Republican Politics, American Style
Published on June 14th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
What does the future hold for my Republican Party and its chief political opponent the Democratic Party? As things currently stand, I am afraid that the Republican Party may be about to check into an extended stay hotel that lacks many of the amenities we have grown accustomed to since President Nixon won the 1968 Presidential election.
During that time the Republican Party has either been in control of the Congress, the Presidency or both for all but six of those thirty eight years. Before that the Democrats controlled Congress for thirty six years and the Presidency for all but eight (thank you General Eisenhower) of those same thirty six years. I foresee at least six and possibly eight to twelve years for the Grand Old Party (GOP) to be out of government and that is my best case scenario. Worst case, we could be facing another long drought like the thirty six years we experienced in the middle of the 20th century.
I wish I could blame all of this on President Bush and his disastrous decision to invade Iraq, but the problems my party is now experiencing run much deeper than just the Iraq war. I for one believe that many other elected representatives of the party have lost sight of the Republican values that I believe the party once stood for. As a college student I became a Republican because of the Party’s commitment to defend US citizen’s economic and individual freedoms.
At their core, Republicans had a strong belief in personal responsibility, limited government and minimal regulation. Republicans favored free-market economic policies supporting capitalism, and this belief was reflected, in part, by the party’s long-term advocacy of tax cuts (a major Republican theme since the 1920s) and its fight to balance the federal budget by controlling government spending. Republicans were also wary of laws which impinged on individual freedoms (such as the right to privacy and the right to bear arms) as set forth in the US Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln led Republicans in the civil war to free slaves from their Democratic Party owners in the South. Teddy Roosevelt had established national parks and wildlife refuges to protect and conserve the country’s natural resources. Republicans were foreign policy realists who sought to negotiate with authoritarian regimes in Russia and China and reduce the potential for world wide conflict.
But when we took control of Congress and the Presidency in 2000, instead of being watch dogs over government spending, Republican legislators became champions of giving tax breaks to their favored business supporters and feathering their nests with lobbyist gifts and campaign contributions. Republicans took the same pork barrel policies they used to decry Democrats for using to new heights of fiscal irresponsibility. We cut taxes for wealthier Americans but did little to help the middle class families struggling to put their children through college.
Balancing the budget ceased to be a priority for Republicans when doing so meant angering particular voter or business constituencies. Rather than rescind recent tax cuts to pay for the war in Iraq, Republicans allowed the federal budget deficit to balloon to record levels instead. Contrary to the concept of free markets and capitalist competition, the Republicans also rubber stamped Bush administration decisions to give multi-billion dollar contracts to corporations with no bidding and little oversight. Republicans also supported Bush administration proposals to ignore citizens constitutional rights to privacy by wiretapping phone calls and accessing records without judicial court approvals.
The GOP ignored its anti-slavery roots dating to Abraham Lincoln and began to court voters who were opposed to civil and voting rights for the African-American descendants of slaves, particularly in the southern states of the US. The Party of Teddy Roosevelt also began to cater to voters in the western US who were opposed to restrictions on the use of natural resources contained in the countries national parks and wildlife refuges. Instead of working to reduce tensions in the Middle East by pushing Isreal to accommodate Palestinian interests, the conservative Republican majority decided to use the war on terror as an excuse to invade Iraq and depose a dictator it had once supported. It justified this behavior by stating that spreading democracy throughout the Middle East was the solution to the problems in the region.
The end result of this retreat from long held Republican Party values is that the Republican Party I joined over 25 years ago is now just a shadow of its former self. Over the next two years, internal disagreements over Democratic majority proposals will increasingly fragment the Republican congressional caucus. Republicans with "safe seats" in staunchly Republican districts or states will still support the Bush administration, but those with more divided constituencies will face strong pressures to stake out positions opposing the Iraq war and subject other policies to oversight.
