost faith in the U.S. and it is a faith that will be further tested over the next year.   

Even as it was happening, many observers thought Vladimir Putin’s reach for Crimea and eastern Ukraine was an attempt to divert the Russian public’s attention away from the downward spiraling economy.  It is an economy that has grown progressively worse over the last six months.  With the recent collapse of the ruble, the Russian economy could be sinking at depths that even the nationalistic land grab of Crimea and the Ukraine might fail to obfuscate.  That means, providing that Mr. Putin does not engage in a complete change in thought process, the large Russian minority population in the Baltic States could make the countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the next susceptible targets of Russian aggression.   

A second hot spot is an oldie but a goodie – the Middle East.  Just as Tunisia selected recently its first democratically elected leader, other members of the now defunct Arab Spring are examples of dictatorial and ruthless leadership hanging on.  Whether one is talking about Iran or Syria or Yemen (and there are many others), the Middle East will remain a tinderbox in the foreseeable future.  There seems to be a growing albeit still incompetent voice in the Arab world against the ISIS of the world and their death fetish vision of how society should develop.  However, the horrific crimes of ISIS as well as the ghastly attack on the school in Pakistan by the Taliban are bringing new attention to a region and its acceptance (tacit or otherwise) of such tactics. 

On the continent of Africa, there are several incidents brewing that could lead to disastrous consequences, whether the U.S. finds an interest to intervene or not.  The situation in South Sudan is a cauldron of hatred and seemingly unresolvable conflicts that have resisted strong efforts from the U.S., China and the occasional self-aggrandized actors who have tried to sponsor one peace effort after another.  An even worse situation is that in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  Its lack of control in the east, the lack of follow through with promises of reform by President Joseph Kabila and Hutus and other forces from Rwanda have made this country one on the precipice.  The African Union is not keen to interfere and the worsening miasma threatens the entire region.  This does not even mention other problem spots, such as the terrorist-laden Nigeria. 

Of course, the usual suspects like China, North Korea and Iran et al. are a perpetual threat to regional and world peace.  In short, there are plenty of things that could cause the death and suffering of millions and certainly, the U.S. need to make their voice heard throughout the world and make a stand for our philosophies.  The president feels reluctant to play a larger, stronger hand in world affairs but previous presidents had warned against isolationism.  In a quote strangely enough quoted by President Obama in his book The Audacity of Hope, Theodore Roosevelt said “We have no choice…as to whether or not we shall play a great part in the world.  That has been determined to us by fate, by the march of events…All that we can decide is whether we shall play it well or ill.” 

Pax Cubanus?

In 1959, the United States supported Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.  The U.S. did not particularly like him but he was not a communist and as for the qualities that made him a horrible leader, the U.S. had to accept it until something better came along.  Fidel Castro, a lawyer who had taken to the mountains and demanded equality and freedom for the Cuban people, stoked that hope.  Once in power, he proved to be as morally bankrupt and murderous as his predecessor.  The U.S. responded by cutting off diplomatic ties to the island and this past week, with no visible change in the government’s behavior, President Barack Obama has ventured into yet another ill-conceived major endeavor – normalizing relations with Cuba. 

Given the way some people lionize Sr. Castro and his number one henchman, Che Guevara, one can be forgiven for thinking that these two men were misunderstood humanitarians, seeking only the improvement of their people.  However, it was the oppressive, police state that Sr. Castro established and its growing relationship with another brutal dictatorship, the Soviet Union, which led to American concerns.  The attacks on his own population led to people pouring into the Caribbean on rafts that ranged from make-shift to sea-worthy, in an effort to reach the U.S.  Still today, thousands languish in prisons simply for their opinions while others walk free, but fear to speak honestly about the world around them. 

What makes this so frustrating as an observer of President Obama is the rashness in which he throws out shockingly dramatic proposals with little to no discussion nor, in hindsight, little to no follow through.  The lack of immediate plans of what to do about one thing or another is the product of the measures not fully planned out.  President Obama rushed to open Burma which is ruled by a military junta, complete with economic initiatives and an embassy proposal.  Today, it can be said that the military rulers have rolled back some openness and Burma’s future is no longer bright – despite the president’s “beneficent” moves.  The U.S. relaxed restrictions upon North Korea and Iran and even the most bright-eyed optimist would have to say that there are reservations about the success of either move. 

Burma is the most analogous example of the danger of what the president is trying to do with Cuba.  The president says that economic engagement and increase exposure to the rest of the world will make a difference in Cuba.  The fact is, only the U.S. has placed this economic sanction on Cuba – the rest of the world still trades with the island nation but where is the improvement?  Presidential supporters say the Castro brothers have no choice as their people are suffering.  They’ve been suffering since the early 20^th-century.  Still, President Obama has taken the paradigm that if only Cuba had the internet and access to American dollars, change would occur.  In doing so, he did not make any demands of the island for democratic reform, the release of political prisoners which has quadrupled in the last four years, or any other multiple measures that would warrant diplomatic engagement.   

