Farewell for now

Dear Reader,

I hope my blogging over the past 8 months has shown you an interesting perspective on the politics around us.  Although I do not always claim to be unique, I can promise that every post came with deep thought, consideration, and questioning of my opinions.  This year in my English and history classes has been a great intellectual journey for me, much of which has been charted in this blog.  As I write my final post of the year, I want to leave you with one final thought:

Everyone has reasons for believing what they believe.  Understanding those reasons is not the same as abandoning your own beliefs.  On the contrary, it can make your own beliefs stronger.

I started off the year in English class discussing the book The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien.  My class learned about the unique power of stories to communicate actions, thoughts, and feelings.  We discovered that we chart our own lives in terms of stories, even though our lives do not always follow a series of coherent events, and that the narratives we use to describe our lives can define us.

In reading The Poisonwood Bible, by Barbara Kingsolver, we saw the dangers of failing to understanding the stories and perspectives of another, in this case those of the Africans the Price family encounters.  From Azar Nafisi's novel Reading Lolita in Tehran we learned, just as Nafisi's students did, that reading the literature of lives far from us can teach us much about our own.  And in Shakespeare's Hamlet, we saw how failing to see past a ghost and its craving for revenge can drive a man to madness.

But outside of literature is where I have come to see the truth of my above statement.  The political world, especially here in the US, has become in many ways a more polarized place than when I began blogging.  Every issue, from the national debt to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, has come with two stories: the Democratic one and the Republican one.  Americans can watch their favorite news channel, read their favorite newspaper, talk to their favorite people, and never hear the other story.  When those two stories are forced to collide, collide they do.  There has been little cooperation and understanding across the aisle, and it has left every American worse off.

Worst of all, we have lost respect for others' beliefs.  We think only our reasons are valid, and that others are somehow faulty.

This is not acceptable.  The United States is one of the most cosmopolitan nations in the world, with an infinite number of stories making up the patchwork we call America.  Our greatest strength comes in our variety of perspectives.  If we chose to learn from them, we could learn so much.  But instead, we choose to force these stories into a simplistic narrative, preferring a series of 30-second sound bites over a true discussion.

So I challenge you to this: start up a conversation.  A controversial one.  Talk about religion, politics, morals, values.  This will force you to put your beliefs to the test, to find out where you truly stand, not just where it is easiest to stand.  You will learn something about yourself by learning something about another.  Do not plan on changing your beliefs - if you have good reason to believe them -  but do not swear it off either.

On a billboard in my English and social studies classroom, there hangs a bumper sticker.  It asks, "If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?"  As I continue my educational journey, starting with Harvard University in the fall, I hope to further solidify and understand my beliefs, and I hope to change my mind again and again.

Thank you for reading my perspective, and thank you even more for commenting with your own.

Always,

Daniel

A letter to the president

Dear President Obama,

Last Friday, when the government shutdown was narrowly averted by the budget agreement, I was not pleased with the man whom I had supported so passionately in the 2008 election.  In fact, I didn't know where he went.  The budget agreement represented to me an ideological surrender by you and the Democrats to the extremely erroneous economic and fiscal policies of the Republicans.  If there was any compromise at all, it was between Representative Boehner and his tea-party subordinates.  The Republicans had you and the Democratic congressmen held hostage, and they got what they wanted.

But your speech on Wednesday reaffirmed my faith in you, in Democrats, and in the integral nature of the federal government as not just a parasitic drain on our wallets and our freedom (as the Republicans would have us believe).  What I saw on Wednesday was not the thoughtful yet tentative president so willing to compromise that he came off as without conviction.  Instead, I saw the hopeful, deep-thinking, persuasive and audacious candidate of 2008 who convinced an ailing country to have Hope. 

As this article in the Washington Post points out, the speech came across as more of a campaign speech than a pure policy recommendation.  But today, when Republicans are campaigning every day through their media outlets (ehem...Fox News...ehem), convincing the public not through reasonable policy but stubborn ideology to agree with them, the speech set exactly the right tone.  After the budget agreement, I wasn't sure where the Democratic party had gone.  But on Wednesday, the compassionate, egalitarian, and foresighted policies that I've come to respect and support finally reappeared in Washington.

The narrative that taxes are always bad and spending cuts are always good, the narrative that has prevailed in Washington since the new session of Congress began, is being touted as the single truth of American fiscal policy.  Paul Ryan's budget proposal gained considerable credit as a "serious" framework to address our deficit crisis (see Paul Krugman's blog for his thoughts on that assessment).  So I thank you for taking on these policies, and Ryan's proposal specifically, in your speech.  Americans must hear the truth about the misguided and implausible nature of this proposal, and, as our President, you can and should fill that role.

I hope to be able to write many more of these letters thanking you for keeping liberalism in America alive.  After last Friday, I thought effective liberalism in Washington had disappeared.  But on Wednesday you reminded me and many fellow Americans what Democrats have to add to our government and our well-being.  I hope this continues, and that the final 2012 budget reflects not only America's responsibility to address the budget crisis but also to ensure the well-being of all Americans and get the economy working for everyone.

Thank you.

Where's the other side?

Opening my email on Friday, I was disappointed (and yet slightly amused) to see an email from my congressman in my junk mail folder.  Robert Dold, my tea-party-leaning, freshman representative, had been kind enough to notify me of the budget deal made late Friday night in the bowels of Capitol Hill.  There was no indication of relief that a government shutdown had been averted; instead, his message was a blatant pat on the back for himself and his fellow Republicans.  I'd like to focus on a particular sentence:

"The new House Majority has made tremendous strides, altering the debate on Capitol Hill from whether or not we should cut spending to how much we should cut. It's amazing how much can change in just a few short months!"

As disheartening as I found that proclamation, seeing as I am generally on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I couldn't deny that it is entirely true.  At this point, there are two sides to the budget debate in Washington: those who believe government spending should be slashed as much as possible, and those who are too scared to argue.  So, effectively, there is one side.

Throughout the week, we saw Republicans take the budget deal hostage, and we saw Democrats in Congress and the White House give in.  So evident was this surrender that, as Paul Krugman points out, Obama didn't seem to notice he was defeated.  In fact, he was celebrating the avoidance of a government shutdown when he and his party had given in to the largest spending cuts in US history.

So where is the other side?  Where is the president who approved the largest stimulus package in US history as an appropriate fiscal response to the financial crisis?  Where are the representatives who approved this package along with monumental financial and health care reforms?

I don't know, but they're certainly not in Washington.

Last Friday, as the looming threat of a shutdown came to the forefront of political discourse, Krugman wrote a scathing column entitled "The Mellon Doctrine".   He criticized the Republican policy that spending should be slashed, taxes should be cut, and the budget imbalance should be immediately addressed in the midst of a still-painful recession.  And while this isn't particularly shocking, for the Republicans have always ignored the 80 years of economic theory that clearly calls for an increase in government expenditures to make up for the loss in private expenditure and investment inherent in a recession, it is depressing nonetheless.  At this point, their fiscal policy resembles uncannily that of Herbert Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon.  And we all know how successful that was (see Great Depression).

Yet Krugman's more depressing point still was that Democrats have no response.  Despite the (albeit limited) success of the stimulus package in preventing even worse unemployment, and despite clear historical evidence showing the devastating effects of trying to balance the budget in the midst of a recession (see Japan's "lost decade" and, again, the Great Depression).  And despite the clear failings of current austerity measures in places from England to Portugal and beyond, the Democrats can do nothing but hold out for $33 billion in cuts instead of $38 billion.

A democracy cannot function without two reasonable parties.  For more evidence of this, see Nick Kristof's recent column.  At this point, with the Republicans proposing a budget for 2012 that cuts taxes for the rich while cutting programs for the poor and elderly, and contains absolutely no concrete evidence that it can indeed decrease the deficit, it's fair to say that, at least on this question of the budget, one side is unreasonable.  And, with the other side resigning to the role of a less extreme version of the first, they are both unreasonable.  That 0 for 2, incase you were counting.

It's hard to be optimistic in these times.  As my friends from around the world who will be attending Harvard with me next year ask me why my country, the "greatest democracy in the world," was so close to a government shutdown, I could give no real answer.  The behavior of our leaders is ineffective, inexcusable, and undeniably damaging to the future of our nation.

Hoping for peace

Today, Benjamin Netanyahu's government approved the construction of 500 more settlement houses in the West Bank.  The US government, the Palestinian Authority, and much of the international community has condemned Netanyahu's decision.  An aide of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the move "unacceptable".


Clearly, Netanyahu's decision moved us further away from a much-needed peace agreement to end the unsustainable occupation of the Palestinian Territories by Israel.  So why, when he himself has called a one-state solution "disastrous" for Israel, has Netanyahu put up another obstacle in the way of peace?

Netanyahu's response has been three-fold: to claim that this new settlement construction is focused in existing large communities that would remain with Israel in any peace deal; to criticize the international community for quickly condemning Israeli settlements while being slow to condemn the murders of the 5 Israelis; and, all the while, to posture as opposed, on some level, to the very construction he approves in order go seem open to compromise in the peace process.

This is unacceptable. This editorial in Haaretz, written a few days before Netanyahu's decision today, questions Netanyahu's ability to lead Israel to a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians after words and actions showing his inability to compromise. He continues to blame Abbas for making unreasonable requests as preconditions to peace talks - while claiming that he himself has done much to bring Israel back to the table. Both of these views, along with being basically false, are incompatible with the conciliatory efforts necessary to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

But there is a reason for it: Netanyahu faces great pressure from the right wing within his government to encourage settlements in the West Bank and maintain a hard line in the face of calls for compromises from Israel. Many in Israel fear compromising with Arabs now, when the Arab world is becoming more politically vibrant and, likely, more anti-Israel, will put Israel in danger.

Furthermore, the US, while claiming to be on Israel's side by voting against a recent UN resolution condemning the West Bank settlements, is encouraging Netanyahu's actions. As Stephen Walt points out, Obama's tentative chastisements of Israel's actions are not protecting Israel, but instead alienating Arab opinion away from both the US and Israel. And why is Obama so tentative?

Because he wants to get reelected. End of story.

So, as in so many other cases in our world today, politics has gotten in the way of peace. Let us hope that Netanyahu, Abbas, Obama, the Israelis and the Palestinians see the light and work towards the hope of lasting peace in a region sorely in need of it.

Education: It's not everything

This past Friday, March 4, President Obama gave a speech at Miami Central High School alongside former Florida Governor Jeb Bush about the growing importance of education in our economy.  As we emerge from the recession, he argued, companies will be looking with unprecedented force for highly-educated workers to increase productivity and create a new generation of American prosperity.

Unfortunately for us humans, many companies have already found these high-skilled workers, and they work for free.

Paul Krugman, in a recent column entitled "Degrees and Dollars", refutes the conventional wisdom that receiving a college degree will dramatically increase your chances of getting a well-paying job.  Instead, citing a recent article in NYT, Krugman notes that rising levels of technology have allowed companies to efficiently carry out tasks for a fraction of the costs associated with college-educated human labor.

Today's economy in America is often described as increasingly "hollowed out".  This means that more jobs are available at the lowest and highest levels, but that middle-income jobs are less prevalent.  Technology has been blamed for this hollowing out, since mid-level jobs can often be completed by computers with much more efficiency than with humans.  But now, as the NYT article shows, technology has begun to fill higher-level jobs formerly done only by those with college and even doctorate degrees.

And, as this editorial from NYT shows, unemployment among college-educated Americans under 25 line up with average unemployment levels almost exactly.  So, nowadays, a college degree doesn't guarantee a job.

Still, as someone who anxiously awaits college notifications, I firmly believe that college is the best path to success, as it always has been in America.  First of all, America's universities are among the best in the world, and the innovation that has fed America's prosperity for decades is in large part due to their integral nature in our culture.  Second, innovation is predicated on humans with critical thinking and entrepreneurial abilities, things computers can never replicate.

But that doesn't change the fact that technology will increasingly hollow out the economy, creating greater class separations and eliminating the middle class, if not kept in check.  As I read through the hundreds of comments on Krugman's column, I noticed a great one making the connection between this hollowing out phenomenon and Karl Marx's prediction about capitalism.  He argued that, eventually, technology and globalization would drive down wages to the point that the proletariat would rebel and socialism would emerge.

Both Krugman and the NYT Editorial Board argue that health care reform and more collective bargaining rights for workers, to name a few, can help revitalize the middle class, keep wages up, and keep American capitalism working for everyone.

Now, how can education play a role in that success?  Although a college degree may not guarantee a well-paying career today, it can bring about the innovation that is key to the success of the American middle class in the future.  And the government must take an active role in improving primary, secondary, and higher education accessibility and standards for this innovation to take hold.

So, to sum up, Krugman is right, and so is Obama - but for different reasons.

Wisconsin: A Marxist Approach

Paul Krugman is a Marxist. 

No, you have not stumbled upon some right-wing blogger criticizing the liberal economist's every New York Times atricle.  In fact, I'm not criticizing Krugman at all.  Instead, I've noticed that his recent column about Wisconsin matched markedly with one of the critical approaches to literature and history that I have studied in my English class this week. 

I'm not calling Krugman a socialist.  But the way he has analyzed Governor Scott Walker's attempt to remove public-sector unions of their collective bargaining rights deals with power, class struggle, and other considerations that Marxist critics take into account. 

Let's remember that, before writing on economics, Karl Marx was a historian who viewed all of history in terms of class struggle.  Later, in Das Kapital, he added economic idealogies of socialism and communism as the eventual next step after capitalism, and thus we remember Marx as the founder of socialist thought.  But Marx's view of history in terms of power and class struggles - the oppression of the proletariat - applies clearly to Wisconsin's struggle today.

