Will the GOP Go the Way of the Whig Party?

In 1852 there were two major political parties in the United States – the Democrats and the Whigs. While Whig Millard Fillmore – who succeeded the deceased Zachary Taylor – was President, deep problems existed for the Whigs. The Whigs held under 40% of the seats in the Senate and House, but it faced a far greater difficulty. The Whig Party was splintered over the issue of slavery. The Whigs would nominate General Winfield Scott over incumbent President Millard Fillmore. Scott lost soundly to Democrat Franklin Pierce. The Whigs would never elect another President to office. The Whigs disintegrated into “the Opposition Party,” a loosely affiliated coalition of politicians united only by their disdain for the Democrats. By 1857, the Republican Party was organized, and there was not a single trace left of the Whigs.

The political similarities between the Whigs and today’s GOP are superficial at best. The Whig Party favored government intervention in the free market, public works, and tariffs – all of which modern Republicans would at least be against in theory if not in practice. However, like the Whigs, the GOP is now becoming a minority party and on the verge of becoming a regional party. While the effects of decades of gerrymandering allow the GOP to remain strongly competitive in the House of Representatives, its prospects in the Senate are dwindling. Susan Collins remains the only Republican Senator in New England, and there are no Republican Senators on the West Coast. Changing demographics suggest that the GOP will continue to lose influence in the Southwest. As white Americans gradually become a minority, the GOP will have a more difficult time electing a President.

The Whig division over the issue of slavery led to its demise. The GOP today finds itself deeply divided on several issues. On domestic policy, Tea Party Republicans favor deep spending cuts while moderate Republicans continue to favor economic policies that are often indistinguishable from those held by Democrats. Despite giving lip service to Reagan conservatism, the Republican Party has shown itself to be no more willing or able to deal with the exploding national debt than the Democratic Party. On foreign policy and civil liberties, the libertarian wing of the GOP favors less military intervention and a greater concern for protecting Constitutional rights while the neoconservatives continue to espouse bellicose foreign policy and continue to insist that even a decade after the 9/11 attacks, curtailing civil liberties in the name of security is necessary to defend the nation against terrorism. The reactions by neoconservative Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham to Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster against the use of drones to kill American non-combatants on American soil was a perfect illustration of this growing schism within the GOP.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” This may prove true for the GOP as Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove begins to wage a civil war against the Tea Party wing of the party. Rove’s Conservative Victory Project is an offshoot of his American Crossroads super PAC and is aimed at defending the RINO mainstream of the party – made up by old and tired moderate Rockefeller Republicans and discredited neoconservatives – against “whacko bird” insurgents. While underestimating Rove would be a mistake, what would he accomplish if successful? Would a few more GOP seats in the House or Senate be worth it if the candidates ended up being purple RINOS closer to blue than red? More likely, the winner of Rove’s civil war will be Progressive Democrats.

Accurate or not, the GOP is now gaining a national reputation as merely an obstructionist “Opposition Party” united only by its disdain for President Obama and the Democrats. There is no clear party message and even fewer convictions when it comes to its nebulous principles. Just as Governor Mitt Romney was unsuccessful in defeating President Obama by merely being “the candidate who is not Barack Obama,” Republicans will not enjoy long-term success by running candidates who are merely “the candidates not wearing blue.” Bearing an elephant insignia rather than a donkey insignia is simply not enough anymore.

Warmonger Susan Rice Should Not Be the Next National Security Advisor

The latest buzz coming out of beltway is that President Obama plans to appoint UN Ambassador Susan Rice to the position of National Security Advisor. While Ambassador Rice was forced to remove herself from consideration for the position of Secretary of State due to the backlash against her perceived role in the Benghazi tragedy, if President Obama does appoint her as his National Security Advisor, then she will not face confirmation.

Ambassador Rice’s critics seized upon her role in the Benghazi incident to derail her nomination as Secretary of State. Seen as particularly damning was her claim that the Benghazi demonstrations and resulting massacre were caused by an anti-Islamic video rather than by blowback. Predictably, her defenders made allegations that her critics were being racist and sexist. However, any alleged incompetence on Ambassador Rice’s part pales in comparison with her dangerous warmongering tendencies. Ambassador Rice should not be the one whispering in President Obama’s ear about foreign policy because she has never met an interventionist war that she did not like.

Ambassador Rice was a vocal supporter of the Iraq War. In December of 2002 she said:

It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It’s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that’s the path we’re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.

Ambassador Rice was also a supporter of the surge in Afghanistan:

Al-Qaida is regrouping and reconstituting their safe haven; the Taliban are gaining strength. Europe is closer to that threat than we are. Yet, we all have to take it very seriously. The US has to put more resources and troops into Afghanistan, and NATO should do the same, while – to the greatest extent possible – lifting operational restrictions.