This article is not to criticize the idea of possibly engaging Cuba but two important considerations make the president’s move suspect – one, the lack of forethought as to how to do it and two, the lack of demands of the Castro regime to help their own people.  When Cuba opens up, I will be first in line to visit and spend my dollars.  It has been on my bucket list for some time.  However, unless we can make some significant dents into the Cuban police state and its impact on the Cuban people, it should be caveat emptor.  Until our rhetoric matches our philosophy, a government empowered by the will of the govern, nothing will change in Cuba.

The Republican To-Do List

The Republicans did quite well during the mid-term elections last month.  Large scale gains in the House, a Senate majority and a growing state governorship majority were just some of the gains struck by the GOP.  The Democrats’ fabricated “war on women” proved to be just that as two states elected their first female governor – both Republicans.  The party that does not care about black people elected three in various congressional elections (still others in state elections).  In short, for all the demagoguery and predictions of demise for the Republicans pontificated by Democrats and their like-minded talking heads in the media, conservative Americans proved as resilient and diverse as their party.  So, what should be the Republican strategy in 2015?

First, the Republican Party should busy itself on focusing on those issues where there is bi-partisan support.  Contrary to most people’s perceptions, there are issues upon which Democrats and Republicans can create a consensus.  First, despite the lame-duck Congress’ failed attempt the other week, the new Congress should focus on the passage of the pipeline that would connect Canada and the Gulf Coast.  The creation of jobs and growing energy sources would be a consistent source of employment and low energy costs.  

Additionally, both Republican and Democrat officials face the same pressure on the immigration issue.  Despite the president’s recent unilateral attempt at solving the problem, the Congress is in a strong position to one, enforce current immigration laws or force the president to do the same and two, take steps to greatly bolster the defense of the border.  The president thinks he can fix a home flood without first cutting off the water.  Congress can do much to fix that.  This is not a punitive measure against immigration and great pains must be made to ensure the move is not characterized as such.  We are a nation of immigrants and any attempts to discourage it would be, at the least, un-American.  However, the Congress could make significant steps to make our policies better, more streamlined and more humane.

Second, the Republicans need to make the argument that a dismissal of the U.S. Congress by the president is a dismissal of the American people.  Congressmen and women were designed to be the most responsive and accountable to the American people.  The president can say that he has no qualms about going over the heads of the Congress but in doing so, he is also going over the head of the American people.  The president’s attempt to act unilateral with executive orders is a tricky business.  In the past, some executive orders were a matter of procedure and protocol.  President Obama is making it a point of avoiding the legislative process, to avoid the judgment of the American people.  The Congress has power and authority and must fight to maintain it.

Third, the Republicans need to switch the conversation away from the president and towards a plan after 2016.  Beyond the aforementioned steps, the Republicans need to address a political reality that does not include Barack Obama.  In political terms, the president is a lame duck leader – one with no more elections to contest.  If he thought he was ignored by Democrats during the mid-terms last month, it will be worse in 2016.  Therefore, the Republicans have to address what lies ahead and in the interim, show that they can lead, they have ideas – and not ones that divide people as Hispanic or women or blacks but ones that unites us as Americans.  Such fragmentation is how the Democrats operate but conservatives and Republicans do not have to follow suit.  

In the past, national conservative ideas have seen us through economic turmoil (Ronald Reagan) and terrorism (George W. Bush).  On the state level, conservative governors have ushered in prosperous state economies that stands in stark contrast to the one directed by the president on a national level.  Conservative economic, foreign and social policies have appeals across the gender and racial divide.  Indeed, the core of conservatism is the champion of the individual – no matter who you are.  That would not be a bad message for a potential candidate in 2016. 

Eat Your Vegetables...Or Else

For many liberal policies, its greatest force field is, “Who would object to this?”  Such ideologues focus on agendas they proclaim in need of improvement and whose impact, if successful, would help said group/issue/policy.  With this in mind, the First Lady set out on an agenda to ameliorate the lunch programs in public schools.  To her dismay (as well as her supporters), there is a large push back from Democrats, Republicans, state governments, school districts and parents.

As with many government programs based on good intentions, little to no thought is given to how much it will cost and, more importantly, who is going to pay for it.  Republicans have been lambasted by some activists for daring to bring up such a fundamental question.  Once more, people on the right have been the target of some high-handed demagoguery, accused of not caring about children and, worse yet, wanting to hurt their nutritional well-being. 

At the core of this is an old, liberal argument – one, government can solve all of our problems because, two, we as ordinary citizens cannot.  Concerned citizens, like Americans throughout our history, measure our freedom by the choices we have.  Education institutions are the most cash-strapped organizations on the local level – most federal funding is dependent upon local schools adopting and implementing federal mandates.  With the ongoing recession that the president cannot seem to rectify, schools are being asked to shoulder burdens with which their constituents do not agree.  It is not surprising that Mrs. Obama is getting such resistance. 

On another issue, there is the question of the food itself.  Federal mandates on daily caloric requirements, salt content and other considerations have left cafeterias serving increasingly “bland” food in the words of students.  The students are seeking other options and typically, it does not include the “mandated” food.  An increase in home lunches (not an altogether bad idea) has cut into the funds that schools typically get from providing lunches and, in some cases, breakfast meals.  Caloric mandates seem a bit silly as well as if to say that all high school students should be at the same level.  Common sense would suggest that is not possible or advisable.  Parents are at the gates with some of these concerns and they are not happy.

In addition to the direct impacts on what cafeterias do or do not offer, the policies set forth by the First Lady are causing collateral damage.  Things such as bake sales of are being eliminated in favor of healthier options – strangely enough, these options are not quite the sellers as their predecessors.  As usual with top-down “solutions” to problems, Mrs. Obama’s directives are having unforeseen (to the architects of these polices) consequences but the First Lady is not backing down.  As Republican and Democratic policy makers are trying to find a way out of the restrictive and expensive program, Mrs. Obama has reasserted that change is sometimes painful but necessary.  An easy sentiment to throw out when one is not confronted with the reality of their actions.

I can appreciate the concerns that led Mrs. Obama to put forth these policies but ultimately, they come from a paternalistic mindset.  Ronald Reagan said that government was not the answer, it was the problem and in this case, a haughty attitude has turned what could have a great initiative and educational program at the local levels into a mandatory dictate that riles our evolutionary-engrained suspicion of government solutions.  One could hope the push-back might be a cautionary tale for such only-government-is-the-answer advocates but I doubt it.

The Devil in the Details

When Richard Nixon was out of office and dealing with the aftermath of Watergate, he was interviewed by British talk-show host, David Frost.  The Englishman pressed Mr. Nixon on the issues and legalities pertaining to the scandal.  In a particularly tense moment, the president, out of frustration said, “When the president does it, it means it is not illegal.”  I was reminded of this quote when listening to Obama administration officials and other supporters of the president’s swap of a soldier for five terrorists.  President Obama’s actions seem either the personification of President Nixon’s hubris or naïveté. 

This is not a rejection of Bowe Bergdahl’s parents or even his home town.  They have one of their own back after five years and their happiness needs no explanation or excuse.  My concerns are with the administration, which at present is under attack by Republicans, Democrats and foreign heads of state over this trade.  I’m taken aback by the fact the administration seems surprised at the response.  This suggests one of two approaches to this trade.  Either the administration never fully thought it out and its consequences, assuming that rescuing a soldier five years in the enemy’s hands would be a no-brainer for public support or they did think it through and did not feel objections or the law were important.  So, we have either an incompetent government (suggested by many) or a corrupt one (also, suggested by many). 

First, there are legal and security concerns.  To my knowledge, there are no military or security experts suggesting this trade is without some possibly dangerous repercussions.  We have done what we have always said we would not do – negotiate with terrorists.  In the past, the trading of prisoners is done after the war, after a victor is declared and the defeated is cowed.  We have ended the war but the Taliban and their allies have not.  We are still targets and still the face on their wall with darts protruding from it.  This coterie of terrorists taken from Guantanamo have not given up the struggle and as soon as they can, will be back in the field with increased knowledge of the U.S. and increased anger.   

Additionally and according to the law, the Congress was to be informed of such dealings a month before it took place.  The administration said there was not enough time to inform the Congress.  If the Congress allows this violation to go unanswered, it is not just an institution that loses prestige, power and a voice.  It is us as citizens who lose prestige, power and a voice.  The Congress is our voice as the most representative body in the government.  A rejection of Congressional oversight and authority is a rejection of the public’s.  This is one reason why there is such bipartisan congressional anger against the deal.   

On the other hand, there is the question of Sergeant Bergdahl himself.  This man is not the bastion of fealty and honor that the administration has portrayed him to be.  According to his fellow soldiers, this man quit on his platoon, placed them in danger and is responsible for the men who died searching for him.  There is little sympathy for Sgt. Bergdahl.  While some say he should be court-martialed and perhaps jailed, I think he has suffered enough for his actions assuming he was just a prisoner and not a collaborator.  However, that will be of little comfort to the families of those who died.  I do not begrudge the Bergdahl family’s joy but that joy came at a cost.  Are we, as a country, willing to pay that? 

President Obama cannot be as toned deaf as he appears to be with these various scandals that have rocked his administration but with which he claims little connection, knowledge or culpability.  However, we have history and it teaches us what happens to people who claim to be above the law.  Some in Congress have uttered the “impeachment” word but that is ridiculous.  He is only doing what his supporters and allies in Congress are allowing him to do.  Yet, the consequences of these actions could be an emasculated legislature and endangered Americans overseas. 

