By William Fisher
Those of us who believe in the American Bill of Rights are about to have our commitment challenged yet again – big time. No, not by the Taliban, but by something very close.
The challenger is Reverend Jerry Falwell, arguably America’s most hysterical televangelist. It was the Falwell who blamed 9/11 on “traitors within the Chosen People…federal court decisions, abortionists, pagans, feminists, many gays and lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other liberal organizations”. These groups, he said, “made God mad at us.” He added: “"I think Muhammad was a terrorist."
Now Falwell has founded his very own law school. Its objective is to train attorneys to “infiltrate” the legal field and “fight causes of marriage equality and women’s rights.” He hopes to train a generation of attorneys to take up conservative causes -- to outlaw abortion, gay marriage and other issues that he believes the legal establishment has forced on the public. . “We’ll be as far to the right as Harvard is to the left.”
The law school -- part of Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia – began classes last week. Its dean, Bruce Green, says it will “fuse the teachings of the Bible with the US Constitution, stressing the connections between faith, law and morality.”
Others see a far more sinister outcome. For example, Americans United for Separation of Church and State warned, “when Falwell talks about using the legal system to advance his personal religious beliefs, I get a whiff of the Taliban.”
And Howard Dean weighs in with: “In the days after September 11th Falwell said that America deserved to be attacked for, "throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools…the purpose of Falwell's law school is to roll back the progress of the last hundred years. The people of this country have spent a century unraveling hate and prejudice from our legal system. Falwell wants to bring all that back. I am committed to stopping him.”
Falwell, an ardent supporter of President Bush, believes that “homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family” and that the AIDS crisis is "God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
In his weblog journal, the dean of the new Law School, Bruce W. Green, wrote, “…we are a Christian law school with… an emphatically historic vision of the triune God, creation, fall, redemption, renewal, and their relation. This vision derives from Scripture and centers on the person and work of Jesus Christ… This is the historic foundation that led to the founding of our country and the American legal system.” In another posting, he said: “Unfortunately, having been trained according to rationalist tradition, many modern legal thinkers make themselves at home in a landscape in which the absence of God is taken for granted and then declare they cannot find any trace of God anywhere — including in the study of law.”
The only Jewish law student at Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, told the National Law Journal he has no reservations about the quality of the legal education, nor does he have qualms about being exposed to Christian principles. "I'm not being compelled to change my faith or anything like that," he said. "Their goal is to really prepare us to hit the ground running. And they want us to be really good lawyers."
Nonetheless, applications for faculty positions at the new school contain its “Doctrinal Statement”. The statement includes affirmations of “God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit”, the concept of original sin, and a decidedly ‘creationist’ approach to the origins of life.
Many legal scholars and practitioners are skeptical of the blending of law and theology.
Barry W. Lynn, a lawyer and executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told Tresa Baldas of The National Law Journal he compares Falwell's mix of religion and law to that of Muslim fundamentalists. "I think that the Taliban-like character of this is present because Jerry Falwell seems to believe that religion must trump any other considerations.”
John Sebert, a consultant on legal education to the American Bar Association, who oversees the law school accreditation process, has cautioned law schools about the danger of teaching views that are "so slanted" that they produce lawyers ill-equipped to tackle various legal issues. "You can get to a point where in any type of legal education that focuses solely in one area that's so unidimensional that it has the risk of not being able to adequately prepare its graduates for passing the bar or for effective participation in the profession," he said.
Other legal scholars echo that concern. A.E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Virginia School of Law, said his concern is whether Liberty will be tightly controlled by a church or religious affiliation, or whether it will have the institutional independence that promotes academic freedom.
"They don't just plan to talk about the relationship between law and religion. They plan to show how law flows from Christian principles," Howard said. "That's kind of blending law and theology and I don't know of any law school that's quite that explicit."
Emily Whitfield, national spokeswoman of the ACLU, believes Falwell is wrong in "demonizing" judges. Unlike the pastor, she added, "We ultimately have faith in our system of justice."
What is disturbing about Falwell’s latest adventure is not simply that he is going to train right-wing lawyers. The American justice system has survived this kind of movement before. What is truly scary is his vision of where he wants it all to lead –his vision of America.
Here his affinity with the Taliban is inescapable. He would create a country based on a "Christian order" that equates democracy with "mob rule"; a country without freedom of speech; a country that will not tolerate diversity and pluralism, a country that will not permit anybody the right to sin; a country that asks no questions; where church and state are one, and where Christians rule by "Divine mandate". In short, a theocratic police state.
But, as one observer points out, “a police state is great -- if you happen to be the police.”
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Monday, September 20, 2004
WHISTLING PAST THE GRAVEYARD
By William Fisher
Last week, President Bush talked with one of his staunchest supporters, the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader, about the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) he received in July containing a classified warning predicting that the best case for Iraq was "tenuous stability" and the worst case was civil war.
"The Iraqis are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy," Bush told the paper, adding: “I'm pleased with the progress. Don't get me wrong. It's hard because there are some in Iraq who want to disrupt the election and disrupt the march to democracy, which should speak to their fear of freedom."
Thus we voters are presented with yet another dilemma. Should we believe the authors of the NIE – the same people who produced the slam-dunk intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction? Or should we believe the president, whose Administration told us our troops would be greeted as ‘liberators’, and that flowers would fill the barrels of our guns?
Both would seem to have serious credibility problems.
Except that the NIE has some powerful evidence the president chooses to ignore: what is actually happening on the ground.
The most reliable evidence coming out of Iraq is that what’s happening on the ground is that the country is sliding toward anarchy.
Reconstruction money can’t be spent because contractors can’t work while they’re being shot at. Volunteers for the Iraqi police and the Iraqi National Guard are unable to join up because they are being blown to bits by suicide car bombers. As a result, Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have had to significantly scale back their original optimistic estimates of progress -- now they say 95,000 Iraqi forces are equipped and trained -- less than half the 200,000 US officials previously said they had already trained. But not a single recruit has completed the full 24 weeks of training, and their performance under fire has been less than spectacular.
Entire parts of the country are no-go areas for both Iraqi and US-Coalition forces. The perilous situation in Najaf and Kufa was resolved not by Iraqi or US or Coalition forces, but by the country’s leading Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (though Prime Minister Allawi did his best to spin this as his own personal victory).