Ambassador Rice was one of the most vocal supporters of President Obama’s unconstitutional “kinetic military action” in Libya. So eager was she for war that she spread the preposterous rumor that Qaddafi’s soldiers were using Viagra so that they could go out and rape. While Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, the truth was that it was the Libyan rebels that were carrying out a campaign of “ethnic cleansing” against Black Libyans.

Ambassador Rice is a strong advocate of “humanitarian” interventionist wars. In 2006, she advocated using a UN force of 22,000 troops to end the violence in Darfur. Of course, UN “humanitarian” military actions will inevitably cost American blood and treasure. In a world filled with tin pot dictators who do not respect the natural rights of their citizens, there will be far too many tempting places where Ambassador Rice might suggest that President Obama engage in “kinetic military action” for “humanitarian” purposes. While she does not support arming the rebels in Syria, this opinion would not preclude a NATO bombing campaign just as it did not preclude it in Libya. President Obama’s drone campaign would make far too useful a tool in slaughtering people all over the world for “humanitarian” purposes.

Support for progressive “humanitarian” wars in addition to dubious wars to protect “American interests” overseas would only serve to multiply the number of pointless and unconstitutional wars that the United States gets entangled with. A far more cautious voice is what is needed to advise President Obama to “calm down” and curb his interventionist tendencies

Ben Bernanke: The Mad Hatter

It is always absurd to read anything that praises Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. A panegyric to him inevitably puts one in mind of mad hares, grinning cats, and hookah-smoking caterpillars. In a recent Financial Times article, Edward Luce dubbed Bernanke “a good engineer who knows his limits.” Mr. Luce drags out all the well-rehearsed “jam tomorrow” Keynesian arguments in attempting to state the case that the Federal Reserve under Bernanke has been “the only serious economic actor” in Washington for the past five years.

According to Luce, Bernanke’s easy money policies are the reason that the American economy is not in even worse shape:

Without the Fed’s easy money, the stock market would be languishing and unemployment would be rising. Instead of “helicopter Ben” dropping reserves from the sky it would be “lawnmower Ben” shredding the green shoots of the recovery.

As always, when the Federal Reserve’s policies are ineffective – or even counterproductive – a Keynesian apologist always claims that without the Federal Reserve, an economic apocalypse would have been the result. This unsupported assumption is akin to a New York Mets apologist claiming that were it not for the brilliant leadership of Casey Stengal in 1962, the team would have lost even more games than the 120 it did manage to lose.

Luce credits Bernanke’s scholarly knowledge about the Great Depression with providing the insights behind the Federal Reserve’s recent maneuvers:

As a scholar of the Great Depression, he understood its chief cause was the extinction of credit: the US escaped the slump because it went off the gold standard. The New Deal had little to do with it.

These oft-repeated Keynesian talking points are too mad even for a hatter to believe. Easy money policies do not help the economy. It was the easy money policies of the 1920s that set forces in motion that would lead to the Great Depression. Even more absurd is the claim that going off the gold standard ended the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed the United States from the gold standard on June 5, 1933, yet the Great Depression did not finally end in the United States until after the end of World War II. The only thing that the destruction of the gold standard did was to allow banks to maximize profits as the Federal Reserve “printed” money and quickened the destruction of the American dollar through inflation. Luce is correct in pointing out that the New Deal had nothing to do with the ending of the Great Depression in the United States. What did bring about the end of the Great Depression was the lifting of corporatist regulations and a return to a free market economy and the resultant unleashing of the productive capacity of the American economy against competitors whose factories lay in rubble.

According to Luce, the Federal Reserve under Bernanke has been the only force of good besides President Obama in working to fight against the Great Recession:

For the bulk of the past five years, the Fed has been the only serious economic actor in Washington – and remains so today. With the big exception of President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus, it alone has tried to find ways to keep the US economy afloat. Since 2011, fiscal policy has been a drag on the recovery. US growth is expected to hit about 2 per cent in 2013. Were it not for the fiscal cliff and the sequestration, it might be heading for 3 per cent.

The long debunked myth that a nation can spend and inflate its way to prosperity will just not die.  

Despite quantitative easing having no discernible effect on the unemployment rate, Luce rationalizes it and justifies the continuation of QE3 by claiming that inflation is not a problem:

At the open market meeting next week, Mr Bernanke is likely to come under renewed pressure to take his foot off the pedal. Last Friday’s strong jobs report will bolster those arguing that the risks are now tipping towards inflation. But they have been sounding the same alarm for four years. In the last year, US inflation has fallen to 1.6 per cent. And unemployment is still at 7.7 per cent. Mr Bernanke will get to keep QE3.