A Few Steps Back in Kansas

When I began this blog a few years ago, part of the thinking was that we needed to re-evaluate how we deal with issues and in turn, how we deal with one another.  We should discuss events, not people.  Additionally, those who have opposing viewpoints are not adversaries or worse, enemies but simply those who don’t agree – nothing more or less.  Sadly, often one can see the violation of this principle.  This past week, the ridiculousness ventured out of the world of politics and into the state of Kansas.  The target was the First Lady and the subject was a commencement address. 

In Topeka, Kansas, Michelle Obama was approached to give a commencement speech at a combined ceremony for the city’s high schools.  It is typical that during this time of year, celebrities, politicians and other noteworthy individuals span throughout America’s campuses to provide parting words of wisdom for high school and college graduates.  Throughout the country, various schools manage to provide for honored guests as well as the parents and friends of the graduates.  However, a group of students and parents in Topeka felt the presence of Mrs. Obama would prevent friends and family from attending the ceremony and additionally, take away the attention from the graduates.  Those who oppose the First Lady’s address have certainly done that.  

First of all, the First Lady is not a political figure but simply a well-known one.  The address would likely not include any political content.  So, what is the objection?  It is hard not to see this as the political salvo the protestors fear might come from Mrs. Obama.   Oscar Wilde once said that “man is least himself when he talks in his own person.”  So when students and parents face television cameras and say this has nothing to do with politics, I don’t buy it.  Call me dubious, but it seems the situation is nothing but politics.  It is not hard to imagine the uproar if the president, also approached to speak in Topeka, were the one to appear.   

Part of the reason for the appearance of such a highly-placed figure is the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas – the case that struck down the legality of segregation.  Whether people in Topeka have it in for Mrs. Obama or have never gotten over the Warren Court’s push toward desegregation, the message comes across the same.  During the presidency of George W. Bush, there was so much disrespect directed at the president, including a book published to highlight how to assassinate the chief executive which met with no Democratic outcry, one would think that Republicans would know the importance of respecting the office, if not the man.  However, some have decided that turn-about is fair play.   

Historically, the extraordinary partisanship of modern politics seems to have borne out of the Watergate scandal and the Robert Bork nomination process.  Since, the rhetoric has been contrarian to the point of being childish.  It needs to stop and the only way to do so is begin the respect process.  So, for all the Republicans out there seeking affirmation for their bent notion of politics and political gamesmanship, grow up.  Barak Obama is the president of the United States.  He was elected to the office not once but twice.  His wife is the First Lady and Michelle Obama deserves the respect of her position.  How can one demand respect without first giving it?  

Since the days of Jefferson, Americans have accepted the will of the people in changing the government and conservatives, throughout the years, have championed respect for the state.  Still, it was decided Mrs. Obama will speak at a separate ceremony away from the graduation.  Meanwhile, those who protested will sit in the graduation arena in May and feel smug in the notion that they kept “that woman” out.  Then, ten or twenty years later, their kids will morph into people whose jaded outlook of life will include a lack of respect in all things that should be important to Americans and they will wonder where they learned such unflattering notions.  They will be able to find their answers, provided there are mirrors in the house. 

Shadows of Munich

In 1938, a group of diplomats and leaders met in Munich, Germany.  The occasion was Adolf Hitler’s claim on the western part of Czechoslovakia – the Sudetenland.  Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom were represented.  The Czechs were not there; a group forced to watch in the background as their country was torn apart for the sake of peace.  The Americans were there, unofficially in the form of U.S. ambassador Joseph Kennedy, and quietly went along with the agreement.  That pact would eventually give way to the wisdom that appeasement only makes the aggressor stronger.  Against this axiom, the European powers and the U.S. made the ravenous Russian beast stronger and the implications could be quite dire. 

Since the showdown in the Crimea, events that smack of the demands for breathing room by the Nazi government, the Russians have grown increasingly aggressive towards its former state.  Russia has also tacitly approved of the actions of pro-Russian mobs who, throughout eastern Ukraine, have been pushing buttons, pushing around Ukrainian authorities and generally increasing tensions throughout the region.  The Europeans and the Americans have been content with sanctions in hopes that Mr. Putin will realize the folly of his ambitions.  However, the Russian president has been making threats of his own in the form of the gas supply to the Europeans.  If European leadership and President Obama cannot think beyond sanctions, I fear history might repeat itself.  

In the last couple of days and after weeks of pro-Russian gangs running rough-shod over the Ukrainian civil government, the Ukrainian forces struck back in Slovyansk, in the eastern part of the country.  This follows attempts by the government to mollify pro-Russian protestors with the promise of more autonomy.  However, as the mobs’ takeover increased and solidified, special forces were employed to eject the protestors from government and police buildings as well as destroy barricades and checkpoints.  The Ukrainian government has been placed in a winless scenario as pro-Russian forces within the country have created havoc and Russian forces along the border have orchestrated more threats and pressures.  