The U.S. news media, which has frequently focused on disagreements and disorganization within the Democratic Party, will now portray the Republican Party as being increasingly divided and in disarray. President Bush's low approval ratings and the unpopular Iraq war have eroded support for the party among independent voters. While the Democrats currently hold a slim one seat majority in the US Senate, Republicans face a difficult task regaining control of the Senate in 2008, when 21 of their Senate seats will be up for re-election versus only 12 Democratic seats. Thus it is much more likely that the Democrats will capture additional Senate and House seats in 2008 and strengthen their control over Congress.
Beyond 2008 Republicans face another worrisome trend among new voters. Young people and immigrants who have recently gained the right to vote are largely identifying themselves as either Democrats or independents, affiliations which history has shown are likely to remain entrenched for most of these voters lifetimes. The resurgence by Democrats at the state level (which began in 2006) in terms of control of Governorships and legislatures will result in redistricting changes following the 2010 census which will favour the creation of more Democratic majority congressional districts. This is likely to cement control of Congress in the hands of the Democratic Party until at least the next census in 2020.
Maybe the prospect of spending 12 or more years out of government power will be just the medicine the Republican Party needs to treat what currently ails it. My party needs to do some serious soul-searching and decide if it wants to reclaim the values of economic conservatism (balanced budgets), protection of the individual’s constitutional rights and realist foreign policy strategies. I intend to be a part of this debate and push Republicans to abandon the divisive fear tactics they have used to get their representatives elected over the past 12 years. We must also stop catering to the narrow interests of religious and social conservatives if we ever hope to reclaim a position of power in the US Federal Government. A painful period lies ahead for the Republican Party, but I hope that from this pain Republicans will gain a new sense of what our party could and should stand for. Only time will tell if this is a realistic hope
Monday, June 25, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Foreign Policy changes are in store
Republican Politics, American Style
Published June 7th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I will attempt to predict what changes in American foreign policy are likely to occur after President Bush leaves office in January 2009. Given the President’s intent to stay the course in Iraq, obviously resolving the situation there will be a major component of the next President’s foreign policy, but I will deal with that issue later in a separate column.
To begin with, some significant changes in US foreign policy are already underway within the current Bush administration. John Bolton’s departure from the United Nations has been followed by the departure of other neo-conservative hawks like Robert Joseph, the architect of much of the Bush administration’s strategy for countering nuclear proliferation. These men, along with their neo-conservative allies like Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, shared an agenda of remaking the world according to their neo-conservative vision. It is now apparent that their “blurred vision” needed corrective lenses.
During their foreign policy reign over the past 6 years the ‘neo-cons’ have succeeded in undermining most of the US legitimacy and credibility that President’s Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush Sr. and Clinton had spent 32 years building. These neo-conservative theorists will now slink away to write books and memoirs defending their use of (ahem) intelligence and the decision to invade Iraq as part of the ‘war on terror’. Don’t expect any of them to admit their vision was flawed from the outset.
Joseph and Bolton were among the chief proponents of pressuring Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons programs rather than negotiating with them. With the help of the new Defence Secretary Gates, Condoleezza Rice has now regained her footing as a foreign policy realist and is gaining influence at the expense of the remaining neo-conservative hawks like Vice President Cheney and Elliott Abrams. The recent negotiations with North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program are just one example of this new US foreign policy realism.
Unbeknownst to many however, is the fact that Secretary Gates and Ms. Rice have also been arguing forcefully, albeit unsuccessfully, to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities, put an end to rendition flights and move the trials of terrorism suspects to the United States. They argue that the world’s view of Guantanamo Bay has been tainted by stories of prisoner abuses so legal proceedings held there would be viewed as illegitimate by the international community.
For the time being, President Bush has sided with embattled US Attorney General Gonzales and Vice President Cheney and decided to stay the course on Guantanamo Bay just as he is doing in Iraq. But should Attorney General Gonzales be forced to step down due to the controversy surrounding his firing of 8 US Attorneys, (as many observers expect) I think Ms. Rice and Secretary Gates will again try to press their case against Guantanamo Bay and rendition flights.
