More Contract for America Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Now I want to take Suzanne’s clever national security contract and, with a nod to the eloquent comments of devoted reader Dan Kervick, expand it beyond war on terror into five items that cover the waterfront of very salient issues that pop up in voters’ minds when they hear international affairs or national security.  I know, I hear you protesting already, lots of big-name types have said that progressives have to get over a credibility gap on “hard security” before we talk about anything else.  I think that’s true; hence my items 1, 2 and 3.  But I also believe, living as I do in a state which has seen two big local corporations (Delphi and Northwest) slip into bankruptcy in the last month and a third, big daddy General Motors, promise 25,000 job cuts in North America this week, that voters don’t differentiate between their vague angst about terrorism and their vague angst about vanishing jobs and overseas competition.  So smart progressives will address both.  (And as far behind as we are on national security, folks, we seem to be just as far behind on responses to economic issues.  Not to mention that we can't afford the military if we drive the economy into the ground.  So let’s at least start talking about them.)

1.  Fighting terror.

Something that is very clever about Suzanne's array of bills -- so clever it may go unremarked -- is that it evades the challenge of actually having a strategy on fighting terror, and fighting the Iraq war, that is different and better than the mess we currently have.  I would argue that progressives together need some shared principles, and individual candidates -- at least some of them -- are going to have to put ideas forward or be able to identify expert proposals they would support.  Suzanne's proposals point toward what those shared ideas should be:

We don't keep the American people in the dark;

We fight most effectively by keeping American high moral standards, not undermining them;

We fight most effectively by planning for the long-term, not ignoring it;

We fight most effectively by putting in place real crisis plans, not scare tactics, here at home.

I would add in some language about drawing down troops (because the Bush Admin is going to do it anyway) and some ideas about what we expect from Iraqis and what are interests there are, going forward. 

2.  Stopping the Spread of Dangerous Weapons

Much more can be done here, as Suzanne says -- as I pointed out in a previous post, privatization has its place, but not in nuclear policy. It's a little bit odd to see a Ted Turner-funded non-profit doing deals with the Kazakhs to neutralize nuclear fuel.  The Nuclear Threat Initiative, which brought you both the Kazakh deal and Fred Thompson's return to the small screen as the President of the United States, has an action agenda in its annual report, which is a good place to start.   

3.  Restoring the Military

Suzanne’s “Uncle S.A.M. Act” is one way to go on this one.  I would add to it a guarantee that the military will retain its role apart from our domestic politics – ie, no repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act, which every thoughtful military observer I've seen opposes.

4.  Energy Security

The public gets this -- they tell pollsters they want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and develop clean energy sources (and both those polls were before Katrina).  Lots of good thinking is happening on this one – but it needs to coalesce into a public and legislative strategy.  Barack Obama is among others calling for a health-care-for-fuel-standards swap with the auto industry.  The Senate Democrats have a 2020 “energy independence” plan --  full of good ideas, but someone needs to tell them that there is no such thing as "energy independence" as long as oil is a globally-traded commodity.  Energy security, yes.  There are more good ideas for public-private partnerships and innovation jump-starters coming down the pike.  Of course, this also has a strong rhetorical tie-in to our security policy; move away from oil, Americans understand, and the Middle East is just one more messed-up spot on the map.

5.  Globalization Response

Ed Gresser over at the Progressive Policy Institute made a great point to me in an email – everyone remembers the Democrats’ Japan-bashing rhetoric from the 1980s, but, he argues, it didn’t really accomplish much for them.  Today, he says, left and right need to climb down from China- and India-bashing and ask ourselves what we could be doing better.  Among those items:  a trade policy that actually stimulates trade; commitment here at home to expand and standardize benefits for laid-off workers; renewed commitment to support for the basic science and research that yield technological and then business breakthroughs; reversals of cuts to community colleges and of the downward trend in funding for higher education.  In short, a policy that would enable US workers to compete.

Comments

[Lane Brody]

Iraq may still be a mess on democracyarsenal.org but so far this year they've had 2 national elections and are going to have a 3rd. The Sunni's seem to be voting and thus have at least bought into the notion of the political process. Iraq can certainly be termed a mess by any number of measures but calling Iraq a mess misses the small point that democracy is winning.

The election in Iraq was 4 days ago and this blog still hasn't mentioned it. After all this time one would have imagined that those who were against the war, for whatever reason(s), would have reconciled with the view that in the end they wish the best for the people of Iraq.

The insurgency did not significantly disrupt either election; moreover, the lastest target of the insurgency was fellow sunni's in favor of voting. By any objective measure the insurgency is losing. How many elections will Iraq have had in 10 years and might they be a functioning democracy by then?

It's possible that a year from now the exit strategy talk will have been replaced by things are looking up but it would be nice if the Iraqi's trained faster as we'd really like to turn things over to them already. Building a democracy, as well as an entire military and security structure, takes a bit longer than our 24/7 news cycle can put up with. Patience is a virtue because it is hard.

Lane Brody

[James H]

I have to admit that the first time I read the "contract" on national security I thought it was a gag from Kerry supporters still upset over the results of the last election. But, from reading this update and links, it looks like it is a serious point of discussion. Some comments.

First, the plan, and the points articulated, lack any cohesive national strategy. It is simply a set of ideas that denote processes. That's fine but no one seems to get a sense of where these processes are going. What is the overall strategy? And, why is this way a better alternative over what we are doing now? There has to be a vision first before there can be steps to get to that. This seems to be lacking in both of these articles.