This past weekend, Sen. John McCain lambasted the president for an increasingly weak and irrelevant international voice, suggesting that sanctions are not enough.  He further suggested that what the president and the Europeans need to do is supply intelligence and weapons to the embattled government.  However, that is not happening.  President Obama has no intention to place troops on the ground as there is little to no support for such a measure in the U.S. but one must wonder why the president has seldom discussed this situation at length.  As the Democrats prepare for the 2014 mid-term elections and the party seeks to salvage those Democrats, especially in the Senate, whose re-election efforts are jeopardized, the attention seems to have drifted away from international concerns.

As an historian, I do not make references to the Nazis and Germany’s pre-World War II behavior lightly.  It is too often referred to and often, incorrectly.  However, given the level of inaction and lack of measures taken by the western powers, it does make one wonder how this farce will eventually play out.  The president has often suggested his uneasiness with the notion of the U.S. as a superpower and the authority and force that comes along.  However, it is countries like the U.S., along with the European powers, which share a responsibility.  Teddy Roosevelt said it was of little use arguing that we hold an international presence but what was most important, is what we did with the duty.  I fear we are ignoring those obligations and the Ukraine will be only the first victim. 

Struggling With Fat

I’m fat.  It does not make me less of a person, as with anyone like me but there you are.  I work out often and can do various active and demanding things.  However, I’m fat.  I’m seeking a way to be less so.  However, it would not serve my purpose to deny the truth or otherwise, try to explain it in another way.  There has been a recent discussion on the notion of being fat and even a new concept – fat-shaming.  It is an interesting look at a culture trying to address something but trying to do so without specifically naming the problem or the condition.

I’ve hired a trainer and have recently tried to make a more serious effort to lose weight.  My problem is two-fold – I eat horribly unhealthy and delicious food and I don’t work out enough.  The problem clearly lies with me.  I was once healthy and in shape but that was some time ago.  So, I seek a way to drop the pounds for health and family reasons.  In short, I’d like to be with my family well into the future and at present, I’m one steak dinner away from a full coronary.  I have no excuse and there is little that anyone can say to tell me otherwise.  However, in the last year or so, there has been a growing furor over the nature of being fat and what to do about it.   

Were you aware there are a group of people who are trying to convince fat people that it is ok to be so?  They have attacked others for actions they call fat-shaming.  Most of what I’ve seen as examples of fat-shaming seems more about the perpetrator being a jerk.  What that has led to is a movement to have people proudly love and accept their size.  Even the word “fat” is starting to take on the connotation of other words directed at people for their race or ethnicity.  What is being accomplished here?  Are people mean?  Sure and for many other reasons in addition to seeing someone who is fat.  Are people well-intentionally ignorant?  Yes and particularly when confronted with something that is hurting someone they love.  So, if you take away the jerks and the well-meaning friends or family, what are we talking about?   

We need an honest and frank discussion about size in this country, without the hyperbole.  Calls for healthier living and weight levels are not calls for anorexia or bulimia or any other chase for unhealthy weight standards.  These aforementioned activists have even attacked those who are making general calls for healthier living, such as Maria Kang – the mother of three who seeks to encourage others to get in shape.  First Lady Michelle Obama said that her push for healthier lunch items in school is not about weight but about feeling better and healthier.  Sure but if we cannot even say the condition for fear of hurting feelings, we are not addressing the issues.   

When Amy Chua – Tiger Mom extraordinaire – called her daughter fat and lazy, I can’t imagine that young lady ending up in therapy wondering about how others see her and whether they respect her.  She was told upfront and there was never a doubt about it.  Compare that to the teen who has been told, “No, you are not fat.  You are beautiful and wonderful and people who don’t see that are not worth your time.”  Deep down, however, the teen knows they are fat but they are surrounded by people who won’t say it.  Is there any wonder that emotional issues develop?   

Part of the reaction by these activists is defensiveness.  Some of the reaction is from well-meaning people who worry about others being hurt.  However, you cannot fix a problem without first addressing it.  I know some will find my attitude callous or unsympathetic.  However, it is coming from one who is dealing with the same thing.  I’m worse than some and not nearly as bad as others.  Yet, the challenge is the same even if the scale is not.  Shakespeare said that a rose is still a rose no matter what you call it.  So it is with the concept of being fat.  It does not help to run from a name.

An Eastern Dilemma

Recently and outside the attention of most American newscasts, an uprising has occurred and, apparently, succeeded in the Ukraine.  At the center of the debate has been an argument about the future direction of the country – either towards Europe or Russia.  The recently deposed and now missing president, Viktor Yanukovych, bent towards the money and support from Moscow while dismissing the demands of the people who largely looked to the economic prosperity and political freedom of the West.  The state of the Ukraine today is of prime importance to the future of Russian hegemony, EU expansion and American relevance.   

