Politics – Page 7

There is NO “NAFTA Superhighway”

It’s amazing that in a world with ever-increasing amounts of available information, people can still fall prey to flat-out incorrect conspiracy theories, but they do. This article in the Nation about the so-called NAFTA Superhighway is a prime example.

I particularly liked this graf, which attempts to explain why so many people are willing to accept rumor over reality:

The myth of the NAFTA Superhighway persists and grows because it taps into deeply felt anxieties about the dizzying dislocations of twenty-first-century global capitalism: a nativist suspicion of Mexico’s designs on US sovereignty, a longing for national identity, the fear of terrorism and porous borders, a growing distrust of the privatizing agenda of a government happy to sell off the people’s assets to the highest bidder and a contempt for the postnational agenda of Davos-style neoliberalism. Indeed, the image of the highway, with its Chinese goods whizzing across the border borne by Mexican truckers on a privatized, foreign-operated road, is almost mundane in its plausibility.

Although apparently there is an effort underway in Texas to build a bunch of new highways there.

Clinton: A Legacy of Trauma?

I don’t read Andrew Sullivan regularly, but Ezra called this piece on Clinton and Obama to my attention today, and it’s quite interesting, especially this bit:

Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars.

It’s an insightful take on Clinton and who know, Sullivan might even be right. He goes on to compare her with Obama:

The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.

Traumatic events will have an impact, that’s a given. The real question is, what lessons do you learn from the past, and how do you choose to respond to it as you move on in life? I understand Clinton’s risk-aversion, but given that significant repair job that the next President is going to have on their hands, I’m not sure that someone whose impulse response is to be cautious is necessarily the right person for the job at this point in time.

About that Obama v Clinton Debate Issue

Kevin Drum has a good post up today about the difference between a potential Obama foreign policy as compared to a Clinton foreign policy. I agree with his take, and even better, he has a nice summation of why all this actually matters:

It’s rare to have a discussion about foreign policy that actually revolves around a concrete point, and by foreign policy standards this one counts as at least a mud brick point. Basically, do you think the United States should, as a routine part of its foreign policy, say that it’s willing to talk to any country that’s willing to talk to us? That the mere act of talking isn’t a tacit capitulation to a rogue regime’s demands?

I sure think so, and not just for the obvious reason that talking can sometimes lead to actual results. The bigger reason is that if you talk routinely, then the mere act of talking isn’t a tacit capitulation to a rogue regime’s demands and can’t possibly be spun that way. It’s just something we do.

Emphasis added. Good one, Kevin.

Sheehan v Pelosi?

Here’s a news item I didn’t want to see this Sunday:

Cindy Sheehan, the soldier’s mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush.

On the one hand, part of being an effective activist is being able to take extreme action that will draw notice to your cause (PETA is particularly good at this) and Sheehan is certainly attracting attention. People are listening, people are taking, and the issue is getting more light shone on it. In that regards, the threat is effective.

On the other hand, I think it’s a terrible idea. It’s bad for Pelosi, it’s bad for the Democrats, and most important, it’s bad for Sheehan herself. It was only some six weeks ago that she announced that she was retiring from the anti-war movement. Some retirement — launching a career in electoral politics with a third-party attempt to try to take down the Speaker of the House?

It sounds more like a recipe for additional personal and financial heartache for a woman who has already suffered quite enough. She won’t win, and she’ll probably further hurt her reputation (and her emotional stability) by trying.

The pain, grief, and anguish that Cindy Sheehan feels over the loss of her child, and the extent to which those demons drives her, is not something I can begin to wrap my brain around. But surely, there’s other ways to expunge that pain and those demons than by an action so destructive to herself and to the cause she is trying to fight for?

Independence Day

We spent last night down on Stanford campus with some friends, picnicking, enjoying a concert, and finally, a fireworks display. Great weather, good friends, good food, and a good time.

Except at the end. The soundtrack for the fireworks was a standard Boston Pops set of classic American war music. The glorification of war and of American armed might in the music struck me as both ironic and sad, given how badly the war in Iraq is going. Usually, when I see fireworks, I find myself thinking about John Adams and how he though the 4th should be celebrated, and wondering what he would think of the America of today. This year, though, I mostly though about the soldiers over in Iraq, and what they might be thinking of today.

The sooner they all come home, the better.

Outrage Fatigue

I’d be a lot more outraged by shenanigans like this: White House won’t rule out Libby pardon if they were not so utterly predictable from this administration.

I’ve definitely got outrage fatigue. And it’s showing in my blogroll too; in recent months, the balance has tipped from “mostly political blogs with a few others thrown in” to “business and tech blogs, food blogs, and a few political blogs too”. Six years of this administration has taken its toll: I am tired of being angry, and reading the same rants by the same people over and over again isn’t interesting anymore.

This might be related to why Obama seems to be doing so well lately. I can’t be the only person out there who is sick of the anger, the divisiveness, and the screaming. A Presidential candidate whose unique selling point is a passionate call to positive action can seem mighty attractive when you’re burned out on the other emotions.