The Beginning of an Uncertain Era

Greece is a wonderful country.  We visited a couple of summers ago and we met helpful and generous men and women who were happy to show off their country and culture.  However, in a crisis not seen since the collapse of the military junta in 1974, Greece has lived on a tipping point and today, they went to the polls where if public opinion is to be believed, the radical leftist party Syriza will win a convincing victory.  Dangers lie on what such a victory would mean for Greece, austerity measures and Europe as a whole.  

Throughout European capitals, there are concerns about Syriza and its charismatic leader, Alexis Tsipras.  He is seeking to unseat Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, he who seeks to continue the austerity measures placed upon Greece to pay back its debt.  Greece’s public debt is 176% of the gross domestic product.  This is a shocking number but in recent months, Greece has slowly climbed out of its recession, unemployment is down and by most measures, the birthplace of democracy is on the rise.  However, it will take years to fully recover and Mr. Tsipras and his populist rhetoric is called for a massive restructuring of the European binds.   

When speaking of the Europeans in the aftermath of World War One, who sought a way out of war debt, U.S. President Calvin Coolidge said, “Well, they hired the money, didn’t they?”  With the shoe on the other foot, European leaders must be asking themselves the same thing because Mr. Tsipras has declared that Greece will not continue the austerity measures and does not feel beholden to Europe’s demand.  Strangely, at the same time, he also declares that Greece will not leave the euro.  Well, Greeks might want to dust off their old collection of drachmas because that will not be Greece’s decision.  Mr. Tsipras might also be threatening the much-needed $7b in aid they are set to receive from the money lenders. 

As I’ve written before, Greece has institutionalized and entrenched traits of corruption and incompetent economic policies.  The corruption spans the spectrum from the highest Greek politician to the average citizen who does not trust their government; therefore they don’t pay their taxes.  This is a nation in the throes of withdrawal symptoms from previous, reckless behavior.  Mr. Tsipras has promised to tone down his earlier rhetoric which railed against the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and its central bank who has demanded Greece’s recent economic policy.  However, words said or not said mean nothing if actions remain true to his nature.   

Alexis Tsipras assured victory leaves only the question as to whether Syriza will win and outright majority or not.  If not, Mr. Tsipras will have to figure out a coalition that will cross the Rubicon with him.  That may not be that easy.  European leaders, primarily German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Holland are gearing for a confrontation that could greatly compromise the euro and the current European economic structure.  Much like Greece, Europe and the EU are on the verge of dealing with the consequences of its past actions.  On a euro high, the EU were quick to draw in the Mediterranean states over a decade ago.   

As I finish this article, it appears that indeed the Syriza has won its expectant victory and the Greek people have turned their back on the success of the Samaras government.  Mr. Tsipras is about to confront the reality of Greece’s situation.  If he can look into the abyss and still pick a fight with the continent, the next few years could have a reverberation that will shake Europe and the world.  Many in the U.S. may not have Greece atop of mind but the governmental actions on that beautiful peninsula will make an impact.  One can only hope that no matter what happens, lessons are learned and mistakes are not repeated.

A Forgotten Duo

James Garfield never wanted to be president.  Chester Arthur likely never thought he was up for being president.  However, in one brief moment in United States history, these two men worked together to revolutionize the nature of government work and highlight the epitome of the disinterested politician.  However, lumped in with the hirsute presidents of the Gilded Age, they are often forgotten and their achievements disregarded and not considered by the typical survey history student.  Yet, as is often the case with American history, the greatest stories have the smallest build-up and appreciation.   

Entering the 1880s, the Republican Party was a divided one.  On one hand, a group known as the Stalwarts felt that the old system of patronage established by Andrew Jackson was the best way to staff the government.  Government jobs in exchange for political support guaranteed a certain level of political participation, money and therefore power.  The champion of the Stalwarts was Senator Roscoe Conklin of New York.  Representative James Blaine of Maine championed the cause of the Half-breeds – a group who wanted to phase in a civil service system that would allow meritocracy to government service.  For the Stalwarts, the Half-breeds represented a threat, not just to the current political structure but, to their personal statuses and futures.   