Falluja remains off-limits to both Iraqi and US forces, and there is little evidence that repeated air strikes on that city have produced results other than the ‘collateral damage’ of innocent people getting killed.
It is unlikely that Iraq will be able to establish enough security for elections to go forward in January. Those mandated to monitor those elections – the United Nations – have made it clear they will not return to have their headquarters or staffers blown up a second time.
Meanwhile, more than a thousand US troops have lost their lives, and more than 7,000 have been wounded. And counting.
The president’s response to all this reminds us of Lyndon Johnson during the worst of the Vietnam war. Johnson insisted on ‘whistling past the graveyard’ as US forces sank ever-deeper into that quagmire. He insisted we were winning, when every rational shred of evidence told us we were losing.
Senator Kerry does not offer us much more of a plan. He still talks about ‘internationalizing’ the forces in Iraq, when there is zero chance any of the great powers of the world are prepared put bulls-eyes on the backs of their young men and women. On Thursday, candidate Kerry told members of the National Guard Association of the United States meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, that Bush knows "the mission in Iraq is in serious trouble."
"That is the truth, as hard as it is to bear," Kerry said. "I believe you deserve a president who isn't going to gild that truth or gild our national security with politics, who is not going to ignore his own intelligence, who isn't going to live in a different world of spin, who will give the American people the truth, not a fantasy world of spin." Kerry said he would bring in more allies to help train Iraqi forces so that US troops could come home.
Both Kerry and Bush continue to tell us it’s not too late to turn things around. But neither has told us of a plan, an idea, a strategy, to do that.
The American people deserve better.
Last week, President Bush talked with one of his staunchest supporters, the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader, about the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) he received in July containing a classified warning predicting that the best case for Iraq was "tenuous stability" and the worst case was civil war.
"The Iraqis are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy," Bush told the paper, adding: “I'm pleased with the progress. Don't get me wrong. It's hard because there are some in Iraq who want to disrupt the election and disrupt the march to democracy, which should speak to their fear of freedom."
Thus we voters are presented with yet another dilemma. Should we believe the authors of the NIE – the same people who produced the slam-dunk intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction? Or should we believe the president, whose Administration told us our troops would be greeted as ‘liberators’, and that flowers would fill the barrels of our guns?
Both would seem to have serious credibility problems.
Except that the NIE has some powerful evidence the president chooses to ignore: what is actually happening on the ground.
The most reliable evidence coming out of Iraq is that what’s happening on the ground is that the country is sliding toward anarchy.
Reconstruction money can’t be spent because contractors can’t work while they’re being shot at. Volunteers for the Iraqi police and the Iraqi National Guard are unable to join up because they are being blown to bits by suicide car bombers. As a result, Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have had to significantly scale back their original optimistic estimates of progress -- now they say 95,000 Iraqi forces are equipped and trained -- less than half the 200,000 US officials previously said they had already trained. But not a single recruit has completed the full 24 weeks of training, and their performance under fire has been less than spectacular.
Entire parts of the country are no-go areas for both Iraqi and US-Coalition forces. The perilous situation in Najaf and Kufa was resolved not by Iraqi or US or Coalition forces, but by the country’s leading Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (though Prime Minister Allawi did his best to spin this as his own personal victory).
Falluja remains off-limits to both Iraqi and US forces, and there is little evidence that repeated air strikes on that city have produced results other than the ‘collateral damage’ of innocent people getting killed.
It is unlikely that Iraq will be able to establish enough security for elections to go forward in January. Those mandated to monitor those elections – the United Nations – have made it clear they will not return to have their headquarters or staffers blown up a second time.
Meanwhile, more than a thousand US troops have lost their lives, and more than 7,000 have been wounded. And counting.
The president’s response to all this reminds us of Lyndon Johnson during the worst of the Vietnam war. Johnson insisted on ‘whistling past the graveyard’ as US forces sank ever-deeper into that quagmire. He insisted we were winning, when every rational shred of evidence told us we were losing.
Senator Kerry does not offer us much more of a plan. He still talks about ‘internationalizing’ the forces in Iraq, when there is zero chance any of the great powers of the world are prepared put bulls-eyes on the backs of their young men and women. On Thursday, candidate Kerry told members of the National Guard Association of the United States meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, that Bush knows "the mission in Iraq is in serious trouble."
"That is the truth, as hard as it is to bear," Kerry said. "I believe you deserve a president who isn't going to gild that truth or gild our national security with politics, who is not going to ignore his own intelligence, who isn't going to live in a different world of spin, who will give the American people the truth, not a fantasy world of spin." Kerry said he would bring in more allies to help train Iraqi forces so that US troops could come home.
Both Kerry and Bush continue to tell us it’s not too late to turn things around. But neither has told us of a plan, an idea, a strategy, to do that.
The American people deserve better.
THE STEEL CEILING
By William Fisher
Western women who are frustrated by the ‘glass ceiling’ – listen up: In Saudi Arabia, the ceiling is made of steel!
In February, if not postponed yet again, Saudi Arabia will have its first-ever municipal elections. But in this first tiny step toward more representative governance, women won’t be allowed to run for office.
Although they played a significant role in pressing for these elections, Saudi writer Maha Al-Hujailan says women in the Kingdom are considered “mere appendages of men without an independent identity.“
She adds: “The exclusion of women from political activities amounts to legitimizing a dangerous mentality founded on the notion that women have only a marginal, or no, role in nation building…The absence of women’s voices in the municipal election will undoubtedly have a negative impact on social development…By supporting an ideology based on sexist concepts, the whole society stands to lose an opportunity for a great social transformation with far-reaching consequences.”
Dr. Suhaila Zein-Al Abedeen of the Kingdom’s National Committee for Human Rights says that voting and running for office is a right of all women in Islam. She points out, “women are directly involved in municipal affairs and sometimes suffer more than men from bad service. For example, lack of water, sewage problems and electricity cuts impact women more than men since they are at home and have to deal with the resulting problems.”
Women, she says, “are perfectly capable of public work. If not, why do we waste millions of riyals on women’s education? Saudi women are as aware and capable of participating in the elections as men are.”
The first Saudi woman to announce her intention to run in the elections, Nadia Bakhurji, says her agenda is ready. An engineer, she says that since her announcement to run, she has received many expressions of support.
“I was optimistic about my decision, but now I am disappointed to hear that women will be excluded. It is a huge mistake to exclude us from this process; women can add value and they have a great deal to contribute.”