Luce – like many Federal Reserve apologists – refuses to let the facts get in the way of a good story. As far as the federal government’s inflation calculations go, the Emperor has no clothes. The government’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) calculation conveniently exempts food and energy prices in order to hide the actual alarming inflation rate. If the CPI were more honestly calculated – as it had been in the past – inflation would be calculated at closer to 10 percent. High inflation rates only further impoverish the middle class and the lower classes by redistributing wealth to banks, government, and government cronies.

The Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional bank cartel that should only exist on the other side of the Looking Glass. Unfortunately, it is very real. “No wonder you're late. Why, this watch is exactly two days slow.”

How the Seventeenth Amendment Diminished the Tenth Amendment

The Seventeenth Amendment was approved by Congress on May 12, 1912. Within a year it had received the requisite ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. The Seventeenth Amendment provided for the direct popular election of Senators:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The Seventeenth Amendment altered the way that Senators were chosen. Previously, Senators were chosen by the legislatures of each state:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

For many progressives, the Seventeenth Amendment was viewed as a triumph for democracy. However, its real effect was to undermine federalism and to ultimately endanger the Tenth Amendment. 

The Constitution designed the structure of the federal government in such a way that provided checks and balances by the states on federal power. The Tenth Amendment is the most dramatic example of this. The election of Senators by state legislatures was another no less important example. When Senators were dependent for their jobs upon the legislatures of their states, the Senators were more likely to protect the interests of their states. The Seventeenth Amendment essentially transformed Senators into “super Congressmen,” whose constituencies were not the states themselves but large districts that made up the entire citizenry of the state. 

Judge Andrew Napolitano has argued that he would repeal the Seventeenth Amendment because it is so destructive to federalism:

I would repeal the 17th Amendment [which provides for the popular election of U.S. senators]. Can an amendment to the Constitution itself be unconstitutional? Yes, that one. If you read Madison’s notes from the constitutional convention, they spent more time arguing over the make-up of the federal government and they came up with the federal table. There would be three entities at the federal table. There would be the nation as a nation, there would be the people, and there would be the states. The nation as a nation is the president, the people is the House of Representatives, and the states is the Senate, because states sent senators. Not the people in the states, but the state government. When the progressives, in the Theodore Roosevelt/Woodrow Wilson era, abolished this it abolished bicameralism, the notion of two houses. It effectively just gave us another house like the House of Representatives where they didn’t have to run as frequently, and the states lost their place at the federal table.

Unsurprisingly, the Seventeenth Amendment has been instrumental in eroding the Tenth Amendment. The Congress has been more and more willing to assume powers not specifically granted to it within the Constitution. Social Security, Medicare, “Obamacare,” and so many other powers that Congress has assumed are not specifically enumerated as powers that Congress has. Such programs should belong to the states – if the states wish to enact them – according to the Tenth Amendment. With no self-interested reason to protect the constitutionally granted powers of the states that they represent, Senators have gone along with enlarging the powers of the federal government. In essence, they have left nullification and secession as the only checks and balances that the states still have against the power of the federal government.  

Democracy is not always an intrinsically good thing. The Founders rightly worried about the possibility of “tyranny of the majority” and also worried about the federal government becoming so powerful that it would subvert the power of the states. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened. 

The Third Amendment and the Military-Industrial Complex

The Third Amendment is uncontroversial in every way. You are not likely to meet anybody who seeks to debate the Third Amendment. Below is a hilarious video from Reason.tv which features an uptight right-wing conservative and a hipster left-wing progressive. As they go through the Bill of Rights, the only amendment which they both agree to keep is our friendly Third Amendment.

The Third Amendment states that: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The Founders had had to endure being forced to quarter British soldiers in their homes. For example, the British used quartering of soldiers in private homes as a method to punish the people of Boston under the Intolerable Acts of 1774. When the idea of a Bill of Rights was agreed upon, there was little or not controversy concerning including the Third Amendment.

So why should we give Third Amendment a second thought? What of importance can it tell us? The notion behind the Third Amendment is that the army should not grow to such size that without military bases the soldiers would be so numerous as to necessitate them being housed by the people.  While paying to house soldiers is less intrusive than physically quartering them in one’s house, being forced to pay for such housing is not really much different. 

Many of the key Founders loathed the idea of large standing armies. James Madison warned that: “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” Madison also said: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” Thomas Jefferson was even more firm in his opposition to large armies during times of peace:

There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.

The Founders realized that there would be threats to the security of the Republic.  However, by defending the natural right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, they believed that the expertise necessary to raise a militia if needed would be preserved within the populace. The modest non-interventionist policy of the Founders also meant that there was less of a reason for the United States to have a large standing army. The non-interventionism which characterized American foreign policy for much of its first century of existence was stated clearly in the advice given by President George Washington in his Farewell Address in 1796:  

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

A quarter of a century later, President John Quincy Adams reiterated America’s non-interventionist foreign policy in an Independence Day Address to the House of Representatives in 1821:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.  But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.  She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.  She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.  She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.  She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.  The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....  She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

The Constitution does provide for an army and navy and assigns the President to be the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy. However, there is strong evidence that the Constitution does not contemplate the existence of a large standing army. Article I grants to Congress the enumerated power “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” This indicates that the Founders did not believe that a perpetually large military or a Republic constantly on a war footing were inherent. Military appropriations were to be re-evaluated every two years. 

Despite the warnings of many of the Founders about standing armies, and despite the safeguards that were built into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to prevent them from arising, the United States has a massive standing army – not only stationed at home but all over the globe. Following World War II, President Truman began the largely unnecessary Cold War. Despite the Cold War ending in 1991, the United States now has approximately 1.5 million active military personnel and another 1.5 million military reserves. The growing “American Empire” has over 700 military bases overseas located in over 130 countries.

On January 17, 1961, in his Farewell Address to the American people, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about what he dubbed “the Military-Industrial Complex”:

            Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well.  But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.  Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment.  We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.  The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.  We recognize the imperative need for this development.  Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.  Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

            In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

            We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.  We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

The growth of the defense industry has made it one of the major components of the American economy. The United States currently accounts for over 40% of all military spending in the world. Of the other nations in the top twenty of military spending, all are staunch allies of the United States except for China, Russia, and Iran. The United States currently has a military budget that is five times that of China, over ten times that of Russia, and over sixty-four times that of Iran. The main problem in reducing military spending will be the drastic effect that it will have on the economy. The government employs over 3.1 million military and civilian workers in the defense sector while another 3 million Americans work for defense contractors.

With so much of the economy dependent on war, the United States is inevitably on a permanent war footing. With so much weaponry at its disposal, the federal government will inevitably become adventurous when it comes to military action. Hence, the United States has engaged in warfare in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Libya since the end of World War II. The advent of the “Imperial Presidency” and the unwillingness of Congress to take its power to declare war seriously have made American Presidents even more willing to keep and use large standing armies – at the expense of much American blood and treasure.

Therefore, the Third Amendment is not an archaic and irrelevant prohibition. It stands as a prescient warning of the dangers of turning a Republic into an Empire.

The Race Card and Opposition to Progressive Policies

Barack Obama is the first African-American President of the United States. Rather than lauding the fact that a member of an ethnic minority group that has historically been the victim of heinous racism has achieved this, progressives have exploited President Obama’s ethnicity. While it was possible to oppose the policies of Bill Clinton during the 90s, progressives play the race card anytime a critic dares to speak out against policies of President Obama. Even when those policies are similar to those held by Democrats regardless of race.

In 2009, Keynesian economist and The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman accused those who opposed “Obamacare” of being racists:

They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly…. But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is….  Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites. Many people hoped that last year’s election would mark the end of the “angry white voter” era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate.

Rhode Island Congressman Sheldon Whitehouse lumped in opponents of“Obamacare” and opponents of President Obama in general with “the birthers, the fanatics, [and] the people running around in right-wing militias and Aryan support groups,” claiming that “it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist.” 

Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) suggested strongly that defending the Second Amendment against President Obama and others who favor more gun control are racists. Richard Cohen, the President and C.E.O. of the SPLC wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on March 5, 2013. In this letter, Mr. Cohen urged the DOJ and DHS “to establish an interagency task force to assess the adequacy of the resources devoted to responding to the growing threat of non-Islamic domestic terrorism.”

The SPLC justifies this request by citing its recent report “The Year in Hate and Extremism.” The report begins with the alarming news that the number of antigovernment groups has reached an all-time high while the number of hard-core hate groups has remained high:

Capping four years of explosive growth sparked by the election of America’s first black president and anger over the economy, the number of conspiracy-minded antigovernment “Patriot” groups reached an all-time high of 1,360 in 2012, while the number of hard-core hate groups remained above 1,000. As President Obama enters his second term with an agenda of gun control and immigration reform, the rage on the right is likely to intensify. 

The SPLC warns that the reaction to President Obama’s gun control proposals is similar to the reaction to the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban of 1994:

The passage of those bills, along with what was seen by the right as the federal government’s violent suppression of political dissidents at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in the early 1990s, led to the first wave of the Patriot movement that burst into public consciousness with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups in that era peaked in 1996 at 858, more than 500 groups fewer than the number active in 2012.

The SPLC groups “Patriot and Militia Groups” and “Hate Groups” together in the category of “the radical right.” In one fell – and completely unjustified – swoop, the SPLC places individuals including Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Trey Radel, former sheriff and gun rights activist Richard Mack, Constitution Party member Chuck Baldwin, and members of the Oath Keepers willy nilly under the same umbrella as those who belong to “Hate groups.” Not content to stop there, the SPLC lumps in opponents of UN Agenda 21, opponents of socialism, and advocates of states’ rights with radical racists.  