In 2010, Mr. Yanukovych defeated Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who rejected the election results and would soon be arrested and jailed for her protests against a “rigged” outcome.  There were voices from the West who objected to the arrest of Prime Minister Tymoshenko but nothing changed.  Fast forward to November of 2013 and while an ailing Ms. Tymoshenko labored in jail, President Yanukovych announced his intent to back away from trade with the EU and instead move closer to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  This marked the beginning of the protests that dominated downtown Kiev, the country’s capital, with crowds not seen since the Orange Revolution of 2004.  

Relationship between the Russian-oriented government and the European-oriented population grew worse when Mr. Putin extended a monetary lifeline.  In January, the presence of protestors in Maiden Square in Kiev grew as the parliament passed anti-protest laws.  In the last couple of weeks, events have taken a draconian level as government snipers took aim at defenseless protestors as part of an outburst of violence that lasted several days and led to the death of nearly 80 and the wounding of hundreds more.  In the last few days, this strange story has grown more so, if that is possible.  A compromise deal was struck on 21 February that would include, among other things, new elections but by the following day, Mr. Yanukovych disappeared and Ms. Tymoshenko was released from jail. 

The Ukraine is an interesting country.  The population is a divided one with western side of the country more European while the eastern part still speaking Russian and more in tuned with Moscow than Brussels.  However, the last couple of months have shown the brutality and heavy-handedness of President Yanukovych and even his most ardent supporters have withdrawn.  This does not mean that the cause of the Kiev protestors is widely embraced.  Indeed, people in the east are more likely to see this as a type of coup d’état.  Yet, the country still has a fugitive president and a people looking for some type of respite in the immediate aftermath.  

As of now, the intentions of Mr. Putin are the most scrutinized.  His desires to create a neo-Soviet Union seem to be a concern for many.  Meanwhile, there are those who are pressuring the various capitals of the West to take a more active role in supporting the protesting Ukrainians.  For President Obama, he needs to be the voice for freedom and liberty – in doing so, he needs to echo the core values of the American people and throw his support behind the protestors.  The Ukrainian government has chosen an interim president – Oleksandr Turchynov – who is also a close political ally of Ms. Tymoshenko and the president has urged for national unity.  On the horizon is the strong presidential candidacy of former boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, who is an avid supporter of a pro-Europe movement. 

It is difficult to say how the Ukraine will solve its issues.  Such issues are plentiful and there are many voices seeking a redress of past and perceived slights and oppression.  The Ukraine has a potentially prosperous and viable future.  However, that will not happen until the new crisis is averted and Mr. Putin is politely but firmly kept at arm’s length.  It would not serve the Ukraine to act petulant toward its former communist overseers but the country’s salvation rests in its ability to take control of internal affairs.  If it can do this, it would certainly serve as a harbinger of good things to come for the Ukrainians.       

Beginning of the Reckoning?

Last weekend, European and American leaders, in negotiations with Iranian representatives in Geneva, Switzerland, struck a six-month deal to limit the enrichment of uranium.  It is hoped that this agreement is the first step towards slowing Iran’s search for a nuclear weapon.  However, as a historian, I hope this is not the Munich Agreement of our times.  At its core is a trust (or hope) that Iran will fulfill its obligations as it sincerely presented them at the negotiation table.  Despite this, there is a fear that the western European leaders and President Obama do not end up looking like the appeasers – a group of leaders who hoped, against history, that the promises slipping from the mouths of tyrants do not end up costing us dearly in the end. 

It is often said that the current elected leader of Iran, President Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate.  Keep in mind that in a country like Iran, “moderate” does not translate to a western definition.  If indeed he is not the promise that many westerners desperately hope he is, the question must be asked about the motivation of Iran.  Iran, like most dictatorial regimes, only agrees to that which costs them nothing to do so.  Consider the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Act.  Throughout the Harding/Coolidge administrations, there was a concerted attempt to take war off the table and help bring more belligerent countries in line with some fifty-four countries signing along.  This measure was joined by earlier efforts such as the Washington Conference (1921-2) and the various naval power agreements to limit tools of war.  However, such pie-in-the-sky idealism, further advanced by the impotent League of Nations, only assuaged people’s concern temporarily.  None of the agreements or the organization prevented the carnage ahead.   

The hope for better things, with no history or facts to support such aspirations, brought us to the infamous Munich Agreement, where the Allies, desperate to avoid war, gave away Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.  Czechoslovakia was not present at those meetings, and today, countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, very concerned by an Iran with nuclear weapons, are equally minimized and now equally anxious.  To put it succinctly, many people are concerned because they don’t trust the governments that formed the agreement.  The Saudis do not trust the Iranians to carry out their obligations and they do not trust the Obama administration or the Europeans to punish Iran should the Islamic Republic fail to uphold its end.  For Saudi Arabia, who fears a Shi’a nuclear power, and the Israelis, who fear anyone nearby with a nuclear weapon, a rather untenable situation has developed.  Despite the words of assurances by various European and American leaders, the general sense is that it is doomed to fail because the aggressor lacks the interest and the appeasers lack the intestinal fortitude for a fight.  

Herein lies the problem of all of the major conflicts that have wreaked havoc in the 20^th century.  The League of Nations was destroyed because it failed to act against Italian aggression in Albania and Ethiopia and when Japan invaded its neighbors.  U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt felt that by not joining the Spanish civil war, the fight between fascists and republicans would not grow but it did when Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini helped.  The Allies partially created the carnage of World War II because they failed to check Hitler’s rise to power.  What will be said 40 years from now?  Will European leaders and President Obama further epitomize the folly of trusting untrustworthy dictatorships?  History seems to suggest that the treaty struck in Geneva will be an unmitigated disaster through either Iranian action or pre-emptive strikes by Saudi Arabia or Israel.   

From the outside, it is easy to make judgments and none of us are privy to all the factors that went into the construction of that treaty.  I can only use the examples of leaders past to understand what happens when you try to buy compliance with concessions.  One good side of the treaty is that it lasts only six months and perhaps, with a clearer vision, world leaders might take another approach.  I’d just hate to think the future of relations in the Middle East (and its stability) is dependent upon the cooperation of a country like Iran.  Let us hope our leaders have learned from history instead of just repeating it. 

Once More unto the Breach, Dear Friends

Shades of 1995 loom large as the congressional Republicans and a Democratic president face off over a question of the budget that has led to a government shutdown.  There must be a large institutional memory among both parties regarding how the last showdown turned out.  However, it is difficult to see this without conceding the Democrats refusal to negotiate.  It is a trend that began when the health care law was passed without a discussion or debate.  The House Republicans are trying to have some conversation about spending and debt but the Democrats, particularly in the Senate, refuse.  The Democrats are not seeking a solution. 

One of the Democratic talking points is that the Republicans are willing to hurt the average American by shutting down the government.  Meanwhile, the president has made a mantra, in between the ad hominem attacks, that he is willing to negotiate.  It has not been the experience of the congressional Republicans that the president is open to discussion.  If anything, the president is doubling-down on the rhetoric against his “ideologue” Republican opponents.  In addition to the president’s talking points, and much like what happened during the sequestration fiasco, the Democrats are seeking to make things as horrible as possible for the average American in order to convince the public the Republicans are irrational and mad.  Some newspapers took the administration to task earlier this year with regards to the disproportionate “pain” the Americans felt – particularly with the FAA, whose across-the-board minimal budget cuts (4%) turned into a delay of nearly half of all flights, according to the Wall Street Journal.     

Now, open air monuments are shut and privately funded parts of the National Park Service are ordered to close their doors.  Stern-faced administrative officials have hit the talk shows and issued flight safety warnings and national security concerns.  God forbid there should be a terrorist attack.  The administration will blame the Republicans.  Meanwhile, the non-ideologue president says he is willing to do anything to bring the government back into operation.  However, his Democratic compatriots view as outrageous the Republican effort to fund essential services of the government.  This led to a horribly unfortunate comment by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), where he incredulously asked why he would want to save a child with cancer (by agreeing to Republican efforts).  If you are dumbfounded, join the crowd; so were the reporters at the scene. 

I’m not sure it was the best idea to tie the question of public funding with the Affordable Care

Act by leveraging a possible shutdown of the government.  However, the dye is cast and the only way the Republicans can salvage the situation is if they can get some reduction in government spending or the national debt.  However, what began as a blunder by congressional Republicans is quickly becoming a telling moment for the president and the Democrats.  It should be known that my lovely bride is currently “enjoying” an unpaid vacation due to the shutdown.  My thoughts on the matter are not capricious rants.  However, if the Republicans can make some progress, it might be worth it.  The American people will see this and the nay-sayers who cast doubt about the Republican chances in 2014 might be overstating their point. 

Uneasy Lies the Head

I once wrote an article about the supposed “red line” issued by President Obama over the usage of chemical weapons in Syria and the president’s lack of action.  I worried then and still do now that the lack of action sent the wrong message.  Whether action should be taken or not is no longer the question for the president has already committed us to action.  The question is, when, where and how should that action now proceed?  Once more, the Syrian government has unleashed an even heavier and deadlier attack of Sarin gas.  President Bashar al-Assad jabbed the sleeping giant and it growled and snarled but ultimately, went back to sleep.  Now, he has done it again and if we do not respond, it could have catastrophic effects.   

As the Syrian conflict first erupted a couple of years ago, the president suggested, as we tangled ourselves in Libya, that we had no interest in the conflict and would not join or assist in the fight.  Some observers wondered why Libya and not Syria but the Americans were in agreement – we had our fill of getting involved in the internal conflicts of Middle Eastern countries.  Then, there was intelligence that suggested Mr. Assad could use chemical weapons against those who opposed his government.  The U.S., along with Israel, declared chemical weapons to be a Rubicon that could not be crossed without a response.  Syria did and the U.S. decided that their “red line” was not as definite has had been suggested.  Recently, Mr. Obama suggested the “red line” was still in place and he would not tolerate the usage of chemical weapons.  Syria did and the president has taken an interesting stance. 