At the same time, she concedes that breaking barriers takes time. She says she will offer her agenda to any candidate who is willing to adopt it, and suggests that if women cannot be involved directly in the elections, they could form a think-tank to supply other candidates.
Abeer Mishkhas and Somayya Jabarti, writing in Jeddah’s Arab News, quote “an anonymous Shoura (Advisory) Council member” as saying: ‘What do women want with voting and municipality elections? Why would they want to trouble themselves with things that are new and unfamiliar? These issues are against their nature so why ask for trouble?’
A mother of four takes a very different view, the writers say. “I don’t understand. What is the basis for excluding women? If her vote isn’t against Shariah (Islamic law) and doesn’t trespass any red lines, then what’s the harm? A woman is a citizen just as men are. She is the other half unless the authorities intend to have all-men districts and all-women districts.”
Saudi Arabia’s decision to hold municipal elections was hailed as ‘proof’ that the Kingdom was serious about democratic reform. The exclusion of women candidates makes a farce of this baby step.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development, and served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration.
Western women who are frustrated by the ‘glass ceiling’ – listen up: In Saudi Arabia, the ceiling is made of steel!
In February, if not postponed yet again, Saudi Arabia will have its first-ever municipal elections. But in this first tiny step toward more representative governance, women won’t be allowed to run for office.
Although they played a significant role in pressing for these elections, Saudi writer Maha Al-Hujailan says women in the Kingdom are considered “mere appendages of men without an independent identity.“
She adds: “The exclusion of women from political activities amounts to legitimizing a dangerous mentality founded on the notion that women have only a marginal, or no, role in nation building…The absence of women’s voices in the municipal election will undoubtedly have a negative impact on social development…By supporting an ideology based on sexist concepts, the whole society stands to lose an opportunity for a great social transformation with far-reaching consequences.”
Dr. Suhaila Zein-Al Abedeen of the Kingdom’s National Committee for Human Rights says that voting and running for office is a right of all women in Islam. She points out, “women are directly involved in municipal affairs and sometimes suffer more than men from bad service. For example, lack of water, sewage problems and electricity cuts impact women more than men since they are at home and have to deal with the resulting problems.”
Women, she says, “are perfectly capable of public work. If not, why do we waste millions of riyals on women’s education? Saudi women are as aware and capable of participating in the elections as men are.”
The first Saudi woman to announce her intention to run in the elections, Nadia Bakhurji, says her agenda is ready. An engineer, she says that since her announcement to run, she has received many expressions of support.
“I was optimistic about my decision, but now I am disappointed to hear that women will be excluded. It is a huge mistake to exclude us from this process; women can add value and they have a great deal to contribute.”
At the same time, she concedes that breaking barriers takes time. She says she will offer her agenda to any candidate who is willing to adopt it, and suggests that if women cannot be involved directly in the elections, they could form a think-tank to supply other candidates.
Abeer Mishkhas and Somayya Jabarti, writing in Jeddah’s Arab News, quote “an anonymous Shoura (Advisory) Council member” as saying: ‘What do women want with voting and municipality elections? Why would they want to trouble themselves with things that are new and unfamiliar? These issues are against their nature so why ask for trouble?’
A mother of four takes a very different view, the writers say. “I don’t understand. What is the basis for excluding women? If her vote isn’t against Shariah (Islamic law) and doesn’t trespass any red lines, then what’s the harm? A woman is a citizen just as men are. She is the other half unless the authorities intend to have all-men districts and all-women districts.”
Saudi Arabia’s decision to hold municipal elections was hailed as ‘proof’ that the Kingdom was serious about democratic reform. The exclusion of women candidates makes a farce of this baby step.
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development, and served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
SPREAD DEMOCRACY: YES, BUT HOW?
By William Fisher
“From Pat Buchanan to Paul Krugman, the cry has gone up that the stress on exporting American ideals is a plot by nefarious ‘neoconservatives’. “
So writes conservative columnist Max Boot in the Los Angeles Times (September 16). But not until the final paragraph of his 800-word piece does Boot even come close to the heart of this issue: ”there will be differences over how to go about” spreading democratic values around the world.
Even Pat Buchanan and Paul Krugman would agree that this is what the debate is about. These gentlemen agree on very little. But I suspect they would agree on at least two things: First, spreading democracy is a worthy objective; second, it cannot be achieved by military might.
That is where they, and most reasonable people, part company with the neoconservative construct: use the military to remove miscreant dictators, and freedom and democracy will emerge naturally. The United States should have learned this lesson from its own history, and from the past misadventures of many other nations. But if America insisted on ignoring the past, there can be no question that it learned the lesson in Iraq: US forces were not greeted as liberators. Their gun barrels were not filled with flowers.
So what should the US do?
Boot cites a number of highly regarded scholars who frame the issue as economic development versus political development. He writes that these experts “puncture the myth that democracy works only in rich nations. In fact, many poor countries have freely elected governments (think India, Poland and Brazil) while some rich ones (think Saudi Arabia and Singapore) do not. Far from economic development being necessary for democracy, they argue that democracy promotes economic development. Free countries grow faster than their more repressive neighbors. They also perform better on social measures such as life expectancy, literacy rates, clean drinking water and healthcare. And they are less prone to armed conflict.”
They note that "the 87 largest refugee crises over the past 20 years originated in autocracies," and they cite Nobel laureate Amartya Sen's observation that "no democracy with a free press has ever experienced a major famine."
This argument seems to me designed to set up a straw man. The ‘choice’ is spurious. It does not need to be made at all. Almost any development professional will tell you that economic development and the growth of democratic institutions are self-reinforcing sides of the same coin.
Which leaves us with the more central question: How?
It seems to me that the answer tilts persuasively in the direction of the ‘soft power’ formula proposed by Joseph Nye, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and now Dean of the Kennedy School at Harvard.
Soft Power means attracting people or co-opting them -- getting them to want what you want. Nye’s thesis is that there are times when the US needs to use military power in the face of a clear and present danger to the country (Afghanistan / The Taliban), or economic power (sanctions, relationships with trading blocs, etc.) to counter other kinds of threats. But, he contends, it is ‘soft power’ that has the best chance of securing cooperation from others – without which the terrorists cannot be vanquished. And without which the debate over economic development versus democracy promotion becomes irrelevant.
