SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT

The recent address by Benjamin Natanyahu to the American Congress illustrates vividly the hypocrisy of the Republican party.  It certainly appealed to deeply felt emotions and to significant fund raisers. Still it is a step too far.  The Republicans are entitled to their perspective on domestic arguments and should do their best to present their viewpoints on important issues for the American people.  They should also examine foreign issues carefully and do their duty to present alternative strategies to protect their country.

BUT they should not try to undermine the president when dealing with foreigners in very difficult negotiations.

A simplified synopsis of the Iranian negotiation crisis is subject to bias and prejudice, but here goes.  There is doubt in all quarters as to how far one should trust Iran.  Are they just trying to inch their way to having nuclear weapons?  Are they using that fear as leverage to get more of what they really want?  Can outsiders really prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons if they are really determined short of war?  Could the west win a war?  Each question is complex and there is far more to it.  Each side has members who want the negotiations to fail and nobody can really be sure of the consequences.

My suggestion would be that tensions should be turned down.  Israel ought to be exploring steps to relieve the dangers.  A greater danger might be increasing resentment of how they treat the Palestinians.  Iran is potentially an ally in a war against ISIS.  It is not a backward civilization and its citizens do not all hate the West.  There is a lot of history involved and Americans need to acknowledge they were responsible for replacing an elected Iranian with a dictator.  Should Iran develop a nuclear bomb it would likely cause other Middle East powers to do the same.

There are plenty of delicate international issues with plenty of differing views.  At some point someone has to represent the whole nation when confronting these issues.  That person is logically the President.  That does not mean that everyone has to agree, but it should mean efforts to undermine a united front are not acceptable.

The Republicans understood this when they made the decision to invade Iraq.  They ridiculed dissenters and shamed fence sitters to get bi partisan Congressional approval.  Politicians and the media were very strident against any differing views.  Traitorous was a common epithet for people who did not support military efforts or security changes.  It was unpatriotic to question decisions.  Anyone else remember that environment?

The Iraq War turned out to be disastrous, not only because of military considerations, but because of the essential dishonesty involved.  Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 disaster, they did not train Al Quaeda terrorists and they did not have weapons of mass destruction.  Although claims are made that intelligence pointed to a guilty Iraq, they were to a significant degree manufactured with plenty of dissenting opinions expressed.  They even revealed a secret agent in an effort to discredit one of the dissenters.

All politicians find it helpful to project a patriotic image and some like to denigrate the opposition's patriotism.  Voters are responsive to this image battle.

To my viewpoint, the Republicans were attempting to undermine delicate negotiations for what they thought would be political advantage.  Paint the Democrats as weak and poor negotiators and stick up for the Israeli victims.  Netanyahu cannot be totally blamed for trying to take advantage of an opportunity to present his undoubtedly sincere concerns, but he too was trying to portray himself as a tough negotiator for an election of his own.  Republicans would have been better advised to avoid seeming to take sides in another nation's election.

Republicans are not alone in their concern about the Iranian negotiations, but at some point they have to stop undermining the president and the voters have to trust the man the majority of voters supported in the last two presidential elections.

A lot of the conservative rhetoric is blatantly unfair and ridiculous.  For instance as a Canadian it is hard to stomach the misinformation that is shouted about Obamacare.  It is noted that once the same plan is identified as the Affordable Care Act it gains greater approval.  There are many difficult issues, but it is hard not to be impressed with how superior Obama's results have been compared to his Republican predecessor.  Republicans have a lot of chutzpah to not owning up not only to their Iraq debacle, but also how they messed up the economy.

As outsiders we can only express our opinions, but have to realize we will never know everything a president has to deal with.  Our judgment and our vote has to be based on what we do know and perhaps the key element is deciding who to trust and then respect the majority.  When difficult decisions have to be made at some point we have to trust and respect elected officials.  I do not believe the Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives demonstrated that with respect to the recent visit by a foreign leader.

The photo at the top is of muralist Lester Coloma working on a fence painting that unfortunately is no longer there and I thought it should be remembered.

BENGHAZI A DISGRACE FOR WHO?

It is impossible to approach this topic from a truly neutral viewpoint.  It is obvious that something bad happened in Benghazi and steps should be taken to minimize future occurrences.

My prejudice is that Republicans have a very long history of distortion.  They have demonstrated they don't believe in compromise as they are "principled."  They don't accept that they lost the election and in fact the biggest leverage they have comes from gerrymandering and abuse of Senate rules.  The majority of those who actually voted (and Republicans have done their best to limit the number who could vote) voted against Republican policies.

Having said that, the Democrats have to accept that they had the responsibility when something went wrong.   It is also true that at the time the Democrats were positioning themselves as protectors in a terrorist infected world in an election that seemed up for grabs.  It was in their interest to downplay the threat and any mistakes they have made while the Republicans were organizing efforts to stir up emotions.