What is most important here is that a new dynamic is now emerging within the Bush administration involving foreign policy realists Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Gates. This is good news for whoever succeeds George Bush as President, be they Republican or Democrat, because rebuilding the US image and legitimacy abroad will take many years of consistent effort. Hopefully, tthe next President will be able to pick up where they have left off in this process, instead of having to wait until President Bush finishes his term in January of 2009 to begin it.
Neither Fred Thompson nor the other frontrunners for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations are advocates of the neo-conservative vision of remaking the world. Their foreign policy advisors are also realists who will advocate abandoning the foreign policy model that the Bush administration has been following for the past 6 years.
I foresee the next President rejecting the Bush administration’s policy of exercising its power unilaterally based on its own self-serving definitions of what represents an “eminent threat” to US security. I believe multilateralism will become the dominant foreign policy strategy instead of Bush’s neo-conservative policy of taking unilateral action whenever the US sees its interests threatened.
As regards Bush’s global ‘war on terror’, I hope that our next President will avoid stoking America’s fears about terror attacks and begin to focus on the more realistic and cost effective security measures which need to be implemented to counter the threat of terrorism.
The initial US military response involved the use of a small number of Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan in recognition of the fact that you can’t attack a network (like al Qaeda) with a field army. Special Forces teams totalling 200 soldiers destabilized the Taliban regime and put al Qaeda on the run only later to be replaced by large conventional war troop units who are now hopelessly bogged down in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush’s attempt to use conventional US military power to thwart the al Qaeda terror threat was precisely the reaction bin Laden was hoping for. The decision to turn what was essentially a Special Forces counter-terrorism guerrilla operation with little or no media publicity into a headline grabbing conventional war helped Bush win political re-election but at a huge cost in terms of thousands of Iraqi lives and America’s economic and military power. Over 3,333 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers at a cost of 600 billion dollars since Bush declared an end to combat operations over four years ago, standing beneath a banner that read “Mission Accomplished”. Where is that banner today I wonder?
In an increasing globalised world, the US must become much more judicious in the exercise of its military and economic power, or else it will become an increasingly isolated and irrelevant player on the world stage. Even though the US is the only remaining global superpower, there exist many constraints, both internal and external on the use of that power. President Bush has learned about these limits the hard way. I hope and believe that his successors will learn from his mistakes.
Published June 7th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I will attempt to predict what changes in American foreign policy are likely to occur after President Bush leaves office in January 2009. Given the President’s intent to stay the course in Iraq, obviously resolving the situation there will be a major component of the next President’s foreign policy, but I will deal with that issue later in a separate column.
To begin with, some significant changes in US foreign policy are already underway within the current Bush administration. John Bolton’s departure from the United Nations has been followed by the departure of other neo-conservative hawks like Robert Joseph, the architect of much of the Bush administration’s strategy for countering nuclear proliferation. These men, along with their neo-conservative allies like Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, shared an agenda of remaking the world according to their neo-conservative vision. It is now apparent that their “blurred vision” needed corrective lenses.
During their foreign policy reign over the past 6 years the ‘neo-cons’ have succeeded in undermining most of the US legitimacy and credibility that President’s Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush Sr. and Clinton had spent 32 years building. These neo-conservative theorists will now slink away to write books and memoirs defending their use of (ahem) intelligence and the decision to invade Iraq as part of the ‘war on terror’. Don’t expect any of them to admit their vision was flawed from the outset.
Joseph and Bolton were among the chief proponents of pressuring Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons programs rather than negotiating with them. With the help of the new Defence Secretary Gates, Condoleezza Rice has now regained her footing as a foreign policy realist and is gaining influence at the expense of the remaining neo-conservative hawks like Vice President Cheney and Elliott Abrams. The recent negotiations with North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program are just one example of this new US foreign policy realism.
Unbeknownst to many however, is the fact that Secretary Gates and Ms. Rice have also been arguing forcefully, albeit unsuccessfully, to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities, put an end to rendition flights and move the trials of terrorism suspects to the United States. They argue that the world’s view of Guantanamo Bay has been tainted by stories of prisoner abuses so legal proceedings held there would be viewed as illegitimate by the international community.