The application of Soft Power depends on the skillful use of a quiver of carrots and sticks. America spends a substantial amount on foreign aid each year – though it is right to question whether, in light of current challenges, this budget is anything like large enough. But too much of this aid is spent encouraging economic development in countries that have autocratic or authoritarian governments. A relative pittance is spent on helping to introduce democracy. This imbalance is a vestigial remain of the Cold War, and it has tended to give dictators a free pass, favor economic elites, and achieve little in terms of narrowing the chasm between rich and poor.
In contrast, far too little is spent on programs to help build and strengthen democratic institutions. When the US has attempted to strike a healthier balance, it has often done so in clumsy and ineffective ways. Not long ago, the US took Egypt to the woodshed and insisted that the Mubarak regime show some evidence of real political reform. The response was largely cosmetic and short-lived. The Bush Administration’s Greater Middle East Initiative was seen in the region as a one-size-fits-all attempt to impose democracy from outside. And America’s pitiful efforts to use the tools of mass communications to broadcast its ‘message’ to this region have been met with skepticism and an audience of about two per cent of the Arab and Muslim world.
One of the reasons for our inability to use Soft Power more effectively is our use of military power inappropriately, i.e. in Iraq. Another is the precipitous decline of American prestige among Arab populations because of the invasion of Iraq and the failure to make the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a more important priority. And,
to be realistic, some of our failures have to be attributed to the desire of the authoritarian non-democratic regimes we support to simply hang on to power.
Max Boot refers to a study by Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former Clinton administration official, and Jitka Maleckova, a professor of Middle Eastern studies in Prague. They write: "Apart from population — larger countries tend to have more terrorists — the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties. Countries with more freedom were less likely to be the birthplace of international terrorists.”
Which should tell us we need to be much more skillful in persuading these regimes that it is in their self-interest to promote democratic change as an effective means of combating terrorists.
This will mean optimizing our use of both carrots and sticks. The United States has many of both. The process won’t be easy and it won’t be quick. But the status quo is not an option. Sustaining dictators will not win the ‘war on terror’.
“From Pat Buchanan to Paul Krugman, the cry has gone up that the stress on exporting American ideals is a plot by nefarious ‘neoconservatives’. “
So writes conservative columnist Max Boot in the Los Angeles Times (September 16). But not until the final paragraph of his 800-word piece does Boot even come close to the heart of this issue: ”there will be differences over how to go about” spreading democratic values around the world.
Even Pat Buchanan and Paul Krugman would agree that this is what the debate is about. These gentlemen agree on very little. But I suspect they would agree on at least two things: First, spreading democracy is a worthy objective; second, it cannot be achieved by military might.
That is where they, and most reasonable people, part company with the neoconservative construct: use the military to remove miscreant dictators, and freedom and democracy will emerge naturally. The United States should have learned this lesson from its own history, and from the past misadventures of many other nations. But if America insisted on ignoring the past, there can be no question that it learned the lesson in Iraq: US forces were not greeted as liberators. Their gun barrels were not filled with flowers.
So what should the US do?
Boot cites a number of highly regarded scholars who frame the issue as economic development versus political development. He writes that these experts “puncture the myth that democracy works only in rich nations. In fact, many poor countries have freely elected governments (think India, Poland and Brazil) while some rich ones (think Saudi Arabia and Singapore) do not. Far from economic development being necessary for democracy, they argue that democracy promotes economic development. Free countries grow faster than their more repressive neighbors. They also perform better on social measures such as life expectancy, literacy rates, clean drinking water and healthcare. And they are less prone to armed conflict.”
They note that "the 87 largest refugee crises over the past 20 years originated in autocracies," and they cite Nobel laureate Amartya Sen's observation that "no democracy with a free press has ever experienced a major famine."
This argument seems to me designed to set up a straw man. The ‘choice’ is spurious. It does not need to be made at all. Almost any development professional will tell you that economic development and the growth of democratic institutions are self-reinforcing sides of the same coin.
Which leaves us with the more central question: How?
It seems to me that the answer tilts persuasively in the direction of the ‘soft power’ formula proposed by Joseph Nye, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and now Dean of the Kennedy School at Harvard.
Soft Power means attracting people or co-opting them -- getting them to want what you want. Nye’s thesis is that there are times when the US needs to use military power in the face of a clear and present danger to the country (Afghanistan / The Taliban), or economic power (sanctions, relationships with trading blocs, etc.) to counter other kinds of threats. But, he contends, it is ‘soft power’ that has the best chance of securing cooperation from others – without which the terrorists cannot be vanquished. And without which the debate over economic development versus democracy promotion becomes irrelevant.
The application of Soft Power depends on the skillful use of a quiver of carrots and sticks. America spends a substantial amount on foreign aid each year – though it is right to question whether, in light of current challenges, this budget is anything like large enough. But too much of this aid is spent encouraging economic development in countries that have autocratic or authoritarian governments. A relative pittance is spent on helping to introduce democracy. This imbalance is a vestigial remain of the Cold War, and it has tended to give dictators a free pass, favor economic elites, and achieve little in terms of narrowing the chasm between rich and poor.
In contrast, far too little is spent on programs to help build and strengthen democratic institutions. When the US has attempted to strike a healthier balance, it has often done so in clumsy and ineffective ways. Not long ago, the US took Egypt to the woodshed and insisted that the Mubarak regime show some evidence of real political reform. The response was largely cosmetic and short-lived. The Bush Administration’s Greater Middle East Initiative was seen in the region as a one-size-fits-all attempt to impose democracy from outside. And America’s pitiful efforts to use the tools of mass communications to broadcast its ‘message’ to this region have been met with skepticism and an audience of about two per cent of the Arab and Muslim world.
One of the reasons for our inability to use Soft Power more effectively is our use of military power inappropriately, i.e. in Iraq. Another is the precipitous decline of American prestige among Arab populations because of the invasion of Iraq and the failure to make the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a more important priority. And,
to be realistic, some of our failures have to be attributed to the desire of the authoritarian non-democratic regimes we support to simply hang on to power.
Max Boot refers to a study by Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former Clinton administration official, and Jitka Maleckova, a professor of Middle Eastern studies in Prague. They write: "Apart from population — larger countries tend to have more terrorists — the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties. Countries with more freedom were less likely to be the birthplace of international terrorists.”