The points I have heard raised by Republicans are superseded by a few basic facts.  The CIA was heavily involved and for security reasons (and perhaps to protect their own interests) wanted to minimize public awareness, particularly enemy awareness of details.  The critical decisions that were made were decided by military.  A key problem was that security expenses had been pushed down by the Republicans.

Susan Rice who in my opinion has done an excellent job was attacked for reading talking points that had been agreed to by the CIA.  Republicans so anxious to find some dirt didn't hesitate to expose names of vulnerable people, thus scaring away potential collaborators.  Reminds me of the Valerie Plame outing which some might consider treasonous.

There will always be problems.  The Republicans suffered a lot of embassy attacks with more deaths than Benghazi and were always self-righteous regarding "Islamic terrorists" nevertheless thought that security budgets for embassies should be cut.

More recently I think they have a better case about the IRS investigating conservative groups for tax exempt status.  I think all groups should be investigated for tax exempt status, but on a fair and random basis.

Do I think all Democrats are saints?  No, I have been disillusioned that they are influenced by big money almost as much as Republicans.  Republicans do not have policies that benefit the bulk of Americans and know it and find it more effective to find scandals.  Perhaps the media is really liberal, but it does seem that it is not pure in all this--they love controversy for their ratings and they are tied into the economic establishment and are far less independent then they once were.

The Republicans tried very hard with Bill Clinton and finally reached impeachment proceedings that really had nothing to do with high crimes or treason.  The Republicans really did enter a war in Iraq using false premises (hard to believe that they were not aware of their own distortions).  They let in colleagues who made a lot of money from that war.  They lowered taxes and all sorts of regulations and are very proud of that.  They dislike being restricted in any way regardless of public benefit.  The result has been an increase in inequality that is counter productive to the majority of Americans.

Hilary Clinton seems to be the target, but in reality she has done a very good job and is so popular that many assume she will run and easily win the next presidential race.  The Republicans are making claims she tried to cover up, but really that is a stretch.  Republicans have no guilty feelings about the Iraq War or the financial problems of United States, but are always looking to fault others.  If Americans would like to earn the respect of the rest of the world they have to stop falling for self serving accusations of politicians and concentrate on the policies and the real problems facing the world.

HOW I SEE THE AMERICAN ELECTION

It is always risky to stick your head out in political matters and I do not even have a vote in the American election.  Americans frequently express a disdain for what foreigners think.  The outcome (not just for president, but Congress) will have an impact for the whole world.  The best way to start might be to explain my ideals.  Simply I think there does need to be a balance between individual and collective rights.  It is my opinion that things are headed to being unbalanced.

I am a small l liberal, with a lot of respect for some conservative thinking.  You should not spend more than you take in, although it is critical to invest for the future.  Individuals need to be rewarded for taking risks, but we need to balance that by cushioning the fall of those who do not succeed which ironically encourages more people to take a risk, a good example being Germany.  Furthermore the masses of people need protection from those with power to harm them.  Capital is said to be the base of growth, but actually labour is equally important.  Many people risk their money (for some it is a form of gambling for excitement), but somewhere someone has to do something.

Big money has too much power (including the military industrial complex, oil, pharmacy, financial, insurance, gambling, etc.).  Republicans should be most noted for chutzpah.  They blame Barrack Obama for a poor recovery, overlooking that they were instrumental in triggering the colossal mess, they obstructed reasonable solutions (even to the point of voting against their own ideas), and they are proposing the same policies that caused the mess--namely tax cuts, de-regulation and an aggressive military stance.  Some people would consider their behaviour treason as they obviously put their party above the country.  Many others don't see the full picture.  When they jumped on "he didn't build that" they gave a disgusting distortion of an idea that is not only very basic, but needs to be appreciated if we are to survive.

Sticking with money, I have to say it affects both parties.  The Democrats used to be beaten up pretty badly when it came to fund raising, but a few decades back started to fight back.  There are a lot of strategies to raising money, but to be effective you have to go after big money and ultimately that means favours.  One of the greatest problems is money and before Americans can have true democracy they have to find a way to cut the power of money.

Many conservatives indignantly exclaim that Obama has performed very poorly.  Extremely unfair and hypocritical.  His predecessor in 8 years did some very significant things that caused the sort of crisis that only happens every few decades.  Taking a budget surplus the Republicans gave out huge tax cuts that favoured mainly the wealthy.  He initiated two wars, one approved by Americans, but the other was foolishly leveraged on ignorance.  Although there was lots of proof that Saddam Hussein was an evil man there were really no indications he had anything to do with 9/11 and much evidence was criminally distorted to create a different impression.  For the first time in history tax cuts were portrayed as patriotic during a war.  These two factors plus a poorly thought out Medicaid (that leaned towards Big Drugs) are the real reason for the deficit and unfortunately Obama has to deal with the consequences.