For the time being, President Bush has sided with embattled US Attorney General Gonzales and Vice President Cheney and decided to stay the course on Guantanamo Bay just as he is doing in Iraq. But should Attorney General Gonzales be forced to step down due to the controversy surrounding his firing of 8 US Attorneys, (as many observers expect) I think Ms. Rice and Secretary Gates will again try to press their case against Guantanamo Bay and rendition flights.
What is most important here is that a new dynamic is now emerging within the Bush administration involving foreign policy realists Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Gates. This is good news for whoever succeeds George Bush as President, be they Republican or Democrat, because rebuilding the US image and legitimacy abroad will take many years of consistent effort. Hopefully, tthe next President will be able to pick up where they have left off in this process, instead of having to wait until President Bush finishes his term in January of 2009 to begin it.
Neither Fred Thompson nor the other frontrunners for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations are advocates of the neo-conservative vision of remaking the world. Their foreign policy advisors are also realists who will advocate abandoning the foreign policy model that the Bush administration has been following for the past 6 years.
I foresee the next President rejecting the Bush administration’s policy of exercising its power unilaterally based on its own self-serving definitions of what represents an “eminent threat” to US security. I believe multilateralism will become the dominant foreign policy strategy instead of Bush’s neo-conservative policy of taking unilateral action whenever the US sees its interests threatened.
As regards Bush’s global ‘war on terror’, I hope that our next President will avoid stoking America’s fears about terror attacks and begin to focus on the more realistic and cost effective security measures which need to be implemented to counter the threat of terrorism.
The initial US military response involved the use of a small number of Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan in recognition of the fact that you can’t attack a network (like al Qaeda) with a field army. Special Forces teams totalling 200 soldiers destabilized the Taliban regime and put al Qaeda on the run only later to be replaced by large conventional war troop units who are now hopelessly bogged down in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush’s attempt to use conventional US military power to thwart the al Qaeda terror threat was precisely the reaction bin Laden was hoping for. The decision to turn what was essentially a Special Forces counter-terrorism guerrilla operation with little or no media publicity into a headline grabbing conventional war helped Bush win political re-election but at a huge cost in terms of thousands of Iraqi lives and America’s economic and military power. Over 3,333 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers at a cost of 600 billion dollars since Bush declared an end to combat operations over four years ago, standing beneath a banner that read “Mission Accomplished”. Where is that banner today I wonder?
In an increasing globalised world, the US must become much more judicious in the exercise of its military and economic power, or else it will become an increasingly isolated and irrelevant player on the world stage. Even though the US is the only remaining global superpower, there exist many constraints, both internal and external on the use of that power. President Bush has learned about these limits the hard way. I hope and believe that his successors will learn from his mistakes.
Update to several previous columns
Republican Politics, American Style
Published May31st 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
This week’s column will serve as a postscript to a few of my previous columns dealing with the Bush administration’s public positions regarding the Iraq war and global warming.
May 1st was the 4 year anniversary of President Bush’s proclamation on the decks of a US aircraft carrier that combat operations in Iraq were at an end. He did so while standing under a large banner which simply said “Mission Accomplished”.
The United States now has over 3,333 dead American soldiers in Iraq and a Commander in Chief who claims he didn’t know that former football star Pat Tillman had actually been killed (on April 22nd 2004) by his fellow soldiers, until he saw news reports about it more than a month later. Bush made a speech in which he cited Tillman’s heroism 2 days after one of Bush’s top general’s had written a memo warning that President Bush should be told that it was “highly possible” Tillman’s death was the result of friendly fire, instead of his reported acts of valour for which Tillman had been awarded a Silver Star.
I guess this is not surprising considering the fact that it wasn’t until December 19th 2006 that this same Commander in Chief acknowledged for the first time that the United States was not winning the war in Iraq. On that day, in a 2006 post-election interview with the Washington Post, Bush said; "We're not winning, we're not losing," This statement was noteworthy because up until as recently as November 3rd of last year, President Bush had always responded to questions about whether the US was winning the war in Iraq by stating “Absolutely, we’re winning.”