Which should tell us we need to be much more skillful in persuading these regimes that it is in their self-interest to promote democratic change as an effective means of combating terrorists.
This will mean optimizing our use of both carrots and sticks. The United States has many of both. The process won’t be easy and it won’t be quick. But the status quo is not an option. Sustaining dictators will not win the ‘war on terror’.
Friday, September 17, 2004
INDONESIA PRESS FREEDOM: TWO STEPS BACKWARD?
By William Fisher
It isn’t often I find myself agreeing with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. But the Secretary is to be commended for his spirited defense of an Indonesian journalist convicted of criminal defamation and sentenced to a year in prison “under laws dating to the Dutch colonial period and the early years of independence” – in what should never have been a criminal case in the first place.
The case involves his friend, Bambang Harymurti, the chief editor of Tempo, Indonesia's leading newsmagazine, and two of his colleagues. Charges stem from an article in Tempo that linked a wealthy Indonesian businessman to a suspicious fire in a Jakarta market where the businessman planned to build a fancy commercial shopping center. The businessman sued for civil defamation and, according the Wolfowitz, “unusually, the government charged Mr. Bambang and two of his colleagues with criminal defamation. Prosecutors,” he added, “asked for two-year sentences and - even more unusually - asked that Mr. Bambang be detained immediately, treating him like a dangerous criminal who should not be allowed to remain at large.”
Mr. Bambang, Secretary Wolfowitz wrote in the New York Times (September 16), is “a journalist of enormous integrity, someone who takes seriously his responsibility not only to publish the truth but also not to publish falsehoods. He is also a Muslim who has courageously denounced terrorism and extremism on the editorial pages of his magazine.”
One of Mr. Bambang’s acquitted co-defendants was Ahmad Taufik, a founding member of the Indonesian journalists’ organization, the Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI), who was previously jailed under the criminal code during an attempt by the Suharto regime to clamp down on press freedom. In 1995, he was jailed for three years for reportedly "hate-sowing articles." In 1997, Taufik was awarded the 1995 CPJ International Press Freedom Award, but could not accept the award because he was in jail.
”The mere fact that this case has been brought, “ Wolfowitz writes, “is a threat to the freedom and democracy that Indonesia has enjoyed since the collapse of the Suharto government six years ago.”
President Christopher Warren of the International Federation of Journalists, agrees. "The rise of repressive regimes in Indonesia has historically been heralded by a restriction of press freedom, including an over-zealous use of spurious legal avenues to lock up defenders of free speech," says Warren. "The journalists of the world are today calling on your government to act in the interests of genuine freedom of the press in Indonesia and repeal these regressive laws.".
While praising Indonesia for making “remarkable progress in developing democratic institutions”, Secretary Wolfowitz says his “concerns about this case extend far beyond my worry about the fate of a friend. I believe that the whole world has a stake in the success of democracy in Indonesia…One of the worst possible ways that power can be abused is to take away the freedom of the press and thereby remove one of the most important mechanisms for ensuring that government respects the rights of its citizens.”
The collapse of Indonesia's first brief experience with democracy in the 1950's began with "an attempt to undermine freedom of the domestic press through the criminalization of journalists." Under President Sukarno, 60 press cases were brought before the Special State Court in September 1957 alone, Mr. Wolfowitz notes.
Indonesia, with a population of almost 240 million, is 90 per cent Muslim and home to more Muslims than any other country in the world -- 15 percent of the world's Muslim population. That, says Wolfowitz, “makes it an important role model in the post-September 11th world. It is no accident that the terrorist fanatics associated with Al Qaeda have been attacking Indonesia, even before the horrendous bombings in Bali in October 2002. And the attacks continue, with one just last week.”
But press freedom in Indonesia presents a mixed picture. "I'm worried," says Leo Batubara, executive director of the Indonesian Newspaper Publishers Association. "The people around (President) Megawati have learned two things from our history: If you want to hold on to power, you have to be close to the military, and you have to control the press."
He cites the agreement of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) to revive the Ministry of Information, which, under President Suharto, was used to muzzle the nation's media. Publications were licensed by the ministry and could be shut down on a moment's notice if deemed to transgress their vague guidelines. Nongovernment radio news was illegal, and all television stations were either government-run or owned by Suharto's associates.
Hinca Panjaitan, a lawyer who runs the Indonesian Media Law and Policy Institute, says members of Megawati's party have been in the forefront of efforts to water down legislation that would guarantee press freedom, particularly for the broadcast media. "Her party doesn't really care about open media,” he says. , Panjaitan, who lobbies for more liberal media laws and teaches media outlets about their rights, says a creeping backlash against the media has begun, with regional bureaucrats and soldiers taking the lead.
Much of the anti-Government sentiment is based on the use of defamation laws against journalists like Secretary Wolfowitz’s friend. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), an organization representing over 500,000 journalists worldwide, has launched a global campaign -- including a protest march in India -- urging Indonesia to refrain from jailing three journalists under the country's draconian defamation laws. IFJ member organizations worldwide are participating in a campaign calling on the government of Indonesia to remove defamation as a criminal offense and restrict financial damages in civil defamation to sensible and rational amounts. They are also urging it to remove the crime of "insulting the President or Vice-President" from the criminal code.
"'Don't jail journalists' is the message that we are sending to the Government of Indonesia…” says IFJ president Warren. "Indonesia needs to recognize that it is completely inappropriate to send journalists to jail for defamation; defamation should be tried only in the civil, not criminal, jurisdiction."
Over the past year, a number of defamation cases have been brought against journalists and media organizations.
In September 2003, the news editor of the newspaper Rakyat Merdeka, Karim Paputungan, received a suspended sentence from a Jakarta court for publishing a satirical cartoon of parliamentary speaker Akbar Tandjung. The cartoon satirized the speaker after he was found guilty of corruption. Tandjung is appealing the decision and remains speaker.
In October 2003, editor Supratman of Rakyat Merdeka was given a suspended six-month jail sentence and a year’s probation after being found guilty by a Jakarta court for "spreading hatred" after publishing headlines critical of the Indonesian government and particularly the president. The case was brought under article 134 of the criminal code, which outlaws insults to the president or vice-president and is punishable by up to six years in jail.