The job crisis (which exasperated the deficit) was brought on by de-regulation.  It is true that too much regulation does stifle business, but if  fair regulations are enforced they help ensure not only consumer protection, but also keep a level playing field for honest entrepreneurs.   In order to maximize profits it seems nothing should interfere whether it is concerns for pollution, climate change, wildlife preservation, safety, fair understandable contracts, etc.  Republicans are very lax when it comes to consumer protection.  There does need to be a balance.

Most Americans seem unconscious that the Mid East is not all uncivilized, nor uniform in culture.  One of the biggest beefs is that the Middle-East has with Americans is their treatment of the Palestinians who in fact have been very unfairly treated.  But the Muslims in the Mid East also bitterly resent American support for dictators.  While Americans look at Iranians as fanatics they do not remember that Americans engineered a coup that displaced a legally elected popular politician.  Tough talk and premature action has made the situation more dangerous.  We are now in a transition that could go in different directions.  Deeper understanding and patience are required.   Those foolish enough to criticize any part of the war on terror during the Bush years were branded unpatriotic.

Social issues.  The Republicans realize that normally voters would recognize their economic self interest is not served by conservative policies.  But they cleverly tied some social issues that are so strong some voters will side with them anyway.  This leads to a lot of hypocrisy.  Those who get short changed by some of these emotional social issues include women, many ethnic and racial minorities, homosexuals.  The meaning of conservative means to me resistence to change and the status quo.  Americans need to change and realize they cannot dictate to everyone (at home or abroad)--we need to look for solutions as the real problems affect us all.  There is a segment of Americans that resent a black man in the White House and that seems to cloud a lot of Obama's policies and approaches.

What I see as the most basic problems facing the future are climate change, global joblessness, over-population, democracy.  None of these problems are seriously discussed.

Climate change is dismissed by far too many and is so touchy few are willing to bring it up as the serious issue it should be.  Few can remember when big tobacco spent millions to deny any connection between smoking and cancer and still lobby to maintain their right to lure gullible youngsters into an unhealthy addiction.  Climate change is real and apparently becoming closer to a dangerous tipping point--why Americans believe Big Oil interests rather than real scientists is baffling.

Joblessness is under assault not just by outsourcing, but also by technology--can be a very good thing if it is done with everybody in mind.  Unfortunately those in charge see the need to reduce labour costs as more critical than social harmony.   This leads to inequality.  Inequality is wasteful, dangerous and unfair.

Over population leads to all sorts of stresses such as pollution, food shortages, diseases.

Democracy is threatened by big money interests that distort reality to boost their profits.  Without a truly democratic government plutocracy is inevitable.  Probably getting everything in the right balance will be a continuous battle.

Who should pay for civilization?  In other words who should pay the taxes for America?  Those who benefit.  Those who want a big military to protect "our interests", those who want easy communication and transportation for their goods, those who want a legal system that ensures fairness,.  We all should pay, but be honest we don't all benefit equally nor do we all have the same capacity.

In fairness to Mitt Romney he had to cater to two types of voters.  Those who decided on his nomination were more socially (and fiscally) conservative than the voters that could elect him to be president.  The etch a sketch is pretty much what any Republican would have to go through.  I am sure he thinks he has a better economic model to strive for than is in place right now and realizes he won't get a chance to impose it without going through a lot of hoops.  I think his vision and that of his heavy financial backers is that Americans needs to let rich people loose.

An even broader perspective is needed.  Consumers are critical to making anyone rich, but they need a source of income and they also need to be protected from fraud, and shoddy products.  At some point somebody has to do the dirty work and they also need protection and incentive.  We all benefit when there is a level playing field which is unattainable in perfect terms. Inequality hurts everyone--we need the best medicine, the best science, the best technology, smart consumers, enthusiastic workers.   We all benefit when we all have access to information to make decisions, but most of us are squeezed with other demands and distractions on our time

Mitt Romney is undoubtedly a more practical man than he is portraying himself, but his supporting advisors are scary and his voting base even scarier.  Perhaps the greatest concern is he cannot keep his policies straight, a sign that he is not his own man and/or will say any thing to win

I would also like to point out to conservatives that since Dwight Eisenhower (who warned about the military industrial complex) Republicans have increased the deficit while Democrats have lowered it.  Despite many claims to the contrary even Obama has paid more attention to the deficit than Bush.

Obama also has to cater to a variety of interests and required a lot of financial backing to get his platform, so he cannot do everything he thinks is best and like everyone he is imperfect.  But he is the better choice.  Don't forget he needs a strong supporting team.