This past month the President claimed that the Democratic majority in Congress was trying to usurp his authority as America’s Commander in Chief, by refusing to give him the money he wanted to continue the Iraq war. Bush complained that Democrats were putting US forces in Iraq at risk, because he would veto spending bills with strings attached regarding progress in the war.
Imagine that; it was the Democrats in Congress putting US forces at risk in Iraq, not the President’s decision to increase the number of soldiers deployed there. Given the fact that President Bush had spent 4 years demonstrating how capable he was in prosecuting the Iraq war, he couldn’t understand why the Democrats were trying to exceed their constitutional authority and micromanage the war.
Hmmm. It sounds like “the kettle calling the pot black” if you ask me. Democratic Majority leader Harry Reid’s retort to Bush was; “No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration’s incompetence and dishonesty,” like Republican legislators did.
The first book written by a member of the Bush administration’s inner circle has just been published and it provides some valuable insights regarding how the decision to invade Iraq was made. In it, Bush’s former CIA Director George Tenet writes that; “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat” nor “was there ever a significant discussion” about alternatives to invading Iraq as way to contain the possible threat Saddam Hussein might pose to the US.
Tenet says that VP Cheney and others wanted to attack Iraq from the moment Bush first took office, long before the 9/11 attacks. To that end Cheney and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld ignored his pre 9/11 warnings about al Qaeda and asked for briefings about Iraq instead. Tenet claims aides to Cheney and Rumsfeld repeatedly “stretched intelligence” reports and tried to “insert crap” into the Bush administration’s public justifications about why the US had to invade Iraq.
Tenet goes on to accuse Cheney, Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration, including embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, of being focused solely on Iraq as a threat to the US in 2001 and after 9/11 in 2002, while the CIA was instead focusing on al Qaeda. Tenet also claims to have tried to muffle VP Cheney’s assertions that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the US invaded, a patently false claim Cheney is still making today.
As regards Bush’s current strategy of throwing more money and troops at the problems in Iraq, Tenet shares my own concerns; “It may have worked more than three years ago,” but “My fear is that sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that U.S. forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of that violence.”
Tenet’s comments are supported by statements from President Bush’s former head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke that; “prior to 9/11, Tenet was vociferous about al Qaeda and bin Laden They (Bush, Cheney et al) wouldn’t listen to him. And he was their Director of CIA for Christ’s sake.” Clarke also points to the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq saying that; “This was not about replacing Saddam Hussein. This was about some insane plot to rebuild Iraq in our (America’s) image. (That’s when) I knew the war on terrorism was lost. Because if you’re occupying an Arab country, you can’t possibly gain Arab support (against the terrorists).”
As for climate change, recent polls show that a majority of Democrats, independents and (yes) Republicans have little confidence in President Bush’s proposals dealing with global warming. The latest polls show that 90% of Democrats, 80% of independents and 60% of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Even many Republicans believe that the Democrats will do a better job of protecting the environment than Bush or Republicans have or will do in the future.
I believe after the Iraq war, the two most pressing concerns of most Americans are health care and measures to combat global warming. Unfortunately for Republicans, voters currently have more faith in Democrats addressing these 3 issues than in Bush or the Republicans doing so.
Published May31st 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
This week’s column will serve as a postscript to a few of my previous columns dealing with the Bush administration’s public positions regarding the Iraq war and global warming.
May 1st was the 4 year anniversary of President Bush’s proclamation on the decks of a US aircraft carrier that combat operations in Iraq were at an end. He did so while standing under a large banner which simply said “Mission Accomplished”.
The United States now has over 3,333 dead American soldiers in Iraq and a Commander in Chief who claims he didn’t know that former football star Pat Tillman had actually been killed (on April 22nd 2004) by his fellow soldiers, until he saw news reports about it more than a month later. Bush made a speech in which he cited Tillman’s heroism 2 days after one of Bush’s top general’s had written a memo warning that President Bush should be told that it was “highly possible” Tillman’s death was the result of friendly fire, instead of his reported acts of valour for which Tillman had been awarded a Silver Star.