With this backdrop, the Republicans met in Chicago to decide their presidential candidate with President Rutherford B. Hayes not considered a serious option.  For President Hayes, running again was not a serious option for him either.  He wanted out and the Republicans obliged him.  During the actual convention, many were considered, including a serious push to bring Ulysses S. Grant back from retirement.  However, Rep. James Garfield (R-OH) emerged as a candidate for his rebuke for a Conklin plan on who should be considered (and not considered) for the presidency.  A surely shocked Garfield was given Rep. Chester Arthur (R-NY), a Stalwart, as a vice-presidential candidate to help heal the wounds with king-maker manqué Sen. Conklin and that faction of the party. 

The 1880 election was not much of a contest as Rep. Garfield defeated General Winfield Scott Hancock (D-PA), a competent military governor of Louisiana and Texas during Reconstruction.  As president, James Garfield initiated the formation of a civil service reform but tragedy, as it is wont to do, interfered.  While at a train station in the capital, a deranged office-seeker, Charles Guiteau, shot the president, who later died from the attack.  (A recent book by Candice Millard suggests the president’s death had more to do with medical incompetence than a madman’s bullets*).  Charles Guiteau felt that the ascendency of Chester Arthur to the presidency would re-establish the patronage system but, in fact, it did just the opposite.  Roscoe Conklin thought he would be able to control the new president as he did when Chester Arthur was a New York official.  However, Sen. Conklin had misread the tea leaves and missed the overwhelming public support for the fallen president and his ideas, including the civil service plan.  President Arthur shook off his former boss’ influence and pushed for what later became known as the Pendleton Civil Service Act.  

Chester Arthur, still a Stalwart, set aside his personal convictions in lieu of what the people wanted – something that is not always a given by presidents.  Before the overwhelming call for the act’s passage, the president knew the people had voted for change with James Garfield and he felt it was his duty to see this challenge through.  In doing so, Chester Arthur, a small New York politician who stood tall in a big moment, was a unique man of personal strength at a time when presidents seldom displayed such traits.  What these two men highlight is the power of little-known stories and people and the roles they played in American history.  Still, there is much more to this story, despite the seeming completeness of my riveting narrative.  There is so much more to explore and is that not what is amazing and cool about history?   

*For a striking new account of President Garfield and his assassination, check out Destiny of the Republic:  A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President by Candice Millard

This Story Shall the Good Man Teach His Son

I have this morning witnessed one of the most interesting scenes a free people can ever witness.  The changes of administration, which in every government and in every age have most generally been epochs of confusion, villainy and bloodshed, in this our happy country take place without any species of distraction, or disorder. 

            A Philadelphia woman in a letter to her sister on the occasion of Thomas

            Jefferson’s inauguration, 1801

It was March 4, 1801 and Thomas Jefferson, the tall and distinguished gentleman from Virginia left his residency of the last few months, a boarding house in Washington, D.C., to make his way to the Senate chamber.  The election he had only recently survived was a tumultuous and dirty campaign; one that would make modern-day campaigns seem quaint and genteel in comparison.  Jefferson’s followers had called his opponent, President John Adams, an atheist and suggested that he sought a re-uniting with England.  The Federalists were worse.  They called the Virginia politician “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father…”  On top of it all, the actual election was only recently resolved the month before after a contentious fight between Jefferson and Aaron Burr.  Yet, despite the hatred and the vitriolic nature of the debate, a country came together to honor a new president.  Not just a new president, but a new political philosophy – different from the two previous Federalist presidents. 

In accordance with congressional law, which states that a general election will be held every four years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, Americans will gather to vote for president.  The amazing part of the whole process is that on November 7 (hopefully), we will usher in either a new term or a new presidency.  Despite our convictions, our beliefs, we will accept the will of the people, as expressed in the vote cast next Tuesday.  For the last four years, President Obama has been my president and I have taken umbrage to those who disrespect the man.  No one, and that includes people like me and others who have criticized him over the years, has any idea what it is like to be president or the pressures that fall on that person.  Still, I hope that in a week’s time, we will have a new president.  I trust Mr. Romney’s vision for the future more than the president’s.  However, if the president is re-elected, my responsibility as an American is to accept him and respect him.   

There are those around the country who allow their viewpoints and paradigm to cloud their responsibility.  However, for the most part, I believe people do respect the office of the presidency and in that regard, we are unique.  It is not to say that other nations do not respect their leaders but they are seen in many places as more interchangeable.  Still, it is strange.  As a whole, we are a people who are known for its respect of its political leaders, its law enforcement agencies and as kids, we are told early and often to respect our elders.  Yet, we are a nation of individualists, who tend to be anti-authoritarian.  I’m fond of the scene in The Great Escape when the German commandant asks Steve McQueen’s character, “Are all American pilots so ill-mannered?”  McQueen responds, “Yep, about 99% of us.”  That is the United States but we still see our leaders and our president as different.  We don’t put him on a pedestal, or we shouldn’t…the president is not better than us but he can be the best of us.   