Says Amnesty International: “Legal cases recently brought against media professionals highlight continuing flaws in the Indonesian legal system and indicate disturbing attempts to restrict fundamental rights to freedom of expression and opinion and the public’s right to access to information. Amnesty International believes that these cases represent the most serious threat to press freedom in Indonesia for almost a decade and is urging the Indonesian government to take the steps necessary to uphold fundamental rights and avert a backsliding into a more restrictive environment”.
Another source of concern has been treatment of the press trying to cover the violence in the breakaway prince of Aceh last year. According to Human Right Watch, the Indonesian government “has blocked Indonesian and foreign correspondents from covering the military campaign in Aceh, where gross human rights violations are taking place…Indonesia’s security forces and separatist guerrillas have intimidated journalists…”, says Saman Zia-Zarifi, deputy director of the HRW’s Asia Division.
HRW says that reports from Aceh highlighted several instances of executions of civilians by the Indonesian military, widespread displacement of civilians, and a lack of basic necessities such as food, healthcare and access to education. Since martial law began, Indonesian security forces have verbally and physically intimidated journalists in Aceh. Military officials have also arbitrarily detained correspondents in the field. In one widely reported case, members of Indonesia´s elite special forces, Kopassus, beat an Indonesian radio journalist who was reporting on the plight of Acehnese civilians fleeing the military campaign.
It adds: "Whenever the press has pulled away the shroud of secrecy around Aceh, it has exposed serious abuses. As the government intensifies its military campaign, press access to Aceh becomes even more crucial for providing information on how civilians are surviving the war."
Reporters without Borders, a Paris-based organization that speaks for journalists, says the Indonesian army “did everything possible to keep the news media away from Aceh…Two reporters were killed in the rebel zone and dozens of others were physically attacked or threatened.”
Nevertheless, despite generations of widespread corruption, many observers believe Indonesia is serious about wanting to build democratic institutions. How it approaches the issue of press freedom will be a major measure of the depth of its commitment.
It isn’t often I find myself agreeing with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. But the Secretary is to be commended for his spirited defense of an Indonesian journalist convicted of criminal defamation and sentenced to a year in prison “under laws dating to the Dutch colonial period and the early years of independence” – in what should never have been a criminal case in the first place.
The case involves his friend, Bambang Harymurti, the chief editor of Tempo, Indonesia's leading newsmagazine, and two of his colleagues. Charges stem from an article in Tempo that linked a wealthy Indonesian businessman to a suspicious fire in a Jakarta market where the businessman planned to build a fancy commercial shopping center. The businessman sued for civil defamation and, according the Wolfowitz, “unusually, the government charged Mr. Bambang and two of his colleagues with criminal defamation. Prosecutors,” he added, “asked for two-year sentences and - even more unusually - asked that Mr. Bambang be detained immediately, treating him like a dangerous criminal who should not be allowed to remain at large.”
Mr. Bambang, Secretary Wolfowitz wrote in the New York Times (September 16), is “a journalist of enormous integrity, someone who takes seriously his responsibility not only to publish the truth but also not to publish falsehoods. He is also a Muslim who has courageously denounced terrorism and extremism on the editorial pages of his magazine.”
One of Mr. Bambang’s acquitted co-defendants was Ahmad Taufik, a founding member of the Indonesian journalists’ organization, the Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI), who was previously jailed under the criminal code during an attempt by the Suharto regime to clamp down on press freedom. In 1995, he was jailed for three years for reportedly "hate-sowing articles." In 1997, Taufik was awarded the 1995 CPJ International Press Freedom Award, but could not accept the award because he was in jail.
”The mere fact that this case has been brought, “ Wolfowitz writes, “is a threat to the freedom and democracy that Indonesia has enjoyed since the collapse of the Suharto government six years ago.”
President Christopher Warren of the International Federation of Journalists, agrees. "The rise of repressive regimes in Indonesia has historically been heralded by a restriction of press freedom, including an over-zealous use of spurious legal avenues to lock up defenders of free speech," says Warren. "The journalists of the world are today calling on your government to act in the interests of genuine freedom of the press in Indonesia and repeal these regressive laws.".
While praising Indonesia for making “remarkable progress in developing democratic institutions”, Secretary Wolfowitz says his “concerns about this case extend far beyond my worry about the fate of a friend. I believe that the whole world has a stake in the success of democracy in Indonesia…One of the worst possible ways that power can be abused is to take away the freedom of the press and thereby remove one of the most important mechanisms for ensuring that government respects the rights of its citizens.”
The collapse of Indonesia's first brief experience with democracy in the 1950's began with "an attempt to undermine freedom of the domestic press through the criminalization of journalists." Under President Sukarno, 60 press cases were brought before the Special State Court in September 1957 alone, Mr. Wolfowitz notes.
Indonesia, with a population of almost 240 million, is 90 per cent Muslim and home to more Muslims than any other country in the world -- 15 percent of the world's Muslim population. That, says Wolfowitz, “makes it an important role model in the post-September 11th world. It is no accident that the terrorist fanatics associated with Al Qaeda have been attacking Indonesia, even before the horrendous bombings in Bali in October 2002. And the attacks continue, with one just last week.”
But press freedom in Indonesia presents a mixed picture. "I'm worried," says Leo Batubara, executive director of the Indonesian Newspaper Publishers Association. "The people around (President) Megawati have learned two things from our history: If you want to hold on to power, you have to be close to the military, and you have to control the press."
He cites the agreement of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) to revive the Ministry of Information, which, under President Suharto, was used to muzzle the nation's media. Publications were licensed by the ministry and could be shut down on a moment's notice if deemed to transgress their vague guidelines. Nongovernment radio news was illegal, and all television stations were either government-run or owned by Suharto's associates.
Hinca Panjaitan, a lawyer who runs the Indonesian Media Law and Policy Institute, says members of Megawati's party have been in the forefront of efforts to water down legislation that would guarantee press freedom, particularly for the broadcast media. "Her party doesn't really care about open media,” he says. , Panjaitan, who lobbies for more liberal media laws and teaches media outlets about their rights, says a creeping backlash against the media has begun, with regional bureaucrats and soldiers taking the lead.
Much of the anti-Government sentiment is based on the use of defamation laws against journalists like Secretary Wolfowitz’s friend. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), an organization representing over 500,000 journalists worldwide, has launched a global campaign -- including a protest march in India -- urging Indonesia to refrain from jailing three journalists under the country's draconian defamation laws. IFJ member organizations worldwide are participating in a campaign calling on the government of Indonesia to remove defamation as a criminal offense and restrict financial damages in civil defamation to sensible and rational amounts. They are also urging it to remove the crime of "insulting the President or Vice-President" from the criminal code.