I guess this is not surprising considering the fact that it wasn’t until December 19th 2006 that this same Commander in Chief acknowledged for the first time that the United States was not winning the war in Iraq. On that day, in a 2006 post-election interview with the Washington Post, Bush said; "We're not winning, we're not losing," This statement was noteworthy because up until as recently as November 3rd of last year, President Bush had always responded to questions about whether the US was winning the war in Iraq by stating “Absolutely, we’re winning.”
This past month the President claimed that the Democratic majority in Congress was trying to usurp his authority as America’s Commander in Chief, by refusing to give him the money he wanted to continue the Iraq war. Bush complained that Democrats were putting US forces in Iraq at risk, because he would veto spending bills with strings attached regarding progress in the war.
Imagine that; it was the Democrats in Congress putting US forces at risk in Iraq, not the President’s decision to increase the number of soldiers deployed there. Given the fact that President Bush had spent 4 years demonstrating how capable he was in prosecuting the Iraq war, he couldn’t understand why the Democrats were trying to exceed their constitutional authority and micromanage the war.
Hmmm. It sounds like “the kettle calling the pot black” if you ask me. Democratic Majority leader Harry Reid’s retort to Bush was; “No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration’s incompetence and dishonesty,” like Republican legislators did.
The first book written by a member of the Bush administration’s inner circle has just been published and it provides some valuable insights regarding how the decision to invade Iraq was made. In it, Bush’s former CIA Director George Tenet writes that; “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat” nor “was there ever a significant discussion” about alternatives to invading Iraq as way to contain the possible threat Saddam Hussein might pose to the US.
Tenet says that VP Cheney and others wanted to attack Iraq from the moment Bush first took office, long before the 9/11 attacks. To that end Cheney and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld ignored his pre 9/11 warnings about al Qaeda and asked for briefings about Iraq instead. Tenet claims aides to Cheney and Rumsfeld repeatedly “stretched intelligence” reports and tried to “insert crap” into the Bush administration’s public justifications about why the US had to invade Iraq.
Tenet goes on to accuse Cheney, Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration, including embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, of being focused solely on Iraq as a threat to the US in 2001 and after 9/11 in 2002, while the CIA was instead focusing on al Qaeda. Tenet also claims to have tried to muffle VP Cheney’s assertions that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the US invaded, a patently false claim Cheney is still making today.
As regards Bush’s current strategy of throwing more money and troops at the problems in Iraq, Tenet shares my own concerns; “It may have worked more than three years ago,” but “My fear is that sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that U.S. forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of that violence.”
Tenet’s comments are supported by statements from President Bush’s former head of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke that; “prior to 9/11, Tenet was vociferous about al Qaeda and bin Laden They (Bush, Cheney et al) wouldn’t listen to him. And he was their Director of CIA for Christ’s sake.” Clarke also points to the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq saying that; “This was not about replacing Saddam Hussein. This was about some insane plot to rebuild Iraq in our (America’s) image. (That’s when) I knew the war on terrorism was lost. Because if you’re occupying an Arab country, you can’t possibly gain Arab support (against the terrorists).”
As for climate change, recent polls show that a majority of Democrats, independents and (yes) Republicans have little confidence in President Bush’s proposals dealing with global warming. The latest polls show that 90% of Democrats, 80% of independents and 60% of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Even many Republicans believe that the Democrats will do a better job of protecting the environment than Bush or Republicans have or will do in the future.
I believe after the Iraq war, the two most pressing concerns of most Americans are health care and measures to combat global warming. Unfortunately for Republicans, voters currently have more faith in Democrats addressing these 3 issues than in Bush or the Republicans doing so.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Todays National Elections in Ireland
Republican Politics, Irish Style
Published May 24th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
So what is my perspective on Ireland’s political parties? Well to begin with, they are all to the philosophical left of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the US. I have heard the comparisons some people make between the centrist Fianna Fail (FF) / pro-business Progressive Democrats (PD) coalition and the decidedly pro-business US Republican Party.