So, I anxiously await Tuesday.  I’m pulling with much enthusiasm for Governor Romney and think he has a good chance of winning.  His economic approach is more sound and more friendly for people like us trying to pull ourselves out of our economic blight.  His understanding of the U.S. position and role in the world is also more historically sound and ultimately, will make my country and the world safer.  And no matter what happens, my politically contradictory spouse and I will still be able to deal with one another (what to do with her yard sign though...hmm).  So will the United States.  It has been that way since the first men ascended to the position of president.

The Gathering of Storm Clouds

There are a series of events that are transpiring that could quickly destabilize various regions around the world.  In the past, the United States played a large and influential role in settling situations and calming fears – allowing for “cooler heads to prevail.”  In the past, the United States displayed a leadership that could convince otherwise truculent world leaders to compromise or stand down.  Critics of American foreign policy denounced the overbearing and bullying democracy.  President Obama feels that the U.S. has inappropriately and insensitively projected itself on world affairs in the past and promised not to follow that same path.  Activists around the world applauded the declaration.  Yet, in the Middle East and the Far East, things are quickly deteriorating and it begs the question if a stronger president could not have stemmed the tide. 

A while back, I worried that Syria was turning into a Rwanda.  Today, the international community has allowed a government to butcher its own people on a massive scale.  In the absence of international action or leadership, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have moved in to help the rebels.  However, the bloodshed continues and the government remains unrepentant even as its structure crumbles around them.  A new envoy, Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, now has the unenviable task of convincing a government who has ignored international pressure for over a year to put aside its aggression on its own people with little tangible outside help from the Americans and Europeans. 

To the southwest, Israeli leaders have given up hope of the international community rendering aid and are in the process of considering, if reports are to be believed, a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Israel has, unfortunately, needed to take this path before when it attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nascent nuclear reactor in 1981.  Recent reports on Iran’s nuclear capabilities suggest it is further along than anyone thought.  Not only does such developments threaten Israel but it is reasonable to suggest that predominantly Sunni Muslim countries are also at risk – not to mention western Europe and other U.S. allies.  While many international activists chastise Israel and despair of its “militaristic” tendencies, Israel might be forced to do what years of diplomacy have failed to accomplish. 

On a group of Japanese controlled islands, a bit of opera is playing out between the Japanese government and activists from China. The Senkaku islands are the center of a debate as to who controls the area. When the Japanese Coast Guard detained and questioned the activists, Beijing issued a strong condemnation as anti-Japanese protests erupted through the country. At stake for these islands south of Okinawa and just north of Taiwan are a litany of gas fields and a heavily traveled commercial shipping lane. China declares ancient rights to the islands but Japan has controlled them since the late 1800s.  To what extent China would be willing to fight over the islands is uncertain but two obdurate, tradition-rich and stubborn countries at odds is a point of concern.  Unfortunately, no one outside the region seems to notice.
 
Any one of these incidents can, by themselves, create the kind of foreign policy headache that risks the lives of tens of thousands. A strong and influential hand has traditionally been sought out from the United States but at present, it appears to be absent. As time goes by, the European Union grows increasingly pre-occupied with holding its economic structure in place. The Arab League has proven, to date, to be as ineffective and toothless as the organization it was patterned after – the United Nations. The world community releases one paper condemnation and outrage after another but things continue to deteriorate.

The president is pre-occupied by the coming election as any president would but Mr. Obama also needs to understand that he cannot focus solely on November. The boldness he displayed in ending the Osama bin Laden threat is required once more but he seems reluctant to enter the fray. If this is what we can expect from the president with an additional four years, perhaps we should take a longer look at Mr. Romney. Sadly though, if talk is to be believed, some of the situations could collapse long before the November election.

There is Still a Pulse for the Opposition

Yesterday, the Supreme Court, in a convoluted 5 to 4 decision, upheld the president’s landmark domestic initiative – the Affordable Care Act.  In doing so, the chief justice, John Roberts, stated that the core part of the act, the individual mandate, was constitutional – not as a mandate but as a tax.  In doing so, the president won the battle over the measure but might have lost the war.  In the Supreme Court’s decision, it might have fired up the forces against the health legislation in the lead up to the general election on 6 November 2012.   

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, forces have marshaled against the law.  The first and most prominent of these forces were the Democrats whose party unilaterally pushed the bill through.  Very few Democrats have mentioned the historic health law since its passage and many who were its most ardent supporters went down in defeat in the 2010 mid-term elections.  As we near the general election, more Democrats have distanced from the president and his policies as a growing number have denounced the health law.  The governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has openly challenged the president’s health law in the face of a state vote rejecting the individual mandate and a populace, who 70% of, disapproves the law.  

Prior to yesterday morning when the president acknowledged the victory he earned from the Supreme Court, it was difficult to find an instance where he championed the health care law to a national audience.  He will often speak on the measure at controlled events but seldom nationally.  It is here that the Republicans and Democrats who oppose the health law could find an opening.  First, the president and his supporters spent much of the lead up to the bill’s passage rejecting the notion that the mandate was a tax.  When the Court ruled the individual mandate constitutional as a tax, it invalidated the administration’s arguments over the last three years.  Even the chief justice’s rational, that it was not the Court’s job to rescue the population from their political decisions, hint at the problematic nature of the law and its mandate – its funding.  As a tax, it is the largest tax increase devised.  It is hard not to make political hay out of this.   

There are large problems with the Court's declaration of the mandate as a tax.  In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the Court did not interpret but rewrote the law with the switch in language.  Furthermore, beyond the difficulties it places upon the administration, it represents a problem as a tax.  Is a tax a tax if it did not originate within the House of Representatives, the only political body the Constitution says can create tax legislation?  At best, it represents a multifarious constitutional labyrinth to navigate before the law can be fully vetted.  This does not include the many other issues that are bound to emerge as the law, which many Democratic leaders confessed they had not read in full, comes into effect.

The biggest silver lining could be the injection of energy and purpose it gives conservatives.  The justices themselves encouraged the reaction by saying, 7 to 2, that the federal government could not punish or threaten states to participate in the program.  As states and activists digest this bit of information, the decision will drive some Democrats, if not to Mr. Romney, then away from President Obama.  The health care law, which Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said would have to go into effect to understand it completely, is so unpopular that had the Supreme Court struck it down, it would have lessen the urgency to vote.  Now, conservatives that have been a bit lukewarm towards Mr. Romney have a renewed motivation to vote this November.

As I’ve said before, Americans often define their freedom and liberties by the amount of choices they have.  The Affordable Care Act takes away many of those choices and puts them in the hands of the government.  Governments in general have difficulties in effectively and efficiently running industries.  Former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, the senator from Arizona, once said that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.  When deciding on 6 November, it would behoove Americans to remember that.

A Not So Super Statement on Super Tuesday

Several months ago, I proposed some prognostications on the Republican primaries and who will win the nomination and the chance to match up against President Obama in November. I said that Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, would win the nomination. I feel pretty good about that prediction, but former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former Georgia representative Newt Gingrich continue to hang in there. It appears Texas Representative Ron Paul will also continue to stay in to drive the debate. With Mr. Romney winning six of the ten states this past Tuesday, what does it mean?

Many pundits have suggested that Mr. Romney’s lackluster performance is due to Republicans not feeling completely comfortable with the former Massachusetts governor. He does have issues. His biggest stumbling block is the health care plan he passed as governor. He refuses to apologize for it, and he shouldn’t, but he should also emphasize the historic roles of the states, as opposed to the federal government. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis suggested that, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” The idea that the states should and can be laboratories of democracy should be trumpeted by Mr. Romney.

The worst attacks by his fellow Republicans, because they are Republicans, suggest there is something wrong with his strive for and achievement of success and personal wealth. One of the basic ideas of conservatism is that all people have the right, or should, to achieve as much as their talent and abilities allow them without the government infringing or impeding. It serves as the inspiration and the goal of all people, regardless of class. Apparently, it has not stuck as much as some of Mr. Romney’s opponents would like. Yet, Mr. Romney still suffers from a host of issues.

Greatest of them all, the former governor lacks that personal touch shown with a certain amount of expertise by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. They had a way of talking “one on one” with people, even in front of a large audience. For whatever reason, Mr. Romney sounds like someone trying to connect but cannot quite bring it across. Furthermore, though shouting from the rooftop that he is a conservative, he has, as Bill Kristol once said, come across like someone using moderate-to-conservative dictionary and is mixing up his words. He has not ruled as a “strong” conservative, as Mr. Santorum and Gingrich have charged and the history of moderate Republican candidates is not stellar: Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain.