"'Don't jail journalists' is the message that we are sending to the Government of Indonesia…” says IFJ president Warren. "Indonesia needs to recognize that it is completely inappropriate to send journalists to jail for defamation; defamation should be tried only in the civil, not criminal, jurisdiction."
Over the past year, a number of defamation cases have been brought against journalists and media organizations.
In September 2003, the news editor of the newspaper Rakyat Merdeka, Karim Paputungan, received a suspended sentence from a Jakarta court for publishing a satirical cartoon of parliamentary speaker Akbar Tandjung. The cartoon satirized the speaker after he was found guilty of corruption. Tandjung is appealing the decision and remains speaker.
In October 2003, editor Supratman of Rakyat Merdeka was given a suspended six-month jail sentence and a year’s probation after being found guilty by a Jakarta court for "spreading hatred" after publishing headlines critical of the Indonesian government and particularly the president. The case was brought under article 134 of the criminal code, which outlaws insults to the president or vice-president and is punishable by up to six years in jail.
Says Amnesty International: “Legal cases recently brought against media professionals highlight continuing flaws in the Indonesian legal system and indicate disturbing attempts to restrict fundamental rights to freedom of expression and opinion and the public’s right to access to information. Amnesty International believes that these cases represent the most serious threat to press freedom in Indonesia for almost a decade and is urging the Indonesian government to take the steps necessary to uphold fundamental rights and avert a backsliding into a more restrictive environment”.
Another source of concern has been treatment of the press trying to cover the violence in the breakaway prince of Aceh last year. According to Human Right Watch, the Indonesian government “has blocked Indonesian and foreign correspondents from covering the military campaign in Aceh, where gross human rights violations are taking place…Indonesia’s security forces and separatist guerrillas have intimidated journalists…”, says Saman Zia-Zarifi, deputy director of the HRW’s Asia Division.
HRW says that reports from Aceh highlighted several instances of executions of civilians by the Indonesian military, widespread displacement of civilians, and a lack of basic necessities such as food, healthcare and access to education. Since martial law began, Indonesian security forces have verbally and physically intimidated journalists in Aceh. Military officials have also arbitrarily detained correspondents in the field. In one widely reported case, members of Indonesia´s elite special forces, Kopassus, beat an Indonesian radio journalist who was reporting on the plight of Acehnese civilians fleeing the military campaign.
It adds: "Whenever the press has pulled away the shroud of secrecy around Aceh, it has exposed serious abuses. As the government intensifies its military campaign, press access to Aceh becomes even more crucial for providing information on how civilians are surviving the war."
Reporters without Borders, a Paris-based organization that speaks for journalists, says the Indonesian army “did everything possible to keep the news media away from Aceh…Two reporters were killed in the rebel zone and dozens of others were physically attacked or threatened.”
Nevertheless, despite generations of widespread corruption, many observers believe Indonesia is serious about wanting to build democratic institutions. How it approaches the issue of press freedom will be a major measure of the depth of its commitment.
BLOGGING IRAQ
By William Fisher
In Iraq, one of the more under-reported sub-cultures is the blog. From the time of the US invasion, dozens of Iraqis – and many US and Coalition service personnel – have caught on to this 21st century way of reporting the news and expressing views that don’t usually make it into the news. Web logs, available free to almost anyone with a computer and an internet connection, have become both a powerful alternative to and a rich source for the mainstream press, both Iraqi and international.
With Prime Minister Allawi’s government now showing disturbing signs of censoring the media in the way that all Middle East Arab governments do, the blog – or web log – has taken on even more importance. The medium provides unique glimpses into how life really is in Iraq, on a highly personal – and often painful – level.
One of my favorite Iraqi blogs is called Baghdad Burning, the work of an Iraqi female computer scientist who calls herself River. River lost her job because her employer felt he could no longer protect her from the random violence that plagues women throughout the country.
On this day, River laments the recent attacks on Christian churches. “It makes me miserable”, she writes, “to think that Christians no longer feel safe. I know we're all feeling insecure right now, but there was always that sense of security between differing religions. Many Iraqis have been inside churches to attend weddings, baptisms, and funerals. Christians have been suffering since the end of the war. Some of them are being driven out of their homes in the south and even in some areas in Baghdad and the north. Others are being pressured to dress a certain way or not attend church, etc. So many of them are thinking of leaving abroad and it's such a huge loss. We have famous Christian surgeons, professors, artists, and musicians. It has always been an Iraqi quality in the region -- we're famous for the fact that we all get along so well.”
She writes that many Iraqi Christians have “left to Syria, Jordan, Canada... with broken hearts and bitterness.”
River lays the responsibility for these acts of bigotry directly at the feet of Iraqi extremists. She writes: “I'm convinced the people who set up these explosions are people who are trying to give Islam the worst possible image. It has nothing to do with Islam -- just as this war and occupation has nothing to do with Christianity and Jesus -- no matter how much Bush tries to pretend it does.”
“That's a part of the problem,” she continues. “Many people feel this war and the current situation is a crusade of sorts. 'Islam' is the new communism. It's the new Cold War to frighten Americans into arming themselves to the teeth and attacking other nations in 'self-defense'. It's the best way to set up 'Terror Alerts' and frighten people into discrimination against Arabs, in general, and Muslims specifically... just as this war is helping to breed anger and hate towards westerners in general, and Americans specifically.”
We need to think about people like River next time we hear one of Donald Rumsfeld’s absurdly optimistic press briefings. How, Mr. Secretary, are we ever going to win back River’s heart?
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development, and served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration.
In Iraq, one of the more under-reported sub-cultures is the blog. From the time of the US invasion, dozens of Iraqis – and many US and Coalition service personnel – have caught on to this 21st century way of reporting the news and expressing views that don’t usually make it into the news. Web logs, available free to almost anyone with a computer and an internet connection, have become both a powerful alternative to and a rich source for the mainstream press, both Iraqi and international.
With Prime Minister Allawi’s government now showing disturbing signs of censoring the media in the way that all Middle East Arab governments do, the blog – or web log – has taken on even more importance. The medium provides unique glimpses into how life really is in Iraq, on a highly personal – and often painful – level.