While there is some validity to these, the truth is Bertie Ahern’s governing coalition would be lucky to capture 5 seats in the Dail if they ever tried to run on anything resembling the conservative US Republican Party‘s conservative platform here in Ireland. The secret to the US Republican Party’s success since 1980 has been its ability to recruit traditionally Democratic working class voters to join its pro-business base of middle to upper income professionals and social conservative voters.
In contrast with US Republicans, I believe much of FF’s success in past elections has been due to the reverse, its ability to attract more conservative middle and upper income suburban voters to cast ballots for its candidates. Much like the current US Republican Party, I sense that FF/PD’s strength now lies with business interests and constituencies outside of more urban Dublin, with older, and more conservative middle to upper income voters in the rural and suburban areas of the country, in addition to its traditional constituency of working class voters.
This is a different constituency than that of the centrist Fine Gael (FG) / left-leaning Labour Party (LP) coalition, which I believe is more popular with students and workers in Dublin and Leinster as well as among farmers hurt by global economic market forces. I can also more readily envision the leftist Green Party joining in a coalition with the FG/LPs if need be, because they draw their support from somewhat similar constituencies in Dublin and other areas of Ireland.
What I find amazing about Irish politics though, is the fact that leftist Sinn Fein (SF) supporters are more in favour of being in a coalition with Fianna Fail than with the more leftist oriented opposition alternative FG/LP coalition. I guess this is because SF supporters are primarily lower income voters drawn from FF/PD’s traditional working class constituency.
But I have noticed that SF advocates social welfare policies similar to the now defunct Socialist Workers Party in the US. I also sense some support among some FF/PD voters for this coalition possibility as well. But I ask myself, what leftist SF supporters really have in common with the majority of centrist FF/PD voters? I don’t get it. All I can say is coalition politics sure do make for some strange bedfellows
In a recent TV interview, I was asked if I could foresee Sinn Fein becoming a part of a coalition government here in the Republic of Ireland. I said I thought they could under certain conditions. To begin with, I think SF would have to obtain more seats in the Dail by getting more 2nd, 3rd and 4th preference votes, but even then I don't see them being a factor in any coalition government until they first demonstrate that they can be an effective part of a government in Northern Ireland.
I also said that if economic conditions were worse than they currently are here in the Republic, then their social(ist) programs might find a broader appeal among voters. This would increase the number of seats they might win in a national election and give them more leverage to use when the time comes for SF to be considered as part of a future coalition government. But I think that time is still at least another election or two away because of SF’s past links to 40 years of IRA violence
As for which coalition will come out on top in this election, I see very little difference between the positions of both coalitions. Their messages are pretty much the same; cut taxes like stamp duties for first time home buyers, improve Ireland’s transportation infrastructure, cut crime with more Gardai and do a better job of addressing the country’s heath care and hospital concerns.
However, I do think the recent drop in house prices favours the FF/PDs. People tend to vote their pocketbooks in national elections and in times of rising economic uncertainty they will vote for the devil they know, instead of the devil they don’t. Bertie’s work on the Northern Ireland peace agreements is also a point in his favour
But the ruling coalition faces the same dilemma that incumbent parties in the US face. Since World War II, the presidency generally has switched from one party to the other every two terms: eight years of Democrat Harry Truman followed by eight years of Republican Dwight Eisenhower followed by eight years of Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and so on.
The exceptions were Jimmy Carter's failure to win re-election in 1980 and the senior George Bush's success in holding the White House for a third straight Republican term in 1988. But Bush won primarily by capitalizing on Reagan's popularity and Democrat Michael Dukakis’ mistakes.