Mr. Romney will have his chance. He has a great deal of friends, a loving family from all appearances and therefore, must have something going for him. He will need to find a way to speak in a truer voice. That could quell the discomfort over how “conservative” he is.

OWS, the election and Sesame Street

The Occupy Wall Street movement seems more a call for chaos than substantive change. I don’t mind a protest per se but please, have a point and a solution. The people who are protesting throughout the country range from the sincere (a seeming minority) to the absurd and dangerous. The trashing of buildings and public grounds to the destruction of private businesses are not messages against the bankers and those who supposedly have fleeced the American public. This is about the opportunity to act outside the bounds of common decency and the democratic spirit. So the bankers and the businessmen are the reason they are out in the street, destroying, trashing and complaining? A student of mine, during a class conversation, compared the movement to those who blamed Jews in Germany for the economic troubles of the 1920s on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. While not the same in spirit, it is in intent. Who will be the next target of this rabble? I’m a teacher and not a member of the “1%.” However, there is not a single banker or Wall Street employee responsible for any American without a job. These protests, far and gone from the Tea Party group despite some attempts at comparison, are the end result of “class warfare” demagoguery. Did people think that months of blaming a particular group for all the ills in society would not have an impact?

On to the election front. Not to toot my own horn, but I ask the reader to revisit my assessment of the 2012 Republican candidates for president. Governor Perry has certainly lived up to the idea that he is not quite ready for “prime time.” He will not be the nominee but it will not be because of his inability to articulate his message. We’ve had presidents before of who it can be said were not well-spoken. Herman Cain has shown the weakness of a man with no experience. Some of the “intelligentsia” have used the opportunity of Mr. Cain’s ascendency to throw out terms like “Uncle Tom” and the like, but the candidate is merely showing the signs of one not use to the intensity of the spot light and sadly, we will see an apparently decent man cast aside. However, if the charges against him are true, it will not be the reason he does not get the nomination. We’ve had presidents before with a proclivity towards illicit or illegal behavior towards women. On one observation, I might be wrong and I hope I am. I wrote earlier that Newt Gingrich was likely the smartest one in the room – the one adult in the room, but would not win the nomination. He is climbing in the polls and he could be poised to make a move. His comment to the moderator of a recent debate that it was ridiculous to sum up what to do with health care in thirty seconds shows both his seriousness and experience with complicated issues. It might be enough.

On the other side of the political aisle, I would like to consider the candidacy of President Barack Obama. Not since Franklin Roosevelt has a president been re-elected with such an abysmal economy. However, I have a solution that might ignite more interest in his bid for re-election. I’m betting there are those in President Obama’s campaign who have already considered this idea. Vice President Joe Biden should step down for the good of the party. While no one should question his commitment to his country and the service he has rendered, he has been so marginalized over the last couple of years, it is a wonder he still wants the job. Yet, he still manages to take the limelight with his ill-advised remarks. The administration will likely say it has something to do with his wanting to spend more time with his family or perhaps, health issues. Either way, it would open the door to one the president and his staff would have more confidence in and be able to use more often and effectively. Just a thought.

Lastly, this past week was the anniversary of the debut of PBS’ “Sesame Street.” I’m like many who grew up on its lessons and its characters. However, as a teacher, I see the program in a different way. I challenge the reader to search the teachings and philosophies of the great educators of world history – Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, the Jesuits – and one would never come across the need for or importance of “fun.” However, what “Sesame Street” did was integrate the necessity and appropriateness of entertainment with education. The two have nothing to do with one another but often, I’m asked by my superiors or “experts” in the field to be as much an entertainer as a teacher. Perhaps, more so. Generations of children have incorporated the frivolous and superfluous nature of “fun” with the pursuit of knowledge. When these children arrive at elementary school, they are embraced by and surrounded with an extension of that form of education. However, when they enter middle and high school and the need for education to take a more serious approach is presented, they rebel and they lose interest. That is because they have not been trained to see the pursuit of knowledge as an intrinsic thing. Instead, the entertainment element of education, as typified by “Sesame Street,” promotes extrinsic motivation to the pursuit of knowledge. When a three year old is in the back yard inspecting a blade of grass, it is an intrinsic drive that pushes them onward. The “fun” is in discovery and curiosity – not something contrived from without.