The crux of Krugman's argument is that unions are the last powerful lobbying voice for the working middle class among countless influential lobbies of Wall Street investors, bankers, and the rich.  This is the best argument I have heard for maintaining collective bargaining powers for workers - more convincing than merely arguing that budget shortfalls caused by this bargaining are not that bad, for everyone will have to sacrifice in the interest of fiscal responsibility.

And while articles like this, printed in The New York Times, note that this measure would not really cut debt but just put it off, Walker and other Republicans insist that workers must make sacrifices.  Furthermore, Walker has said that unions are not serious about coming to the negotiating table.  As both Krugman and the NYT article note, budget shortfalls could be corrected in other ways, such as higher taxes on the rich, but the Governor is unwilling to do this.

This case is just one example of what a Marxist critic would call class struggles in politics today.  Last year, when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, Obama was forced to let the cuts continue for the rich as well as the middle class.  Although it was clear that tax cuts for the rich were economically unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible, many Americans and their representatives insisted that the rich continue to benefit at the expense of everybody else.  And even though about 55% of Americans supported ending these cuts for the rich, the bill went through, showing the power of the wealthy lobbies and the upper-class status of the legislators.  This is just one of many examples of the immense power of the upper class, and is an example of why Krugman calls modern America an oligarchy.

From a Marxist standpoint, it is clear to see that power is concentrated with the upper, ruling class.  At the end of the day, union workers will likely be powerless to stop passage of the budget bill stripping their rights.  Public sector unions will thus lose power in Wisconsin and, with the precedent set, possibly other states as well.  And the rich will gain even more influence within our state houses and in DC.

The angry protests of teachers, engineers, and other union workers in Wisconsin are a possible sign of the uprising of the proletariat.  In the Marxist view of history, this is just another step along the road from capitalism to socialism to communism.

I, however, would prefer to keep capitalism around.  So please, Wisconsin, say NO to the bill!

Democracy: With Us.

At the outset of the Egyptian protests, the United States was in a strange position - awkward at best, devastating at worst.  The people of Egypt rose up against the dictator America had propped up for almost 30 years, and our choices seemed to be between promoting democracy or maintaining our strategic hold on this powerful Arab state.  In fact, just last week, I expressed my hope that America would remain on the side of democracy and not support despotism over uncertainty.

President Obama has navigated this uncertainty quite well.  In a speech on Friday, after Mubarak tendered his resignation, Obama praised the Egyptian protestors for their relentless march toward democracy.  He called their nonviolent means inspiring, voicing his clear and unambiguous support for democracy in Egypt.  As Nicholas Kristof puts it, Obama finally "left wishy-washy behind."

And indeed, Obama's handling of the Egypt situation, as many other commentators have said, is to be praised.  Marc Lynch, in his blog for ForeignPolicy.com, notes Obama's almost-immediate recognition of America's back-seat position in the movement.  He and blogger Michael Cohen both point out that the administration worked first and foremost to ensure the safety of the Egyptian people, dealing behind the scenes with the Egyptian military to ensure a "soft landing".

And yet, Obama insisted that democracy now was the only option.

In addition, the language and tone of his speech on Friday is especially noteworthy.  By alluding Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "arc of history" line - the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice - , and later including MLK's name directly, tied Egypt's narrative with perhaps the most inspiring, and most uniquely American, movement in our history.

He also used words like nonviolence, words coined by Ghandi's revolutionary movement in India, to further connect Egypt's struggle to the ideals of freedom and equality that we all share.  It is both impressive and encouraging to see a US President tying together the complexities of foreign policy and international relations with our most basic values as a people.

Obama's moves over the past few weeks may well be remembered as his greatest foreign policy achievement to date - the ouster of an Arab dictator and the (hopeful) triumph of a true democracy in the Middle East.  Obama's support for the Egyptian people should serve as a warning to other oppressive dictators in the Middle East that, if your people demand democracy, we won't stop them.

But I'd like to remember Obama's speech on Friday as a dramatic shift in the way we speak about democracy in the Middle East.  No longer are we bringing democracy over in tanks and planes, bestowing it upon people whether they want it or not.  Instead, we are giving legitimacy to the democratic urges of much of the Islamic world by allowing them to make the first move and showing that we will help them if asked.

As Lynch points out, Obama has now overseen the removal of two Arab dictators within the past few months - Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt.  Hopefully, with the tone set on Friday and throughout the past few weeks, the arc of history will continue to bend towards justice, towards democracy.

Please let me know what you think about this topic, my post, or anything else by commenting here.