Any group is likely to contain racists. The Tea Party and various Constitutionalist groups will inevitably contain racists. But so will the Democratic Party. Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Bird were anything but tolerant when it came to members of minority groups. Demonizing any group as a whole because it might or does contain some unsavory members is itself a form of collectivist bigotry.

Categorizing an individual as a radical racist extremist simply because he or she shares some view unrelated to race with radical racist extremists – e.g. affection for the Second Amendment, disdain for socialism, etc. – is fallacious. Many members of PETA are vegetarians. Hitler was also a vegetarian. It does not follow from this that PETA members are Nazis. Members of the Sierra Club believe that “Global Warming” is a great threat to humanity. Osama bin Laden also believed this. It does not follow from this that Sierra Club members are also members of al Qaeda. 

Playing the race card and accusing critics of President Obama of racism merely because these individuals are critical of one of the President’s policies is itself racist. Playing the race card in such a cynical manner disrespects those who have actually been victims of racism. African-Americans have been enslaved, deprived of voting rights, and lynched during this country’s dark history. Being criticized for political policies is simply not on the same level. Given that society rightly takes racism seriously, making a knowingly false accusation of racism against someone is also immoral.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed that his children would live “in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Barack Obama was not elected to office because of the color of his skin. He was elected because a majority of voters preferred his vision of the country’s future and believed that he had a strong moral character. Like any American politician – regardless of his or her race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, etc. – President Obama’s policies and ideology may be respectfully questioned without racism being the motive. 

Why Al Qaeda Members Should Not Be Treated As Enemy Combatants

News that Sulaiman Abu Ghaith – son-in-law of Osama bin Laden and a top al Qaeda spokesman – has been brought to the United States after his capture in Jordan and charged with conspiracy to kill Americans has met with opposition among neoconservatives. Senator Lindsey Graham said: “I think we are setting a new precedent that will come back to bite us. It's clear to me they snuck him in, if he is here, under the nose of Congress.” Senator Kelly Ayotte agreed, saying: “If you are that close to bin Laden, we want to develop all the information that person has.” Instead of being tried on criminal charges in a United States court, these opponents of the Obama administration’s move wish Abu Ghaith to be detained at Guantanamo Bay and tried – if at all – by a military tribunal.

The strategy of fighting terrorism since 9/11 has been decidedly schizophrenic. At times members of al Qaeda and its “associated forces” are treated as criminals while at other times they are treated as “enemy combatants.” Justification for treating Islamic terrorists as “enemy combatants” is typically sought in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). According to those who view the resolution as a legitimate declaration of war by Congress, the United States declared war against al Qaeda. Such a declaration of war against an organization – which is not even specifically named in AUMF – is unprecedented and likely incoherent.

Treating al Qaeda as akin to a belligerent nation state during a time of war is dubious and illogical. Those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks and seek to plan and carry out further terrorist attacks are criminals. Plain and simple. While declaring members of al Qaeda and “associated forces” as being "enemy combatants" allows the federal government to get around the due process of the Fifth Amendment, such a move may preclude some terrorists from being justly tried in any way, shape, or form.

Can members of al Qaeda be charged with war crimes? The modern precedent for this began with the Nuremberg Trials and related trials in 1947 following the end of World War II. The Nuremberg Principles were created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in order to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazis following the war. Principle VI of the Nuremberg Principles codifies crimes under international law which are associated with war. It contains three types of crimes: Crimes against peace, War crimes, and Crimes against humanity.

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connexion with any crime against peace or any war crime.

If the “War on Terrorism” is considered a war, can members of al Qaeda be charged with Crimes against peace? This depends on whether the 9/11 attacks are to be considered part of a “war of aggression.” The problem is that “war of aggression” is a vague expression. The military campaigns initiated and carried out against Poland, France, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and much of the rest of Europe is the paradigm case of a “war of aggression.” Unlike the acts of war carried out by the Axis Powers during World War II, the 9/11 attacks cannot logically be viewed as the beginnings of an attempt to conquer the United States in order to acquire territory or to carry out the subjugation of the American people. The reasons for the 9/11 attacks can best be ascertained through the words of a Osama bin Laden when he declared a Jihad against “Jews and Crusaders” in 1998:

                                    First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

                                    Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

            Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Viewing the 9/11 attacks as part of a war of self-defense is dubious. However, these declared reasons for Jihad center around American troops in Saudi Arabia – which remained stationed there until 2003 – and the waging of war against Iraq during the Gulf War. Even if unjustifiable as self-defense, it could be viewed charitably as quasi-self-defense. It becomes difficult to differentiate al Qaeda’s Jihad from many of the wars that the United States has engaged in since the end of World War II. It is difficult to conclude that the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War – whether carried out under the authority of the United Nations or not – were wars of self-defense.

Can members of al Qaeda be charged with War crimes or Crimes against humanity? The 9/11 attacks could be considered War crimes if the deaths caused are considered murder or if the destruction of the World Trade Center and of the airplanes used as missiles are considered “devastation not justified by military necessity.” Likewise the 9/11 attacks could be considered Crimes against humanity if the deaths are considered murder.

The problem is that the killing of civilians and the destruction of non-military targets have become so commonplace in modern war that it becomes difficult to differentiate murder and unjustified devastation from “collateral damage.” If the Allied bombing campaigns on Tokyo and Dresden, the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombing of Hanoi, and the bombing of Baghdad did not constitute War crimes or Crimes against humanity, then it becomes difficult to determine why the 9/11 attacks should. There must be more of a justification than that the winners write the history. Might makes right cannot be embraced as an ethical or legal principle.

Furthermore, while al Qaeda has clearly committed many murders and atrocities apart from the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 attacks themselves did not rise to the level of the Holocaust or other systematic atrocities carried out by the Nazis.

The Supreme Court case Ex parte Quirin (1942) – which has been used as a precedent to justify treating members of al Qaeda as “unlawful combatants” to be tried before military tribunals – might provide some clarification. The case involved eight Germans who traveled to the United States during World War II in an attempt to commit acts of sabotage. While they wore military uniforms prior to landing, they disposed of them and were wearing civilian dress when captured. The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of United States military tribunals over the saboteurs. The eight men were convicted and six of them were eventually hanged. According to the Court:

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

In a war against a nation state, this distinction makes sense. However, al Qaeda is not a nation state and its members wear no uniforms. Treating all of its combatants as “unlawful combatants” seems bizarre when no combatants can be considered “lawful.” If al Qaeda decided to start wearing uniforms, would this suddenly make their vicious acts “lawful” acts of war? It is also important to note that the hijackers on 9/11 would be equivalent to the German saboteurs, but they were killed during the attacks – with the possible exception of Zazarias Moussaoui. However, can the leadership of al Qaeda be charged as “unlawful combatants” in the attack? The leadership did not come secretly into the United States for “the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property.” Furthermore, many of the al Qaeda members captured were not actually engaged in combat at the time. The fact that they are not in uniform at the time is akin to a German military officer wearing civilian clothing when he was on active duty.

There is no practical downside to treating al Qaeda members and other terrorists as criminals. The United States has successfully convicted hundreds of terrorists in federal criminal courts while the military tribunals perform their work slowly if at all. There is no evidence that these trials present a danger of being targeted by terrorist attacks. Furthermore, evidence suggests that penalties handed out by judges in criminal courts are more severe than many handed out by military tribunals. The upside is that there is no risk of clothing the leadership of al Qaeda with the dignity afforded to the leaders of warring nation states. Osama bin Laden was not Jefferson Davis. Said al-Shihri was not Robert E. Lee. They were mass murderers. Treating al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations as the criminal enterprises that they are allows for any and all members to be prosecuted without risking any erosion of Fifth Amendment rights.  

Syrian Blowback: History of American Meddling

Secretary of State John Kerry recently expressed the opinion that the Syrian rebels deserve support in their civil war against the Assad regime:

We are determined that the Syrian opposition is not going to be dangling in the wind wondering where the support is or if it's coming. And we are determined to change the calculation on the ground for President Assad.

Given the tragic blowback that occurred in Benghazi following President Obama’s “kinetic military action” in Libya, one would have hoped that the administration would think twice before meddling in the affairs of Syria. American covert meddling in Syria during the late 1940s and 1950s was instrumental in creating a left-wing oppressive regime in Syria which supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This meddling also set the stage for the oppressive Ba’athist Assad regime currently engaged in a campaign of violence against its own people. What follows is a brief timeline of the machinations of the United States in Syria.  

1948

CIA operative Stephen Meade made contact with right wing Syrian army officers to discuss the possibility of a coup in Syria to put Syrian Army Chief of Staff Husni Zaim into power as a dictator. Although the United States knew that Zaim was a “Banana Republic dictator type,” they admired his “stronganti-Soviet attitude.” The United States was also interested in securing the rights for the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to build the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE) through Syria. Negotiations for this had been stalled in the Syrian Parliament. Meade and Zaim planned a Syrian coup for early 1949.

1949

Shortly after American Secretary of State George McGhee arrived in Syria, Zaim staged his coup against the democratically elected government of President Shukri al-Quwatli on March 30, 1949. Zaim arrested Communists and left wing dissidents, approved the ARAMCO TAPLINE, signed a peace treaty with Israel, and considered allowing 250,000 Palestinians to be resettled in Syria. While awaiting an expected $100 million in military and economic aid from the United States, Zaim was overthrown and executed by Colonel Sami Hinnawi. Hinnawi’s coup returned Syria to electoral democracy and gave Syrian women the right to vote. Hinnawi’s Populist Party won in a landslide in November 1949 elections, but Hinnawi was quickly ousted in a coup led by Colonel Adib Shishakli.

1951

Shishakli began to exercise blatant dictatorial control over Syria. The United States supported Shishakli behind the scenes from the beginning because Shishakli was considered “one of the strongest anti-Communist forces in the country.” The United States State Department provided military material to Shishakli’s dictatorship, and in return Shishakli was willing to renew the TAPLINE concession, consider a treaty with Israel, and resettle Palestinian refugees within Syria as long as more financial aid was provided to Syria.

1952

President Eisenhower lobbied the World Bank to expedite a $200 million loan to Shishakli’s government.

1954

Before an arms deal between the United States and Shishakli’s dictatorship could be consummated, Shishakli was overthrown on February 22, 1954. The post-Shishakli Syrian government became increasingly left wing and increasingly sympathetic to the Soviet Union and other Communist countries.

1957

Shukri al-Quwatli had again been elected President of Syria. The United States again used the CIA to meddle in Syrian affairs. The CIA in conjunction with the British Secret Service “called for Turkey to stage border incidents, British operatives to stir up the desert tribes, and U.S. agents to mobilize SSNP guerrillas, all of which would triggera pro-Western coup by ‘indigenous anticommunist elements within Syria’supported, if necessary, by Iraqi troops.” Washington provided $150,000 to the conspirators in the plot and sought to return the anti-Communist Shishakli to power. This clumsy plot was quickly uncovered by Syrian intelligence and was ultimately called off by President Eisenhower. The result of all of this CIA cloak and dagger meddling in Syria was that the Syrian government became even more left wing in the aftermath and became a staunch ally of the Soviet Union for the remainder of the Cold War.

2012

Having learned no lessons from the fiasco in Libya, on December 11, President Obama announced that the United States would formally recognize the Syrian opposition – the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (National Coalition) – as Syria’s legitimate representative and praised the opposition for being “well-organized” and “representative of the Syrian people.”

Four months earlier Obama signed a secret order authorizing the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide aid to the rebels. Obama attempted to be a bit more careful than he was with Libya by blacklisting the Syrian terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra – which is linked to Al Qaeda – for killing numerous Syrian civilians during 600 attacks that the group conducted against Syrian cities. However, Jabhat al-Nusra has great support among the other members of the rebel coalition. One rebel praised Jabhat al-Nusra, saying that “they rush to the rescue of rebel lines that come under pressure and hold them. They know what they are doing and are very disciplined. They are like the special forces of Aleppo.” Such praise of the terrorist group is not uncommon among the Syrian rebel groups. Immediately following the American blacklisting of Jabhat al-Nusra, Moaz al-Khatib – the leader of the National Coalition – asked Obama to reconsider, claiming that “no group fighting Assad should be considered a terrorist organization.” Immediately after al-Khatib’s public display of support for Jabhat al-Nusra, 29 groups within the National Coalition signed a petition in support of the terrorist group and called for mass demonstrations in support of it. The petition included the phrase “No to American intervention, for we are all Jabhat al-Nusra” and recommended that supporters should raise the Jabhat al-Nusra flag as “a thank you.”

Two days later, thousands of Syrians took to the streets and to the internet social networks in support of the terrorist group. If President Obama believes that he can pick and choose whom among the National Coalition to recognize, then he is seriously mistaken. There is also no telling what manner of terrorists may be among the other groups in the National Coalition. The UN has warned of possible war crimes that have been committed by members of the National Coalition. Human Rights Watch has claimed that it has documented over a dozen cases of extra-judicial executions by members of the National Coalition.

2013

Syrian rebels formed an exile government and eagerly waited for American funding. While the American government announced that it would be providing $60 million in new non-military aid to the Syrian rebels, Secretary of State Kerry claimed that the United States would not be providing military aid – at least “at this moment.” However, if the rebels do not turn the tide against government forces, one suspects that it is only a matter of time before the United States or NATO begin engaging in “kinetic military action” in Syria. Doing so will be perilous. There is simply no way to guarantee that the power void will not be filled by Jihadists sympathetic to or even affiliated with al Qaeda if the Assad regime falls. By intervening in Syria, the United States will be creating new enemies at a time when it has more than enough already.  

Congressman Jose Serrano on Chavez: Democracy vs. Natural Rights

Congressman Jose Serrano – who represents the South Bronx – is one of the most Progressive members of Congress. Upon the death of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, Congressman Serrano tweeted: “Hugo Chavez was a leader that understood the needs of the poor. He was committed to empowering the powerless. R.I.P. Mr. President.” Congressman Serrano later released a formal statement about Chavez’s death.