Fighting Terror--Again, these statements seem to be reactions to events rather than any real strategy. Terror was largely ignored throughout the 1980s and 1990s mainly because it did not happen on US soil. Having worked closely in the area of metropolitan responses to disaster I can say that some cities have put in place good and aggressive policies to deal with with catastrophe. However, where the rubber meets the road, what is going to make it work is effective local governance and NOT first response from the federal level. First response should be solely up to the local level and the degree to which this is effective largely lies with local government officials. If you want to make response more effective, elect good leaders who take this issues seriously.

Restoring the Military--One of the biggest problems, in my view, of progressives is that they view the world as essentially static. That what is happening today will continue on indefinately. Could it be that the number of US forces stationed abroad is simply a blip in an overall trend line? This point seems to advocate the need for more active duty troops and fewer reserves. Exactly how would one achieve that goal? A draft? This would be a non starter. Building up the military would also call for increased spending. In the wake of Katrina and Rita can the US afford that? Should we?

Energy Security--The idea of health-care-for-fuel-standars swap is a bad, bad, bad idea. I'll say it again, a bad idea. The last thing the US government needs to do is to give more welfare to US businesses who promise more than they can deliver to their employees. Congress has already given a blank check to United by agreeing to take over their pension that is under-funded to the tune of billions of dollars. Not only has this created a moral hazard in the airline industry--Northwest and Delta are thinking of the doing the same thing as United--but other industries, namely the auto industry, is warming to this idea. This would give the US tax payers an enormous burden. If we want to produce more fuel-efficient cars than that initiative has to come from consumers. I am all for the high gas prices because this gets people to turn in their gas guzzlers and buy efficient cars. But it should be up to the consumers to do this not the government.

Globalization Response--These are good ideas but also potentially very expensive to fund--especially higher education. Most state run universities, which receive the bulk of federal and private funding for research, are doing fine. Do we really need to push more money their way? Maybe we should look for innovation in private R&D. Could there be incentives that would bolster high-tech and bio-tech research. The most basic is just creating a good business climate for firms to operate. That means good governance, low taxes, and keeping the standard of living affordable for employees. We do have a trade policy that stimulates trade and just because other countries are doing work we used to do is not a bad thing. An economy is not a static entity but is dynamic. Low-skill, low-wage jobs that are being sourced to China and India is not a bad thing. Consumers in the US that buy those products more cheeply can use their extra money to buy other things. Workers who used to do that can be re-trained for jobs that require more skill and are therefore higher paying jobs. This expands their and our nation's welfare. If we want to expand trade we should work to reduce farm subsidies, pressure China to liberalize their currency so it can float to a realistic market price, and reduce barrier to entry of goods from developing countries. This is being done but, in my opinion, not fast enough.

Look forward to your comments.

[geo]

I count myself a longtime progressive, but almost all of the foreign policy ideas coming from the best of the left these days are SO 20th Century (America's Century of Oil). Note: This is the 21st (of Increasingly Declining Oil).

For better or worse, the gusher celebration is over. And the ideas of how to conduct foreign/domestic policy--unless informed by the ultimate Peak Oil reality--are no longer germane.

National security now hinges on the changes we must make to keep our economy afloat, to feed ourselves, meet our basic needs for shelter, etc. And do all this without the wondrous genie who popped out of the well and allowed us to so magnificently overbuild our society. Decline is all but assured. How will we handle it? By working together and sharing the pain? Or by a heightened internecine warfare of rich vs. poor?

But oil is fungible. What China and India get, we don't; and from now on demand will exceed supply. The U.S. as hegemon is faced with a classic dilemma--what do you do about the junior superpower that is rapidly moving up? China is already competing--outcompeting?--with us in oil markets all over the planet--from Canada, to Venezuela, to Africa, to Iran, and Russia--locking up contracts while we sink deeper in Iraq.

So do we beat back China while we still can? (Big assumption that.) Or do we join the Spanish, Dutch, and British in the Has Been Club for Superpowers?

Or do progressives get smart and offer a compelling vision of a world of nations working together throughout the decline?

Remember Jared Diamond"s warning in "Collapse" re the Mayans: facing a resource scarcity of their own doing (just like us), this advanced civilization fell to warring with one another, thereby hastening their own downfall. Will the armies of the US, China, Russia, Europe, India use up the last pool of oil by fighting global wars for oil?

[geo]

I count myself a longtime progressive, but almost all of the foreign policy ideas coming from the best of the left these days are SO 20th Century (America's Century of Oil). Note: This is the 21st (of Increasingly Declining Oil).

For better or worse, the gusher celebration is over. And the ideas of how to conduct foreign/domestic policy--unless informed by the ultimate Peak Oil reality--are no longer germane.

National security now hinges on the changes we must make to keep our economy afloat, to feed ourselves, meet our basic needs for shelter, etc. And do all this without the wondrous genie who popped out of the well and allowed us to so magnificently overbuild our society. Decline is all but assured. How will we handle it? By working together and sharing the pain? Or by a heightened internecine warfare of rich vs. poor?

But oil is fungible. What China and India get, we don't; and from now on demand will exceed supply. The U.S. as hegemon is faced with a classic dilemma--what do you do about the junior superpower that is rapidly moving up? China is already competing--outcompeting?--with us in oil markets all over the planet--from Canada, to Venezuela, to Africa, to Iran, and Russia--locking up contracts while we sink deeper in Iraq.

So do we beat back China while we still can? (Big assumption that.) Or do we join the Spanish, Dutch, and British in the Has Been Club for Superpowers?

Or do progressives get smart and offer a compelling vision of a world of nations working together throughout the decline?

Remember Jared Diamond"s warning in "Collapse" re the Mayans: facing a resource scarcity of their own doing (just like us), this advanced civilization fell to warring with one another, thereby hastening their own downfall. Will the armies of the US, China, Russia, Europe, India use up the last pool of oil by fighting global wars for oil?

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[Louis Vuitton]

I like your post. You make some good points.

[rokettube]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral youjizz yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi...