Tufts Roundtable, Volume 3, March 2009

Institute of Political Citizenship

Tufts Roundtable Tisch College congratulates Tufts Roundtable for its continued success in raising the civic dialogue at Tufts.  

For information on civic engagement at Tufts, visit Tisch College at activecitizen.tufts.edu.

Contact Information Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service Lincoln Filene Hall Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts 02155 www.tuftsroundtable.org [email protected]

FE ATUR ES 7

Mandate Obama

13

A Demand for Bipartisanship

Ian Hainline Evan Chiacchiaro and Jan McCreary

LOC AL AN D C AM PUS ISSUES 4

John Peter G. Kaytrosh

Federalism and the Real America

NATIO NAL 5

Buy American

6

Judd Gregg’s Stand

15

Inaugurations, Politics, and “Godiness”

16

Vilsack: A Disappointment

17

A Flawed Amendment

Alyssa Krag-Arnold Michael Hawley

Professor Ellery Schempp Chelsea Ongaro Aaron Zucker

INTE R NATIO NAL AFFAIR S 18

Not Over Yet

19

The Afghan Failure

20

Mexico’s Brutal War on Drugs

Chas Morrison Faris Islam Aaron Cantu

March 2009

1

STIMULATING DEBATE

HOW $787 BILLION WILL BE SPENT Type

Republican Proposal

Passed

Tax Cuts for Individuals

• $275 billion total, including: • $500 per worker and $1,000 per family tax credit • $2,500 tax credit for the first four years of higher education expenses

• Reduce lowest individual tax rate from 15 percent to ten percent and from ten percent to five percent • Extend patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax through 2010

Tax Cuts for Businesses

• Bonus depreciation • Five year carryback of net operating losses and increased small business expensing

• Allow businesses of less than 500 • $5 billion to allow businesses to employees to take tax deduction write off capital expenditures equal to 20 percent of their • $1.6 billion to allow businesses to defer taxes for five years to income restructure balance sheets • Extend depreciation rules • Significant tax cuts for • Extend break to allow small businesses to write off certain infrastructure and energy investment capital expenditures

State and Local Fiscal Relief

• $91 billion to states, including a temporary increase in the Medicare matching rate • $141.6 billion on repairing and modernizing schools, as well as fiscal relief to states to prevent cutbacks in services

Infrastructure

2

Democratic Proposal

• $90 billion for highway construction, energy efficiency, clean water and transit projects • $54 billion for renewable energy

• $288 billion total • 6.2 percent of earned income refundable tax credit • Extend patch for Alternative Minimum Tax

None mentioned

• $53.6 billion to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, including to local school districts • $15.6 billion to increase maximum Pell Grant • 40.6 billion to balance education budgets

None mentioned

• $27.5 billion for highway investment • $43 billion for energy investment

Unemployent, Health Benefits, and Food Stamps

• $102 billion on unemployment benefits, healthcare retention, and increasing food stamp benefits

• Make unemployment benefits tax free • Extend temporary federal extended unemployment benefits program • New tax deduction for people who purchase private care

• $14.2 billion for unemployment • $20 billion for increases in food stamps • $59 billion for healthcare

Housing

• Eliminate requirement to repay a $7,500 tax credit for homes

• Home buyer’s credit of $7,500 for buyers who make a minimum down payment of five percent

• Almost $8 billion towards public housing improvements

Total

$825 billion

$478 billion

$787 billion

Tufts Roundtable

from the editor Now that the stimulus has worked its way through Congress to the President’s desk, we think it is appropriate to look at how that legislation came to be and whether it reflects the bipartisanship President Obama discussed during the campaign. In this issue of the Roundtable writers take a look at “partisanship in a post-partisan world” and whether the President has a mandate to push through his policies or must make concessions to congressional Republicans. As new economic data continues to surprise even those who made the gloomiest predictions, perceptions of the future situation are more important than ever; when it comes to the economy, hope or despair are often self-fulfilling prophecies. It is for this reason that in this issue of the Roundtable we look at a variety of sources to break down the more than 1000 page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to cut through the rhetoric so readers can have a grasp of what the stimulus package does effectively and what it leaves out. We believe that opinions should be based in fact, not passion, and that is why we have included throughout the issue supplemental features: timelines, fact boxes, and data. In this issue of the Roundtable we placed a premium on giving each reader the basic information to make his or her own informed judgments about current events and topics that are affecting us all. Our goal is to combine fact and opinion, and we are proud that this issue works towards that goal.

Samuel Wallis

tufts roundtable Editor-in-Chief

Samuel Wallis

Executive Content Editors

Evan Chiacchiaro Austin Field

Editing Staff

Asad Badruddin Jan McCreary Nick Perricone Shayan Purkayastha Chris Walczyszyn



Executive Production Charlotte Harrison Director Executive Layout Editor

Leanne Brotsky

Senior Design Staff

Rebecca Goldberg John Peter Kaytrosh Daniel Rosenblum

Executive Copy Editor

Brian Kato

Copy Editing Staff

Lydia Hochheimer Robin Wetherill

Business Manager

Shabazz Stuart

Advertising Manager Web Managers

Daniel Rosenblum

Contributors

Aaron Cantu Ian Hainline Michael Hawley Faris Islam Alyssa Krag-Arnold Chelsea Ongaro Dr. Ellery Schempp Aaron Zucker

Connor Gramazio Richard Mondello

Founders Shabazz Stuart Samuel Wallis Chas Morrison

Cartoons by Brian Kato

IOPC Student Board Members Megan Dalton, Dean Ladin, Jarrod Niebloom, Matthew Shapanka, and Shabazz Stuart

March 2009

3

Federalism and the Real America John Peter Kaytrosh ’12 In her well-written article, “The Growing Divide: Real America?” in the last issue of the Roundtable, Ms. Leslie Ogden wonders if there could possibly be “two Americas.” This idea, to her, seems unfortunate; according to her, the idea that our country could be divided seems dangerous and threatening to the stability of the Union. I must inform her that there are more than two Americas — there are, in fact, at least fifty. And, contrary to her belief that this is destructive to our country, it is in fact where we find our strength. America is not a monolithic state, in which we have all decided to agree on a specific set of policies to be implemented by the federal government. Our Founders wisely chose to allow the states to “go their own way,” with good reason and generally successful results. Real detriment has resulted when the federal government has tried to turn the constitutionally powerful states into subjugated bodies to do its bidding. Ms. Ogden and I generally agree on the issues, it seems. She supports samesex marriage, as do I. Both of us find the proposition of creationism, particularly as an academic theory, to be ridiculous. And both of us seem to be influenced by the urban areas of this country. Our opinions diverge, however, on what is to be done with our countrymen who do not share our views. It appears that Ms. Ogden believes that national accession to policies should be decided by the federal government, with all states following the same policies. I, however am utterly unconcerned with what other states do, at least in a legal sense; my only concern is that my own state is allowed to carry out the policies it sees fit. I wonder if Ms. Ogden realizes that if many of the issues she discusses in her article were put up to a popular vote, our side would lose. Federalism keeps us free to do what we believe is right and rational.

4

Tufts Roundtable

Perhaps late to recognize the utility of states’ rights, but certainly willing to flex its muscle in this area, Massachusetts has benefited greatly from the concessions made to it by our venerable Constitution. Even as former Governor Mitt Romney made our state the butt of his jokes leading up to his 2008 Presidential bid, Massachusetts legalized and affirmed the right to same-sex marriage. The same governor decided to take the national lead and bring near-universal health care to Massachusetts. Neither of these things was done with the permission, encouragement, or approval of the other forty-nine states. The Big Dig, a project which has undoubtedly revitalized transport and life in Boston, and the frequent expansions of public transit upon which our state embarks, are projects initiated by the Commonwealth acting alone. The federal government only doles out funding because it has a greater “power of the purse” than the state. The true deficiency with Ms. Ogden’s assumptions lies in a lack of understanding of federalism. I would ask her, “If all the states and regions of the country are meant to act the same, then why did we even bother dividing the country up into states?” It strikes me as extraordinarily patronizing to the rest of the nation to ask the states to simply come to a consensus and agree. This is subversive of the Constitution and insulting to the states. When Massachusetts was maligned by much of the rest of the country for instituting same-sex marriage in 2004, we were being told by the people and politicians of those states to act against our will and to compromise the exercise of our rights as a state. By asking us all to ignore our differences, Ms. Ogden, even with good intentions, is doing the same thing fifty times over.

Buy American Alyssa Krag-Arnold ’11 In the face of such a dramatic economic downturn, many politicians and commentators have argued that both American politicians and consumers should do more to support domestic businesses. The claim that “buying American” will save American jobs and prop up the weak manufacturing industry is both exaggerated and unfounded, and will only lead to the loss of future innovation and the creation of unnecessary tensions with trade partners. By guaranteeing business to comparatively inefficient domestic producers, America is simply removing the incentive for domestic manufacturers to generate the innovation necessary to remain competitive with foreign rivals once we eventually remove this protectionist measure. Although it is tempting, and perhaps politically expedient, to construct a temporary shield around America’s economy, protectionist measures are a shortterm “solution.” As inconceivable as it may seem now, the American economy and the world economy will eventually spring back. America will find it necessary to repeal its existing protectionist measures, however unjustified they were in the first place. Without foreign competition, American manufacturers will have had little incentive to innovate and become more efficient, and will be at a disadvantage in the long run. To be certain, protectionism isn’t always bad. It can be beneficial for burgeoning industries in developing countries that would otherwise be crushed by international competition. The United States, however, occupies a vastly different place in the world than these hypothetical developing nations. If we impose “buy America” measures on imports, other countries, most notably China, will refuse to buy our exports, launch a retaliatory battle, and cause our export market to collapse. America experienced this during the Great Depression when the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, which imposed import tariffs on thousands of goods, was passed in 1930. The Tariff launched a trade war, worsening the Depression and triggering a weakening of American manufacturing. A potential buy-American provision is clearly not on the same scale as the SmootHawley Tariff, but it still has the potential to make a politi-

cal and economic impact. As Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics note, “Even a small echo of that experience would be a disaster.” Protectionism and tariffs will benefit American producers only in the short run, and America cannot afford to have such an irresponsible strategy. Since a buy-American proposal will only hurt the American economy in the future, there is the implication that it must at least benefit the American economy at present. Regrettably, this is not the case. According to Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institution for International Economics, a buy-American proposal would create fewer than 9,000 American jobs—a virtually insignificant number in the face of the nearly 600,000 jobs lost in the first month of 2009 alone. Furthermore, job loss from plummeting demand for American exports due to a protectionism-imposed trade war could quickly surpass 9,000. Finally, it is important to remember that economic decisions have political implications. Quite simply, America cannot afford to be viewed as a selfish hypocrite. Though it is oft stated, the refrain that globalization is a very real phenomenon rings truer than ever, especially in light of this worldwide financial crisis. America faces threats that it cannot possibly confront alone, and it cannot afford to antagonize allies and create unnecessary ill-will. It is unwise to sacrifice innovation and create needless animosity for the unfounded prospect of a trivial level of shortterm growth.

March 2009

5

N AT I O N A L

Judd Gregg’s Stand Michael Hawley ’11 Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire surprised much of firm commitment to limited government. Many expressed an the nation on February 12, when he withdrew his name from honest willingness to work with Democrats, but they would not nomination to be President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce. give their unconditional approval to liberal policies in order to His action, though sudden, actually represents a natural and nec- provide those policies the appearance of bipartisan compromise. essary evolution of thought and is emblematic of the transforma- Gregg, too, after finding out that he would be merely a conservation taking place in the Republican Party as a whole. Offered the tive rubber stamp on Obama’s policies, refused to play a part in chance to be a conservative instrument of liberal policy, Gregg the charade. The Obama administration’s handling of the stimuchose instead to cleave to principle, knowing full well that the lus and the Census foreshadowed its likely strategy for future decision would cost him influence and damage his reputation. debates over union card-check, illegal immigration, and taxes. Citing “irreconcilable differences,” Gregg insisted that while Faced with four years of giving conservative political cover to he respected the President and wished him well, he could not ac- radically liberal policies, Judd Gregg turned Obama down. cept the opportunity to serve in his cabinet. While speculation Thus, after eight years of wandering in an ideological wilabounds as to the true cause of Gregg’s decision, it seems that derness, the Republican Party is finding itself again. Both Judd he felt that his presence in the cabinet would be more as a token Gregg’s rejection of the Department of Commerce’s offer and Republican than a true policymaker. the Republican Congressional delegation’s overwhelming rejecIn the context of President Obama’s loud and repeated calls tion of the “stimulus” hint at a party that has begun to rememfor a renewed spirit of bipartisanship, Gregg’s choice was par- ber what “small government conservatism” really means. That’s a ticularly politically costly—and courageous. Though it seems good sign for the future of the party—and the country. clear that Gregg truly was ready to put partisanship aside to serve the good of the country, the Obama administration’s actions served to demonstrate that he would also have to sacrifice his principles in order to serve in the Cabinet. The administration’s attempt to place the Census (a responsibilty of the Departmet of Commerce) under the direct control of the White House and its advocacy of a porkladen, irresponsible “stimulus package” would have forced Gregg to be the instrument of policies that he opposes on principle. So, Gregg turned down • Tom Daschle Health and Human Services the offer to serve, knowing that his reputation Withdrew nomination because he had failed to among voters would suffer for refusing to join in Obama’s “bipartisanship.” pay more than $128,000 in taxes. The Republican Party is now coming to the re• Judd Gregg Commerce Secretary Withdrew alization that it faces the same choice that Gregg did. Though the President makes the appearance nomination because of “irresolvable conflicts’’ of bipartisanship a high priority, his actual policies with the Obama administration. reveal a staunch, uncompromising liberal agenda. Thus, while he invited many top Congressional • Bill Richardson Secretary of Commerce Republicans to his Super Bowl party and dined at Withdrew nomination because of an ongoing George Will’s house, Obama and his legislative allies virtually shut Republicans out of the crafting investigation over “pay-to-play” contracting. • of the recently passed stimulus package. This forces • Nancy Killefer Chief Performance Officer members of the GOP to choose either to “go along to get along” or to appear as bitter, petty obstrucWithdrew nomination because of tax troubles. tionists. In the vote over the stimulus, for which not a • Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary single House Republican voted in favor, the parConfirmed despite disclosure that he did not ty decided to take a stand much in the way that Gregg did. It argued that its positions are not mere pay $34,000 in federal taxes. convenient political posturing but are based on a

6

Tufts Roundtable

Mandate Obama Ian Hainline ’11 Although the façade of American hegemony across the world may be crumbling, the President of the United States remains the most powerful man in the world. The Obama administration has only just now entered into the game, so to speak, but must already face challenges that could easily render the next four (or eight) years moot. In seeking to pass an economic stimulus package, President Obama’s promise to change the way Washington does business has been severely tested, as the White House’s best efforts to reach across the aisle were turned away, with all 178 Republican members of the House of Representatives voting against the stimulus package. This sort of repudiation may well represent Washington politics for the next several years, for if the Republican party is un-

willing to take the hand that has been extended to them, then President Obama will, and rightfully so, turn to the overwhelming mandate that was handed to him in this past fall’s election. November 4, 2008 was a historic night, regardless of one’s political beliefs, but it was an especially sweet night for Democrats everywhere, as a surge of Democratic candidates, not just Obama, claimed victory. The strong Democratic showings in the House and Senate elections certainly indicated a rising tide of support for the Democratic party across America. Yet any discussion of a Presidential mandate must first consider the race for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a race that Barack Obama won soundly. The margin of 53 percent to 46 percent in favor of Barack Obama represented a

victory much larger than the two previous elections. Mere size, however, does not create a mandate, but the composition of the coalition that was forged does paint a bright picture for President Obama. In a tour de force for get-out-the vote efforts, President Obama won a majority of both male and female votes nationally, as well as unheard-of margins of victory among minorities, especially among AfricanAmerican voters, whom Obama carried by a margin of 95 percent to 4 percent. Other minority groups that comprise a notable share of the electorate, such as Latinos and Asians, were carried by well over 60 percent. Although these numbers are encouraging, a coalition formed of women and minority voters has long been a mainstay for Democratic politics.

March 2009

7

F eature What made the Obama campaign so special, Barack Obama, fulfilled another of his campaign promises— however, was the spread of voters that he was Just as significant was the platform that to change the way Washington works—and able to attract across all levels of the income President Obama campaigned on in the gen- met with members of the Republican Party in spread. Obama won the bloc of voters who eral election. Beyond a doubt, the positions what many have described as a sincere effort made less than $50,000 a year by a signifi- espoused by Obama during the campaign pre- to work in a truly bipartisan manner to help cant margin, but also captured victories in the sented a marked contrast to the policies of the right America’s economy. Despite this rare ges$75-100,000 and $200,000+ brackets. When administration of George W. Bush. Obama’s ture, the hand that was extended was soundly taken in total, the traditional Democratic co- proposals for vast increases in health care cov- slapped away, as not a single House Republialition was augmented by members from all erage, alongside his calls for open dialogue can voted in favor of the stimulus package. classes in society, creating a margin that helped with Iran and Syria, are decidedly liberal posiGiven the stark lines that were publicly win the White House race. tions, making his capture of such a vast share drawn around the stimulus, with President Obama also managed to take his message of the electorate all the more impressive. Posi- Obama and Congressional Democrats on one of change to the entire nation, in a reversal tions that are clearly to one side of the politi- side and the Republican Party strongly opof much of the conventional wisdom about cal spectrum do not always win a significant posed, the mandate bestowed upon Obama presidential campaigning. The coalition the majority of the electorate, making President and the Democrats was strongly put to the Obama campaign formed test. Although the exam was displayed tremendous geodifficult, those in blue seem to graphical diversity, capturhave come out ahead. A poll ing states across the Union: recently conducted by the New North Carolina and Virginia York Times shows that some 79 in the South, Ohio, Indiana, percent of Americans believe and Iowa in the Midwest, that the Republican Party needs and Colorado and New to work in a bipartisan manner, Mexico out in the Southwhile the same poll shows that west, are all states which three-quarters of Americans be• Real GDP 2008 Q4: -6.8% Obama carried that had not lieve that President Obama is • Unemployment: 7.6% seen a Democratic majority making good on his campaign • Industrial Production: -1.8% in January in years. promise to work in a bipartisan • Consumer Spending: -1.0% in December Alongside this impresfashion. Americans appear to • Consumer Confidence: 25.0 (1985=100) sive geographic diversity see the GOP as an obstacle to came a general tide of supeconomic improvement, hin• Inflation: port for Democratic candidering the work of the Obama • Consumer Prices: .30% in January dates, in both congressional administration. • Producer Prices: .80% in January and gubernatorial positions. Another poll, conducted • Case-Schiller Home Index: 139.14 Minnesota aside, where the by CNN, found that six in ten • New Homes Sales: -10.2% in January outcome is still in dispute, Americans support the stimuthe Democrats won 19 Senlus package, while the approval • Existing Home Sales: -5.3% in January atorial races, including seven rating for President Obama is • Trade Deficit: -28.7% from Nov. to Dec. seats that changed party an elevated 67 percent. After an • Foreclosure Rate: +17.8% over Jan.’08 hands, and in the House, a extraordinarily partisan fight, • Crude Oil: $44.11/barrel strong majority of 257-178 with the two parties clearly dia• Gold: $947.80/troy ounce Democratic congressmen metrically opposed, the public was installed in power. In remains in resounding support *All indicators as of March 1 states like Missouri and of the Obama administration North Carolina, Democrats on an issue that for many was came to power in the goverthe most important in the fall nor’s mansion as well. Obama’s victory a true mandate. campaign. Americans support Barack Obama, To capture the White House is no small Since Inauguration Day, most all of the and he clearly has a mandate from the Amerifeat, to be sure, but one cannot possibly deny policy focus of the White House has been on can people. The coalition formed in the fall the surge of Democratic victories at all levels the economic stimulus package, a plan that swept a tide of Democrats into office, offerof government, from Capitol Hill to City has been largely contested by the Republican ing a sound public endorsement of Barack Hall. When so many Democratic candidates delegation in Congress. The saga of the stimu- Obama, an endorsement that was validated come to the fore, led by a victory in the White lus package has just recently ended, but the by the passage and approval of Obama’s ecoHouse, it seems at best farcical to deny that a lessons that can be drawn from the concluding nomic policies and work in his first days in national mandate was given to the Democrat- acts of the fight to pass the stimulus are rather office. It is Americans, then, not only Demoic Party, and by little extension, to President telling. At the outset, President Obama has crats, who have proclaimed; “Yes, we can.”

8

Tufts Roundtable

March 2009

9

TREASURY: TIMOTHY GEITHNER Born August 18, 1961 Dartmouth College (BA), Johns Hopkins University (MBA)

Born November 29, 1959 Sarah Lawrence College (B

• Has worked in the U.S. Treasury department since 1988 • Undersecretary for International Affairs under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers • Influential in fiscal bailouts of Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Brazil, and Thailand • Council on Foreign Relations and International Monetary Fund • President of the New York Federal Reserve since 2003 • Heavily involved in decision to extend government bailouts to Wall Street firms, including Bear Stearns and American International Group (AIG), as well as allowing Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt • Will have authority over how the second $350 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will be dispersed

HOMELAND SECURITY: JANET NAPOLITANO Born November 29, 1957 Santa Clara University (BA), University of Virginia (JD)

• Served as attorney for Anita Hill, the woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings • United States Attorney for Arizona • Involved in investigation of Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 • Twice-elected Governor of Arizona • Has served as Chair of both Western Governors Association and National Governors Association • Advocated revamp of Airzona immigration regulations increased enforcement

CHIEF OF STA

• Served as the national campa Committee • Senior adviser and fundraiser Chicago • Directed the finance committ • Served on the board of the Fe • Illinois Congressman since 20 • Chairman of the Democratic C Democratic sweep, and as the • Reputation as an aggressive a appointment as White House expressing disapproval.

ENERGY: STEVEN CHU

Born February 28, 1948 University of Rochester (BA, BS), University of California, Berkeley (Ph. D.) • Career physicist Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1997 Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory since 2004 • Strong opponent of continued reliance on coal power • Believes that investing in renewable energy as well as nuclear power is the best course for America’s energy policy to take

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT: SHAUN DONOVAN

Born January 24, 1966 Harvard University (BA, MA, MPA) • Served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multi-family Housing at HUD during the Clinton administration, as well as acting Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration • Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development • Has spoken out against mortgage assistance for “investor owners,” or people who bought properties they never intended to live in.

TEAM RIVA

Here, we’ve chosen to highlight some o We chose these particular members b challenges confronting the administra issues that President Obama pr

STATE: HILLARY CLINTON

AFF: RAHM EMANUEL

Born October 26, 1947 Wellesley College (BA), Yale University (JD)

BA), Northwestern University (MA)

aign director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign

r in Richard Daley’s successful campaign for mayor of

tee of Bill Clinton’s first presidential primary campaign ederal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) 002 Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 e chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and effective Democratic partisan. Reaction to his Chief of Staff was mixed, with some Republicans

• Spearheaded failed healthcare reform initiative while First Lady • Twice-elected junior Senator from New York • Supported 2001 military strike in Afghanistan • Voted for 2002 Iraq war authorization • Opposed the troop surge in Iraq in 2007 • Extremely strong pro-Israel record • Considered to be more hawkish on issues relating to Iran • Drawn-out and contentious primary campaign with Pres. Obama

VETERANS: ERIC SHINSEKI Born November 28, 1942 United States Military Academy (BS), Duke University (MA)

• United States Army, Four Star General • Commander, NATO Stabilizing Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina • Army Chief of Staff • Critical of the Bush Administration’s conduct of the War in Iraq • Famously quoted for arguing, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 25, 2003 (weeks before the invasion), that the United States would require a far greater number of troops to stem sectarian violence.

M OF ALS?

of the members of the Obama Cabinet. because of their importance to policy ation and their impact on some of the rioritized during the campaign.

DEFENSE: ROBERT GATES

Born September 25, 1943 The College of William & Mary (BA), Indiana University (MA), Georgetown University (Ph. D.) • Second Lieutenant intelligence officer in the US Air Force • National Security Advisor to Pres. George H. W. Bush • 27-year career officer in the Central Intelligenece Agency • Director of Central Intelligence from 1991-1993 • President of Texas A&M University • Secretary of Defense in Pres. George W. Bush’s administration • Strong supporter of Afghanistan troop buildup, estimated at more than 20,000 in eighteen months

ATTORNEY GENERAL: ERIC HOLDER Born January 21, 1951 Columbia University (BA, JD)

• Appointed a federal judge by Pres. Regan • Named United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in 1993 • First African-American named Deputy Attorney General • Embroiled in controversy surrounding Pres. Clinton’s pardon of commodities trader Marc Rich • Vocal critic of many of the Bush Administration’s tactics in the War on Terror • Favors closing the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay and opposes the Patriot Act • Declared that waterboarding, an interrogation tactic the Bush Administration approved for use on some detainees, constitutes torture.

12

A Demand for Bipartisanship Evan Chiacchiaro ’11 Since the days of our Founding Fathers, Americans have debated the responsibilities public officials have to the voters who elected them. However, in today’s world of omnipresent polling, public opinion and the approval of American citizens have become critical to the success of any politician, especially the president. The 21st Century has seen the president become all the more dependent on public support to help push proposals through Congress and enact his or her agenda. As seen in the last few years of George W. Bush’s presidency, low public approval ratings can contribute to bad press, waning respect on Capitol Hill, and legislative deadlocks. Presidents need to follow the will of those who elected them, or otherwise risk an unsuccessful, unproductive presidency. For this reason, the assertion that President Barack Obama has been given a mandate to pursue an exclusively Democratic agenda is problematic. While his historic victory, pegged by many as a landslide, may entitle President Obama to act according to the platform that won him election, his candidacy was built on bipartisanship. Therefore, acting without Republican consultation would leave President Obama acting contrary to the image he presented on the campaign trail, and without the full support of those who voted for him based on that image. Indeed, even if one were to argue that President Obama was elected based on his progressive policies, from the beginning of his campaign he stressed that even traditionally Democratic policies would be implemented with input

Jan McCreary ’11 from across the aisle. After his victory in Iowa on January 3, 2008, the then-senator from Illinois used his achievements in healthcare as a state senator to prove his commitment to bipartisanship, stating, “I’ll be a president who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois—by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.” Throughout the course of his presidential campaign, the former senator deepened his resolve to distinguish himself among his competition as a unifier, and resisted being pegged as a typical tax-and-spend liberal, de-

spite acquiring the National Journal’s title of the most liberal senator of 2007. President Obama’s commitment to pursuing bipartisanship on Capitol Hill was best illustrated by the expectations he outlined for his party, his presidency, and all Americans in his November 4th victory speech, when he declared, “Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long... While the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a mea-

sure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.” In other words, the results of the 2008 election were a mandate for the pursuit of the bipartisan politics President Obama emphasized throughout his campaign, rather than a rigid endorsement of the party he happens to represent. Voter statistics from the 2008 election seem to support President Obama’s own assertions about his victory. Obama drew support from those that may not have agreed with all of his party’s liberal platform, but were convinced by his resolution to reach across the aisle. For example, according to CNN’s exit poll, 52 percent of all independent voters voted for Obama, as well as 60 percent of all voters identifying as moderates and 20 percent of all voters identifying as conservative. Voter registration statistics from swing states such as Pennsylvania also suggest that although 89 percent of registered Democrats voted for Obama, many may have been less than fully committed to the party’s beliefs. In March of 2008, almost 60,000 Pennsylvanian voters switched their registration from Republican to Democrat. While it’s possible that these former Republicans suddenly became enamored by Democratic policies, it’s more probable that they crossed party lines because of the excitement of the Democratic primary and Obama’s message of bipartisan change. The opinions of Republican Party leaders prior to the 2008 election help explain why many non-Democrats were swayed by Obama’s call for political unity. Chuck Hagel, former Senate Republican from Ne-

March 2009 13

F eature braska, said in a March 2008 interview that he believed Obama was the candidate most likely to bring the United States together. Although Hagel never endorsed Obama, his waning support for the Bush Administration and disenchantment with Republican politics left few speculating why a McCain endorsement failed to materialize. Fed up with their party but not Republican principles, many right-leaning voters and politicians viewed electing a bipartisan Obama as the best way to ensure that Republican ideals were respected and Bush-style politics of divisiveness discontinued. But even if one were to argue that President Obama’s willingness to work with Republicans played no role in his election, it still stands that almost half of all Americans didn’t even vote for him. While the final electoral collage tally, 365 to 173 votes, made the election look like a huge landslide, John McCain still won 46 percent of the popular vote. While this portion of the population disagreed with Barack Obama enough to vote against him, as president, he represents all Americans. For this reason, Obama is obligated to work with Republicans in an effort to better represent the 58 million Americans who voted Republican. However, almost immediately after being elected, Obama appeared to start sliding backwards from his lofty promises of reaching across the aisle and changing how Washington works. On November 6, a mere two days after being elected, Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, a hard-charging, intensely partisan career politician whose nickname of “Rahmbo” needs no explanation. The appointment of Emanuel, who may be best known for mailing a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, did not offer much promise for bipartisan cooperation from the Obama White House. Rather, it signaled that Obama intended to use Emanuel’s strong personality to force issues through Congress. Yet, despite this initial appointment, there were positive signs that Obama intended to make good on his promises. Obama’s decision to retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense was prudent both politically and practically; it mollified the right wing by putting a Republican in a major Cabinet position, while simultaneously ensuring some continuation in the military chain of command during a time of war. Similarly, the appointment of Marine Corps General James L. Jones was an extremely wise choice. The career military officer had been approached by Condoleeza Rice for the deputy Secretary of State position, twice turning it down, and from November 2007 until the end of the Bush administration,

14 Tufts Roundtable

Jones served as a special envoy to the Middle East for security concerns. It was another move that could be whole heartedly endorsed by both sides of the aisle, and with Obama frequently hinting that another Cabinet post would be filled by a Republican, for a period of time it seemed that Obama was serious about his bipartisan aspirations. And then, with his inauguration, came the debate over the stimulus. Presidents need to follow the will of those who elected them, or otherwise risk an unsuccessful, unproductive presidency. From day one, Obama made it clear that creating an economic stimulus package to revive the flailing American economy was his first priority. Even before taking office, Obama was pressuring lawmakers to act quickly, and for a period of time was pushing for a bill to be ready for him to sign the day he was inaugurated. While news of Obama’s plans faced the normal griping from hard-line economic conservatives opposed to any and all government intervention, initially the prospect of a stimulus bill faced wide-spread support from both parties. Aware that the American economy was in dire straits and facing a growing sense among constituents that something needed to be done to stem the tide, senators and congressmen from across the political spectrum were prepared to hammer out a deal. It appeared to be a shining moment for Obama to flash his bipartisan credentials, work with both party leaders, and come out with a bill that nearly everyone could support. Instead, America got the same party-line wrangling that has been plaguing American politics for decades. And in the mess that followed, it became clear that Obama should work with Republicans not only for political and popularity reasons, but for practical ones as well. Instead of pursuing a bipartisan coalition to author the bill, Obama turned to his Democratic colleagues to singlehandedly craft the stimulus package. The initial version was introduced as legislation in the Senate on January 6, 2009, by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and co-sponsored by 16 other Democratic senators and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)—clearly not a group that encompasses both sides of the debate. And yet, despite the obvious contradictions between Obama’s campaign rhetoric and his first major action upon being elected, it was not the decision to have the Democrats write the

bill that was most incongruous with Obama’s platform of post-partisan politics. Rather, what was troubling was the response from Obama and the Democrats when the Republican Party chose to raise its objections to the bill. On January 23, President Obama met with a group of Republican congressional leaders to hear their concerns about the recently proposed bill, a move ostensibly designed to reach out and work through their differences. However, according to an article on Politico.com, numerous sources reported that Obama flatly told the Republicans, “I won.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi echoed Obama’s words when dealing with Republican complains about the House version of the bill, stating at a news conference, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” Obama’s attempts to ram the stimulus package through Congress without the consent of Republicans largely went up in flames. While Obama had wanted to sign the bill the day he took office, it took almost a month of wrangling before a deal could be struck to pass it in the Senate. Only the strong bipartisan efforts of moderate Republicans Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) managed to salvage the package, and the compromise they reached showed what could have been accomplished if Obama had engaged the Republicans from the beginning. Bipartisanship fared even worse in the House—all Republican attempts to introduce amendments to the bill were voted down, and as a result not a single Republican voted to pass it. While this may have shown that in the House Obama doesn’t need Republican support to pursue his agenda, it also leaves him politically vulnerable; if the stimulus package does not work, the Republican Party is set to say, “I told you so.” In the wake of the fight over the stimulus package, commentators such as the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen have declared Obama’s dreams of changing Washington to be dead, and called for Obama to use the Democrat majority in Congress to pursue his goals without Republican support. The Republicans have been labeled obstructionists and accused of putting partisan politics before the people, and Obama is facing calls to fight fire with fire. This is the wrong lesson to learn. Rather, the example of Specter, Snowe, and Collins should be seen as what can be accomplished when parties sit down in good faith to work out an agreement. This is not only what is politically and practically expedient for President Obama—it is what the American people demanded in November.

N ational

Inaugurations, Politics, and Godiness Dr. Ellery Schempp ‘62 Over the last months we have heard a lot about desires for “God’s blessings and help.” Every speech in the United States seems to end with “God bless America.” But is this a good practice? Will such invocations really help us? Will they help God? In laying out policy concepts, legislative agendas, foreign policy programs, or economic plans, it seems improvident to demand that some god approve it also. There are several good reasons to avoid getting a god tangled up in these matters, and there are thus some problems with the frequent use of “God bless America” and all that it implies. First of all, “God” or gods are notoriously subject to human interpretation when we are told of “His” or their wishes. There are thousands of priests, pastors, ministers, televangelists, and quite ordinary people who claim to know “God’s Will.” Most of them probably intend to do the “right” thing by appealing to some notion about what is “god-given,” although there are a good many charlatans who prey on believers in exchange for one-way tickets to heaven. However, the frequent contradictions in their interpretations leave “God’s Will” as an unreliable place to find policy prescriptions or guidance. Second, it is important to notice that the Constitution of the United States never once mentions any god or “divine providence.” Our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that entirely omits any reliance upon a god. The Preamble states, “We the people...do ordain and establish,” declaring people, not a god, to be the founders of our nation and the masters of our futures. In fact, the Constitution mentions religion just twice, in Article VI and the First Amendment, and each time the word “no” is attached. It could not be clearer. Furthermore, the god of the Bible is never once recorded as promoting American Constitutional values. The rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief, freedom to vote in a democracy, or inalienable rights are not in any Scripture or Commandments. Thus, the Bible is hardly the place to look when determining America’s future path. It is also problematic to imagine that there is a god who singularly selects the United States for special blessings over all the other peoples of the Earth. Calling on some Almighty to “bless America” and to give Americans preference over Europeans, Asians, Africans, and others is a

ludicrous hubris. It is unworthy of us. President Obama included a wonderful thought in his inauguration speech: “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus- and non-believers.” This may be the first time in American history that “non-believers” were recognized, and hopefully signals that the many forms of non-belief, disbelief, and skepticism are becoming respected. Well-regarded polls indicate that about 14% of Americans are non-theists. This means that about 42 million persons, which is four times larger than the 9.5 million votes by which Obama defeated McCain, do not believe in the idea of god which is frequently invoked by our nation’s politicians. Of course, a great many people have a god-belief, and an appeal to a common God might be seen as unifying for our nation. However, this is not the case in America today. There are more than 200 different denominations, sects, and cults just under the Christian awning, and uncountable more from other traditions and personal beliefs. The notion of a single God that can unify our country is long past. Governmental and political “Godiness” is not good for human societies. It cheapens religious faith and cheapens thoughtful discourse. Mixing up patriotic and social thinking with gods and religion has never proved wise. We do not need to pledge “under God” or to swear “so help me God.” We do not need “God bless America.” We do not need “in God we trust.” Depending on “divine blessings” is merely superstition, and ritual incantations to socially acceptable gods have no policy or pragmatic merit. This sort of magical thinking benefits neither persons nor government, and we might think the gods themselves, if any exist, must find these constant entreaties rather tiresome. Ye gods! It really is up to us, “We the people,” with all our loves and joys, feelings and intellects, fears and insecurities, and social relationships, to try on our own to follow a Golden Rule that transcends religion. Ellery Schempp ‘62 and his family brought the landmark Supreme Court case Abington School District v. Schempp, which brought to an end school-mandated prayer in American public schools. He went on to become a distinguished physicist and educator, most recently teaching a course in the Tufts University Experimental College entitled “Separation of Church and State in American Life.”

March 2009 15

N AT I O N A L

Vilsack: A Disappointment Chelsea Ongaro ’12 Throughout his campaign, President Obama maintained that one of his priorities as president would be address to the energy crisis. In the quest to achieve an energy-independent nation in the near future, the selection of the Secretary of Agriculture was a rather critical one. The search for alternative sources of energy has led to increased production of biofuels, or sources of energy derived from plant sources, such as ethanol. This closely links the fields of energy and agriculture, making the Department of Agriculture a key part of the Obama administration’s efforts to solve the energy crisis. In the former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has found someone closely tied to the Grain Belt who will help him realize his goals. Both men have a passion for pursuing alternative fuels for environmental sustainability and self-reliance. Although Vilsack has received praise and support from various environmental and energy-conscious groups, such as the Corn Refiners Association and the Environmental Defense Fund, his nomination has also been met with sharp criticism. The organic food movement that has swept across our nation is less than pleased with Vilsack, as he seems indifferent to their cause. Vilsack, however, cannot be fully blamed for his lack of attention to the organic issue, as this item seems to be missing from President Obama’s agenda as well. Almost immediately following Obama’s election, a petition sprang out of the folds of the organic and environmental fronts, offering him an array of options for Secretary of Agriculture that the movement would support. Vilsack was not among their recommendations. Known as Food Democracy Now, this movement acquired electronic signatures by means of an online petition, collecting almost 85,000 in all. This number may seem small, but the movement extends much further than this online petition. Other websites and organizations have circulated similar petitions, including the Organic Consumers Association. America’s interest in the organic food movement is also demonstrated by the success of critically acclaimed journalist and author Michael Pollan. Pollan addresses the problems associated with big agribusiness and the advantages of small organic farming in his two books, The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food. The sheer number of these books that have been purchased indicates widespread interest in organic culture. Vilsack’s lack of attention to the organic industry is not the only thing that has created such an uproar. He has a somewhat lengthy list of issues that has led to numerous requests by organic consumers and farmers to halt Vilsack’s confirmation. Vilsack’s general mission to combat global warming certainly receives support, but his close ties to giant corn conglomerates and the politics of government subsidization raise a great deal of concern. Biofuels and ethanol production will greatly benefit the farmers in the state of his former governorship, and

16 Tufts Roundtable

he perhaps does not have the best interests of the environment and fuel independence in mind. In fact, biofuels themselves often receive criticism because of the amount of energy required to produce them and their impact on food prices and starvation issues across the globe, making Vilsack’s support of their production even more of a concern. The rest of his expertise surrounding agriculture further conflicts with the goals of proponents of an organic lifestyle, as Vilsack supports genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops and the cloning of livestock. Vilsack’s nomination, while representing the immediate needs of President Obama’s energy goals, does not promote the needs of a large segment of our population. Concern for a sustainable future and the health of our nation fuels the organic movement, and unfortunately, the time has come for politics to get involved. Even Michelle Obama has been rumored to have switched to a partially organic household in the interest of protecting her children’s health. The future of our health and our environment depends greatly on how we handle food and who represents our interests in the political arena. Currently, there is another petition circulating through the Internet at www.fooddemocracynow.org, with recommendations for USDA undersecretary positions. I urge you to consult this website to offer a voice in the USDA that will be able to counter Vilsack.

N ational

A Flawed Amendment Aaron Zucker ’11 The 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution has never appointment of Roland Burris, Burris did not seize the media’s attention been one of America’s sexier laws. Few Americans are familiar with the and articulate his views on national issues, but simply continued to claim ways in which their Senate seats are filled following a vacancy, yet millions ownership of the seat, and even stated that it was God’s will that he be of lives can be affected by a single Senator appointed by his state’s single seated. A directly elected senator must prove his worth to those he repregovernor. Now that the media has dissected the mishaps and embarrass- sents, and must express passion for America instead of interest in personal ments regarding Senate appointments in New York and Illinois, people advancement. So then, what benefit is there in appointing these senators? Nate Silare starting to pay attention. However, problems surrounding these appointments are not limited to the corruption of Rod Blagojevich or the ver of fivethirtyeight.com points out that appointed senators rarely win ineptitude of David Paterson. These incidents are finally highlighting a re-election. Only 40 percent have been elected to serve a second term, and only 80 percent even choose to run for serious and often overlooked flaw in our re-election, indicating their lack of passion for democracy which must be fixed. the job in the first place. When the 17th Amendment was ratified by the states in 1913, the power Amending the Anachronism to choose United States Senators was Senator Russ Feingold has been the first transferred from the state legislatures to congressperson to propose a realistic solution popular vote by the state’s citizens, who “The Senate of the United States shall to this issue, and his constitutional amendhad already been directly electing House be composed of two Senators from each ment, cosponsored by Senators John McCain members for a century. Today, the probState, elected by the people thereof, for and Mark Begich, will be debated by this new lem lies not in the amendment itself, but six years; and each Senator shall have one congress. Feingold is exactly right to describe in what it is missing. Filling a Senate vote. The electors in each State shall have senatorial appointments as “an anachronism,” seat in the case of a vacancy was largely the qualifications requisite for electors of and there have already been measures to reignored by Congress, and the power to the most numerous branch of the State place it with fairer democracy. Massachusetts, appoint interim Senators was placed in legislatures. Oklahoma, Oregon, and Feingold’s state of the hands of State Governors. When vacancies happen in the Wisconsin already allow for fast special elecrepresentation of any State in the Senate, tions, while Washington, Texas, Arkansas, Politics Instead of People the executive authority of each State shall Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and VerIt goes without saying that this gives issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: mont allow for an interim gubernatorial apgovernors enormous power. Former IlProvided, That the legislature of any State pointment to fill the position before the quick linois Governor Blagojevich, who saw may empower the executive thereof to make election. California and New Jersey allow the opportunity as “f-ing golden,” went temporary appointments until the people fill so far as to abuse this power and use it governors to call for a special election, but do the vacancies by election as the legislature for political gain by attempting to sell not require it. may direct. the Senate seat vacated by Obama to the This may be the perfect time to pass this This amendment shall not be so highest bidder. Blagojevich’s corruption amendment, and nothing is gained from construed as to affect the election or term of was unusual, but made far too possible delays. Currently there are fourteen Repubany Senator chosen before it becomes valid by the new power invested in him. lican senators whose replacements would be as part of the Constitution.” In the usual case, even without appointed by Democratic governors, and abuse of power, the selection of a replace14 Democratic senators whose replacements ment involves more political maneuverwould be appointed by Republican govering than concern for citizens’ representation. After weeks of deliberation, nors. There are no obvious ways in which either party stands to gain anyNew York Governor Paterson ultimately chose freshman congresswoman thing over the other. Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacated seat. Gillibrand, a conservative DemThe cost of reform is also inconsequential; special elections are exocrat who became immediately unpopular throughout her state, is be- pensive, but well worth the realization of good government. States have lieved to have been chosen to appease conservatives in upstate New York always funded special elections for House seats, and to deny the same and assist Paterson’s re-election. In this way, appointed Senators become for Senate seats would undermine our commitment to democracy. When mere extensions of a governor’s political whims. he introduced the amendment, Feingold emphasized that “weighing the Those who do seek to fill a vacated seat have every incentive to lobby costs associated with the most basic tenet of our democracy-—the election their governor and none to appeal to the people. During Caroline Ken- of the government by the governed —sets us on a dangerous path.” nedy’s short-lived candidacy, she made her interest in the position clear, We pay a much higher price if we allow this wound in our constitubut made little effort to articulate her vision for the future of New York. tion to exist unaddressed. Now is the time to reform our constitution and She simply felt entitled to the position. After Blagojevich’s controversial finally remove the chains on our unfinished democracy.

March 2009 17

Not Over Yet Chas Morrison ’11 While it was heartening to see Iraqis flock to the polls to vote in provincial elections last month, Iraq’s struggle for stability is far from over. The elections were an important milestone and took place largely removed from the violence and intimidation which have for so long stood over this troubled country, but they also revealed the many fractures within Iraqi society and demonstrated the dangers of assuming that the country is fully stable. The provincial elections were important because they offered a chance for the Sunnis to get back into the political game after their boycott of elections in 2005. Especially important was the outcome in Anbar province, where the tribal Awakening leaders who played a decisive role in defeating al Qaeda in Iraq ran against their more institutionalized Sunni rival, the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP). After initial results that showed that the IIP won Anbar, the tribes threatened mass violence and claimed systemic voter fraud. Later results surprisingly showed that a third party, led by the secular nationalist Saleh al-Mutlaq, won Anbar with the Awakening groups in a close second. Although Mutlaq seems to be acceptable to both the Awakening tribes and the

18 Tufts Roundtable

IIP, the true test of Iraqi democracy will come over the ensuing months as the tribes either embrace or reject a more limited role in government than they had envisioned. To the south, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s State of Law list did extraordinarily well, shattering the traditional popularity of its rival Shia party, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq (ISCI). However, Moqtada al Sadr refuses to go away, and while his preferred candidates encouragingly finished a distant fourth in Basra, the Sadrist block came in second in Baghdad, Dhi Qar, and Maysan provinces. The lesson from the south is that Maliki and the nationalists are a strong position, but challenges remain and it is impossible to determine how much of Maliki’s electoral victory came out of genuine popularity and how much came out of the abuse of state resources. As the United States looks to draw down its force levels in Iraq and shift resources to Afghanistan, it would do well to consider that Iraq is likely to get worse before it gets better. With two more elections on the way in 2009, a crucial oil-sharing agreement between its ethnic groups unsigned, American forces withdrawing from population centers, and payment of the Sunni Sons of Iraq militias being transferred over to the Shia government in Baghdad, there is plenty of room for things to go wrong. The United States must continue to push for political reconciliation not only between ethnic groups, but between political factions. If Iraq descends once more into violence, it will be because of conflicts between Baghdad, as represented by Maliki and the IIP, and the provinces, as personified by the Awakening Councils and the Sadrists—not because of sectarian violence. While the United States must continue to transfer control to the Iraqi government, it must condition all troop withdrawals upon continued political reconciliation. The United States must use Maliki’s desire to be the Iraqi leader who fully restored Iraqi sovereignty to its advantage in order to press for further political concessions and to help foster genuine peace. Glossing over Iraq’s complicated and fragmented politics in an attempt to shift resources to Afghanistan will result in a return to violent chaos, and the United States will be faced with strategic disaster after being so close to victory in its most important and most winnable war.

I nternational A ffairs

The Afghan Failure Faris Islam ’11 As President Obama prepares the deployment of an additional 17,000 American troops to war-ravaged Afghanistan, a revision of the Afghan policies of the last administration is emerging. With Secretary Clinton admitting that Afghanistan today is a “narco-state,” admitting failure to date in Afghanistan is not a considerable leap. President Karzai and the Afghan people are furious at a dramatic jump in civilian casualties and the resurgence of the Taliban. While the Obama administration reviews the decisions, commitments, and tactics that got it into its current quagmire, a broader look at the failings of postinvasion policies in Afghanistan may help illuminate the way forward for both Americans and Afghans. Following the overthrow of the Taliban government, there were many rhetorical calls for a “Marshall Plan” to rebuild one of the poorest nations in the world as it lay devastated from decades of bloodshed, civil war, and destruction. Indeed, Afghanis and so many others hoped for the formation of a prosperous, peaceful polity so hyped up and promised by NATO and Afghan leaders. What the Afghanis got, however, was a return to many of the problems that originated in pre-Taliban times. Chased out by the Taliban, the oppressive warlords who ruled so much of the country were brought back in the new government and given governorships, privileges, and weapons to run their parts of the country as they wished. Indeed in some cases, Afghan warlords have reportedly been receiving Viagra from the CIA to help entice them to stay loyal to the Americans. While bribing these warlords may have kept them superficially loyal to US interests, it has done little to ensure that they develop their provinces or treat their people with justice. Despite empowering the warlords who continue to oppress so many Afghans, as late as 2005, the BBC reported that Afghani perceptions of US performance remained positive (by a ratio of roughly 70 percent to 30 percent) yet have now dramatically shifted to 70 percent disapproving of the US with only 30 percent remaining in favor. Additionally, fewer than 20 percent of Afghanis say they would like to see more US troops in the country at the moment. Luckily, even though the Taliban has shifted its rhetoric from its traditional orthodox Wahabism to incorporate nationalism, the BBC also points out that “the decline in public support for the US has not given the Taliban any perceptible boost.” With elections approaching in August, President Karzai finds

himself in a tricky position as well, with more pressure from allies to control narco-trafficking and the Taliban and more pressure from his countrymen to take a firmer stand against civilian deaths in NATO attacks. While President Karzai has recently asked NATO for new rules governing foreign forces in the country, his proposed changes would drastically change the role played by NATO troops. In addition to dramatically changing the framework of NATO operation within Afghanistan, recent moves by Karzai also indicate his attempts “to align the country with Russia,” according to the BBC. He has publicly warned the US that if it fails to follow through on the latest round of Afghan weapons requests, it would look to other countries—which many claim is a veiled reference to Russia. The fault for the ongoing rift between NATO forces and the Afghanis does not lie with President Karzai alone, as NATO allies have also made clear their displeasure with the Karzai administration. Continued civilian death tolls, up 39 percent to 2,118 people killed this past year, make 2008 the deadliest year since the ousting of the Taliban in 2001. A UN report goes on to say that of these, 828 Afghanis were killed by pro-government forces with twothirds killed by allied air strikes targeting militants. With instances such as the bombing of a wedding party in Nangahar that killed 41 people, another wedding party that killed ten in Kandahar, and many other similar instances of civilian casualties, NATO forces run the risk of continuing to erode their support base amongst the Afghani people. Stopping this dangerous trend of declining support presents a formidable challenge for the Obama administration that requires urgent attention. Renewed focus on economic development projects throughout Afghanistan represents a vital opportunity for winning back much of the lost Afghani support, as does expressing remorse for civilian casualties caused by NATO troops. Through these small steps of reorienting public diplomacy, large strides can be made towards pacifying Afghanistan, winning over the Afghani people, and completely eliminating the Taliban. Faris Islam is the co-chair of the South Asian Political Action Committee (SAPAC), a student group that focuses on socioeconomic and political issues affecting South Asia. For more information on SAPAC, contact [email protected].

March 2009 19

I nternational affairs

Mexico’s Brutal War on Drugs Aaron Cantu ’11 Because I grew up only fifteen minutes north of the US-Mexican Fortunately, the recent election of President Barack Obama allows border, trips down into Mexico’s border towns were routine during my us a moment to reevaluate failed policies of the past and determine more youth. However, in the past few years, many of these towns have trans- appropriate courses of action. If Obama really wants to usher in a proformed from casual tourist locales into war zones, where military en- gressive era of change, as his campaign promised, it is paramount that he voys manned by soldiers of Mexico’s war on drugs cruise down civilian begin to reform America’s drug laws and help Mexico and Latin America streets. Such scenes were unimaginable only two years ago, before Presi- find a new way to confront the industry. dent Felipe Calderón began a new campaign to wipe out the Mexican President Bush supported Calderón’s efforts generously when he drug cartel for good. The escalated efforts, however, are not hindering signed over $400 million to Mexico’s drug-busting efforts in June—a the drug business in the long run. Rather, the futile fight is only claiming down payment on $1.4 billion in planned American support, officially countless lives, spreading police corruption, and exposing the wrath that called the Mérida Initiative. This is an absolute waste of our tax dollars. drug prohibition can unleash on a nation’s civil society and economic We are throwing money at a policy that has proven to be a failure over infrastructure. the last 30 years, and this latest comWhen Calderón assumed ofmitment to Calderón’s war is the ultifice, years of prohibitionist drug mate illustration of our deluded propolicies in Mexico and other Latin hibitionist paradigm. No matter how American countries had allowed the much money we give Calderón, two drug-trafficking industry to develop facts remain unchanged: the US is the into a powerful world market. The world’s largest consumer of Mexico’s addictive nature of drugs keeps them drugs, and we are also the largest sup• May 8, 2008: the Chief of Mexico’s national in very high demand globally, and plier of illicit arms to Mexico. Clearly, police was assassinated in front of his home by black-market entrepreneurs viciously a solution to the bloodshed must come drug cartel hitmen. compete to supply this demand. In from bilateral and cooperative recon• July 16, 2008: the Mexican Navy intercepted a illegal markets, suppliers are able to sideration of drug policies between the ten meter-long submarine carrying 5.8 tons of charge much higher prices for their US and Mexico. cocaine. goods than they would in legitimate Unfortunately, Obama has • February 12, 2009: the Chief of Police of Cancún markets because legal barriers limit pledged to uphold the Mérida Initiawas arrested in connection with the kidnapping, supply and severely limit competitive and keep American drug policy torture, and murder of a high ranking retired tion. Thus, a combination of high relatively unchanged. Though his military officer who was leading an anti-drug task demand and low supply has created stances on certain drug policies are force. a worldwide $400 billion dollar-amore progressive than those of his Reyear drug trade—a business in which publican predecessor, Obama must go • February 21, 2009: the police chief of the major Mexican cartels have come to play a further and initiate a slow process of northern city of Ciudad Juárez resigned after drug dominant role. decriminalization. If done in conjunccartels threatened to kill one police officer for every Whereas firms in normal markets tion with new health care programs for 48 hours he remained in office. compete with each other by improvdrug abusers and a revolution in the ing products, drug lords often comway we educate the public on drug use, pete with assault rifles and hand grenades. This fact is most illuminated we will likely see drug use in the US begin to fall in the long term. We in the streets of Mexico. Since Calderón allocated roughly 40,000 troops could then reclaim capital—monetary and human—that has been lost to battle cartels all over country, there have been nearly 8,000 people in the futile war on drugs. killed, a severe deterioration of the Mexican people’s civil liberties, and a It is unrealistic to believe that sudden decriminalization in Mexico or 1 percent annual decline of Mexico’s GDP. anywhere in the world would instantaneously end the violence between Calderón’s war has also exposed the depths of the relationship be- drug lords. Still, the only way to stamp out the brutal drug trade is to put tween cartels and police, a bond long cultivated by prohibition. Mexican it out of business. The US must reform its drug laws and stop supportdrug expert Jorge Chabat insists that the cartels’ secret weapon is not ing disastrous prohibitionist policies in Mexico and elsewhere. Superficial their firepower, but tightly-woven institutional corruption. Attracted by military endeavors to eradicate the business have failed and often worsbribes that far exceed their wages, police have been an integral part of the ened existing problems. Mexico’s current situation must serve as a watercartels’ fight against federal forces, informing the cartels of impending shed period in which we can begin to perceive illicit drug-trafficking as busts and providing them with weaponry. For Calderón’s campaign to an ancient business that is ultimately here to stay and perhaps even begin be successful, his army must also deal with 350,000 police forces whose to capitalize on it—just as we already have with alcohol, prescription interests may lie in sabotaging federal efforts to combat the drug trade. drugs, and an array of other mind-altering substances.

20 Tufts Roundtable

Tufts

Roundtable

Tufts Roundtable

The Journal of Political Discourse www.tuftsroundtable.org P.O. Box ##

Tufts University Medford, MA 02155

Tuft

Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service Institute for Political Citizenship