One of my favorite Iraqi blogs is called Baghdad Burning, the work of an Iraqi female computer scientist who calls herself River. River lost her job because her employer felt he could no longer protect her from the random violence that plagues women throughout the country.
On this day, River laments the recent attacks on Christian churches. “It makes me miserable”, she writes, “to think that Christians no longer feel safe. I know we're all feeling insecure right now, but there was always that sense of security between differing religions. Many Iraqis have been inside churches to attend weddings, baptisms, and funerals. Christians have been suffering since the end of the war. Some of them are being driven out of their homes in the south and even in some areas in Baghdad and the north. Others are being pressured to dress a certain way or not attend church, etc. So many of them are thinking of leaving abroad and it's such a huge loss. We have famous Christian surgeons, professors, artists, and musicians. It has always been an Iraqi quality in the region -- we're famous for the fact that we all get along so well.”
She writes that many Iraqi Christians have “left to Syria, Jordan, Canada... with broken hearts and bitterness.”
River lays the responsibility for these acts of bigotry directly at the feet of Iraqi extremists. She writes: “I'm convinced the people who set up these explosions are people who are trying to give Islam the worst possible image. It has nothing to do with Islam -- just as this war and occupation has nothing to do with Christianity and Jesus -- no matter how much Bush tries to pretend it does.”
“That's a part of the problem,” she continues. “Many people feel this war and the current situation is a crusade of sorts. 'Islam' is the new communism. It's the new Cold War to frighten Americans into arming themselves to the teeth and attacking other nations in 'self-defense'. It's the best way to set up 'Terror Alerts' and frighten people into discrimination against Arabs, in general, and Muslims specifically... just as this war is helping to breed anger and hate towards westerners in general, and Americans specifically.”
We need to think about people like River next time we hear one of Donald Rumsfeld’s absurdly optimistic press briefings. How, Mr. Secretary, are we ever going to win back River’s heart?
About the writer: William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development, and served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
AN OPEN LETTER TO JOHN KERRY
By William Fisher
Dear Senator Kerry:
I am a student of international affairs and a political news junkie. I have a pretty good idea of what’s going on in the world, so it’s not me I’m worried about.
It’s the American voter.
They’re getting snookered. They’re being misled – again. They’re being told that things are betting better in Iraq, when clearly they are getting worse. They’re being told we’re going after ‘terrorists’ in Iraq, when in fact we have created their largest and most successful recruiting office. They’re being told there will soon be elections in Afghanistan, yet not being told that the Bush Administration is failing to get the international community to fulfill its promises to protect the polling places. They’re still being told that there was a connection between Osama Bin Laden, Al Quaida, Saddam Hussein, and 9/11, when there is no credible evidence to back up that claim. They are being told that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is a high priority for the Bush Administration, when it has been on a distant back-burner for many months. And they are still being told that if we ‘stay the course’, freedom and democracy will magically start springing up all over the Middle East, when the truth is that America is so disrespected in that neighborhood that anything we touch is destined to go sour.
Senator, I don’t care what you did or did not do thirty-five years ago, and I don’t give a hoot if Lt. Bush never showed up for National Guard service. All of that is ancient history and a huge and dangerous distraction for those who will cast their ballots in November.
I know the ‘average’ American voter can’t afford to spend hours and weeks studying the issues. For better or worse, about all a politician can try to do is to get their attention. And, like it or not, that means using the fewest possible words to talk to the voters in a way that is direct, honest and, most important of all, unambiguous. Enough nuance: The voters aren’t getting it!
I know you’re in a tough spot, having voted to give the President the authority to take us to war. And then saying you would have done it again if you knew then what you know now. You’ve made your job tougher still by saying you’re going to ‘internationalize’ our effort in Iraq, when you must know that there is not the remotest chance this will happen.
What the American voter needs to know is what you would do now, in Iraq and elsewhere, and exactly your plan to get us out of the mess Mr. Bush got us into.
No one else can do this job. You wanted to be the candidate, and now you’re there. You are running in the most consequential election since the Great Depression. How it comes out will decide the direction of the United States for generations to come. Only you are in a position to influence the result.
You and your advisors need to figure out how to do that and how to do it now. Because it will soon be too late.
Dear Senator Kerry:
I am a student of international affairs and a political news junkie. I have a pretty good idea of what’s going on in the world, so it’s not me I’m worried about.
It’s the American voter.
They’re getting snookered. They’re being misled – again. They’re being told that things are betting better in Iraq, when clearly they are getting worse. They’re being told we’re going after ‘terrorists’ in Iraq, when in fact we have created their largest and most successful recruiting office. They’re being told there will soon be elections in Afghanistan, yet not being told that the Bush Administration is failing to get the international community to fulfill its promises to protect the polling places. They’re still being told that there was a connection between Osama Bin Laden, Al Quaida, Saddam Hussein, and 9/11, when there is no credible evidence to back up that claim. They are being told that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is a high priority for the Bush Administration, when it has been on a distant back-burner for many months. And they are still being told that if we ‘stay the course’, freedom and democracy will magically start springing up all over the Middle East, when the truth is that America is so disrespected in that neighborhood that anything we touch is destined to go sour.
Senator, I don’t care what you did or did not do thirty-five years ago, and I don’t give a hoot if Lt. Bush never showed up for National Guard service. All of that is ancient history and a huge and dangerous distraction for those who will cast their ballots in November.
I know the ‘average’ American voter can’t afford to spend hours and weeks studying the issues. For better or worse, about all a politician can try to do is to get their attention. And, like it or not, that means using the fewest possible words to talk to the voters in a way that is direct, honest and, most important of all, unambiguous. Enough nuance: The voters aren’t getting it!
I know you’re in a tough spot, having voted to give the President the authority to take us to war. And then saying you would have done it again if you knew then what you know now. You’ve made your job tougher still by saying you’re going to ‘internationalize’ our effort in Iraq, when you must know that there is not the remotest chance this will happen.
What the American voter needs to know is what you would do now, in Iraq and elsewhere, and exactly your plan to get us out of the mess Mr. Bush got us into.
No one else can do this job. You wanted to be the candidate, and now you’re there. You are running in the most consequential election since the Great Depression. How it comes out will decide the direction of the United States for generations to come. Only you are in a position to influence the result.
You and your advisors need to figure out how to do that and how to do it now. Because it will soon be too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