Earlier this past week, it seemed as if the U.S. was on the precipice of committing military action in Syria against the Assad regime and its chemical capabilities.  The president mentioned imminent action in an interview; the Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an impassioned case for the need to do something now.  The White House press secretary also suggested that the president had the power to do something now.  However, in the last twenty-four hours, the president and his administration have taken a different tone.  Now, the president declares that he will wait until the Congress is back in session (about a week from now) and communicate and work with them to get congressional input.     

There are a couple of things that I should add as a caveat.  One, the president is in possession of intelligence that no one else knows which might explain his actions or lack thereof.  Yet, as I said before, it begs the question of why the president has come out so strongly against Syria if evidence or intelligence would suggest a murkier picture.  Second, the Congress has been harping, rightfully so, that it needs to recapture some of its authority as it relates to the president’s power.  However, this is not the time to appeal to Congress and help them regain their authority if the situation requires more immediate action.  Lastly, the president is on the verge of emboldening forces that are carefully watching his actions – Mr. Assad, Hezbollah (the Shi’a extremists who operate in Syria and Lebanon) and Iran.  They are all watching things carefully and determining what to do next. 

Again, no one outside the White House has the complete picture yet, what can been seen is the impact of the decisions being made by the administration.  The president needs to know that off-the-cuff remarks and the need to say something at every turn has created some unnecessary quagmires.  At this point, the U.S. needs to follow an acta non verba policy and in the future, the administration needs to be more discipline regarding what they say about foreign issues.  It is not helping the administration and it certainly is not helping the United States.

The Messiness of Democracy

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have tried from time to time.
            Winston Churchill, 1947

The immediate failure of the Egyptian democracy experiment is not tragic – to call it such would suggest that it was unpredictable.  Unfortunately, the travails in one of our oldest civilizations are banal with a litter of broken civilizations lining the years since democracy was first conceived.  In the movie Body Heat, Teddy the arsonist (played by Mickey Rourke) says “you got fifty ways you can (screw) up and if you can think of twenty-five of them, you’re a genius and you ain’t no genius.”  So fall those who attempt democracy.  The situation in Egypt today is dangerous, regionally threatening and requires the strongest language and action from President Obama and other of the world’s democratic leaders.    

The United States undoubtedly was lucky.  Our government was put together by men who understood and valued the law.  Yet, despite the fact that our founding fathers were geniuses for their time, they screwed up and often.  The Federalist government during the Adams administration passed a law making it essentially illegal to criticize the government.  There was a presidential donnybrook in the aftermath of the 1800 presidential election when a tied electorate threw the outcome in doubt.  When President William Henry Harrison died in 1841, it created an uncertainty as to who was indeed the president.  Vice President John Tyler became president but was constantly challenged by Harrison’s cabinet, doubting his legitimacy.   

Civil War broke apart the country for five years over our inability to understand and implement the best intentions of our founding fathers.  Presidents during the Gilded Age of the late 1800s were mere bystanders to the events that transpired around them.  Historians have charged various presidents ranging from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush of overstepping their power.  Leaders ranging from Andrew Johnson to Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have broken laws.  We’ve denied rights to many of our citizens at one time or another.  Our country has faced scandal, defeat, embarrassment and uncertainty.  Yet, we are extolled as one of the oldest, operable democracies on the planet.  We are, as John Winthrop called us, a city upon the hill – an example to the rest of the world.   We take our mistakes and always try to learn from them in the spirit of creating a more perfect union. 

And so, we turn our war weary heads to the bedlam that is Egypt.  The worst thing that could have happened was the military control of the government and the imprisonment of Mohammad Morsi.  He is flawed, he is possibly corrupt and he was at times dismissive of the constitutional restraints of his office.  He was likely not what the majority of Egyptians wanted but for the sake of future democracy in the land of the pharaohs, it was paramount that he remain in office and finish out his term.  The course that the country is taking is not towards stability but towards anarchy and a permanent distrust of the will of the people.  The lasting gift of democracy is a people’s belief that the government will act as it needs to in times of turmoil and when faltering, right itself.  For a democratic government to work, the people must have faith in it.  The Egyptians, certainly the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, do not, though the aforementioned group does not help by persecuting various religious minorities. 

The military leaders are serving as an éminence grise but the beauty of democracy is that rule and authority are out in the open and available for all to see.  The world’s democratic leaders need to up their pressure on the Egyptian military while at the same time putting measures in place that could assist a righted Egypt back on the course of democracy.  George W. Bush was right in that all people have an inherent desire for the freedoms of democracy.  Yet, democracy demands a heavy responsibility from the leaders who wield authority and from the people who must accept the decision of the nation, however misguided they might think the majority to be.  Prime Minister Churchill was correct.  Let us hope that the Egyptians have the chance to understand and embrace that.