Describing his meeting with Hugo Chavez in 2005, Congressman Serrano says:

His focus on the issues faced by the poor and disenfranchised in his country made him a truly revolutionary leader in the history of Latin America. He understood that after 400 years on the outside of the established power structure looking in, it was time that the poor had a chance at seeing their problems and issues addressed. His core belief was in the dignity and common humanity of all people in Venezuela and in the world.

Congressman Serrano goes on to stress that Hugo Chavez was democratically elected:

Though President Chavez was accused of many things, it is important to remember that he was democratically-elected many times in elections that were declared free and fair by international monitors. Even today, people in North America seem unable to accept that Venezuelans had taken our admonitions to have democracy to heart and elected the leader of their choice. President Chavez carried out the programs that his constituents wanted enacted, and won reelection.

Here, Congressman Serrano is highlighting the common belief of many progressive collectivists. Democracy is all that matters. Like many supporters of President Obama, Congressman Serrano believes that winning an election gives a President a mandate to do whatever he wants. Natural rights be damned! President Chavez was democratically elected, so according to Congressman Serrano, there is no problem with Chavez violating the natural right to property by nationalizing industries. There is no problem with Chavez violating the right to liberty by shutting down the privately controlled opposition media.

According to Human Rights Watch, Hugo Chavez’s weakening of the system of checks and balances in Venezuelan government contributed to “a precarious human rights situation.” Chavez purged opponents from Venezuelan courts and oversaw a legislature which passed enabling legislation that allowed him to determine what actions would be criminalized and what the penalties for those crimes would be. In addition, Chavez often targeted his opponents by targeting them with criminal prosecution. No friend of human rights, Chavez also attacked many human rights organizations in Venezuela by filing charges against them for treason for receiving funding by foreign donors. Chavez also proved to be no friend to organized labor, not allowing unions not certified by the government to engage in collective bargaining.

According to Congressman Serrano, Hugo Chavez was a man of the people who dedicated this life to uplifting the poor and providing them with dignity:

President Chavez was a controversial leader. But at his core he was a man who came from very little and used his unique talents and gifts to try to lift up the people and the communities that reflected his impoverished roots. He believed that the government of the country should be used to empower the masses, not the few. He understood democracy and basic human desires for a dignified life.  

In other words, being a dictator is fine as long as one is a benevolent dictator when it comes to the downtrodden. Might makes right. This underscores the tension between democratic ideals and Constitutional principles in the United States and around the world. For those like Congressman Serrano, there is no problem when it comes to tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the electorate supports a leader who wishes to violate the natural rights of the people, then so much the better.

It is perhaps no coincidence that Congressman Serrano supports the notion of the American President becoming a dictator like Chavez. In January, he introduced H.J. Res 15 – a bill that proposes to abolish the Twenty-Second Amendment and allow American Presidents to potentially be Commander-in-Chief for life. At least provided that they are continually re-elected like Chavez was.

Democracy can be a blessing, but without a Constitution to defend natural rights against the tyranny of the majority, democracy becomes a curse.

A Fresh Start for U.S.-Venezuelan Relations?

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has died after a long bout with cancer, ending the left-wing strongman’s fourteen year rule. While popular among his people – particularly among the poor and the working classes – Chavez was a despot. Like Hitler, he used being popularly elected as an excuse to circumvent the nation’s constitution and become a dictator. Despite what apologists such as actor Sean Penn might say, Venezuela under Chavez was not an electoral democracy. Its elections favor government-backed candidates and separation of powers is nearly nonexistent. Chavez’s Venezuela was a corrupt police state without a free press. Chavez also favored a policy of nationalization of industry and ushered in a failing economy with high inflation. With its oil wealth, Venezuela was able to fund Marxism in several other Latin American countries.

From the point of view of the United States, the question is whether better relations can be forged with the next leader the oil rich South American nation. An election is likely to be held in Venezuela within the next 90 days.

The Bush administration was allegedly tied to the Venezuelan coup attempt against Chavez in 2002. According to The Observer, it was Bush administration official Elliot Abrams – infamous for his role in the Iran Contra Affair – who gave the go ahead for the attempted coup. The blowback from this attempted coup was the creation of poor relations with Venezuela. The situation was similar to how the failed Bay of Pigs led to decades of poor relations with Cuba’s Fidel Castro.

President Obama will have the opportunity to forge better relations with Chavez’s ultimate successor. Although the United States is Venezuela’s most important trading partner, the United States currently has no Ambassador to Venezuela. The United States imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s state run oil company in 2011 for delivering blending components for gasoline to Iran. In a December 2012 interview with Univision, President Obama said:

The most important thing is to remember that the future of Venezuela should be in the hands of the Venezuelan people. We've seen from Chávez in the past authoritarian policies, suppression of dissent.

Given President Obama’s lackluster handling of foreign policy during his first four years in office, there is little reason to believe that he will be able to succeed in bringing Venezuela closer to the United States.