So Bertie Ahern is also bucking history, in much the same way the US Republican Party’s 2008 presidential nominee will be, in his bid for an unprecedented third term as Ireland’s Prime Minister
If FG/LP can make Bertie’s “personal loans” and failure to deliver promised government services in a cost effective way, bigger issues than they currently appear to be, then I would say that Ireland will have its closest election in many years and that there will be a new governing coalition come May 25th when the results are announced tomorrow.
Otherwise, I think you will probably wake up tomorrow morning facing another 5 years of the same governing FF/PD coalition, albeit one with fewer seats in the Dail and maybe even another coalition partner as well.
Published May 24th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
So what is my perspective on Ireland’s political parties? Well to begin with, they are all to the philosophical left of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the US. I have heard the comparisons some people make between the centrist Fianna Fail (FF) / pro-business Progressive Democrats (PD) coalition and the decidedly pro-business US Republican Party.
While there is some validity to these, the truth is Bertie Ahern’s governing coalition would be lucky to capture 5 seats in the Dail if they ever tried to run on anything resembling the conservative US Republican Party‘s conservative platform here in Ireland. The secret to the US Republican Party’s success since 1980 has been its ability to recruit traditionally Democratic working class voters to join its pro-business base of middle to upper income professionals and social conservative voters.
In contrast with US Republicans, I believe much of FF’s success in past elections has been due to the reverse, its ability to attract more conservative middle and upper income suburban voters to cast ballots for its candidates. Much like the current US Republican Party, I sense that FF/PD’s strength now lies with business interests and constituencies outside of more urban Dublin, with older, and more conservative middle to upper income voters in the rural and suburban areas of the country, in addition to its traditional constituency of working class voters.
This is a different constituency than that of the centrist Fine Gael (FG) / left-leaning Labour Party (LP) coalition, which I believe is more popular with students and workers in Dublin and Leinster as well as among farmers hurt by global economic market forces. I can also more readily envision the leftist Green Party joining in a coalition with the FG/LPs if need be, because they draw their support from somewhat similar constituencies in Dublin and other areas of Ireland.
What I find amazing about Irish politics though, is the fact that leftist Sinn Fein (SF) supporters are more in favour of being in a coalition with Fianna Fail than with the more leftist oriented opposition alternative FG/LP coalition. I guess this is because SF supporters are primarily lower income voters drawn from FF/PD’s traditional working class constituency.
But I have noticed that SF advocates social welfare policies similar to the now defunct Socialist Workers Party in the US. I also sense some support among some FF/PD voters for this coalition possibility as well. But I ask myself, what leftist SF supporters really have in common with the majority of centrist FF/PD voters? I don’t get it. All I can say is coalition politics sure do make for some strange bedfellows
In a recent TV interview, I was asked if I could foresee Sinn Fein becoming a part of a coalition government here in the Republic of Ireland. I said I thought they could under certain conditions. To begin with, I think SF would have to obtain more seats in the Dail by getting more 2nd, 3rd and 4th preference votes, but even then I don't see them being a factor in any coalition government until they first demonstrate that they can be an effective part of a government in Northern Ireland.
I also said that if economic conditions were worse than they currently are here in the Republic, then their social(ist) programs might find a broader appeal among voters. This would increase the number of seats they might win in a national election and give them more leverage to use when the time comes for SF to be considered as part of a future coalition government. But I think that time is still at least another election or two away because of SF’s past links to 40 years of IRA violence
As for which coalition will come out on top in this election, I see very little difference between the positions of both coalitions. Their messages are pretty much the same; cut taxes like stamp duties for first time home buyers, improve Ireland’s transportation infrastructure, cut crime with more Gardai and do a better job of addressing the country’s heath care and hospital concerns.
However, I do think the recent drop in house prices favours the FF/PDs. People tend to vote their pocketbooks in national elections and in times of rising economic uncertainty they will vote for the devil they know, instead of the devil they don’t. Bertie’s work on the Northern Ireland peace agreements is also a point in his favour
But the ruling coalition faces the same dilemma that incumbent parties in the US face. Since World War II, the presidency generally has switched from one party to the other every two terms: eight years of Democrat Harry Truman followed by eight years of Republican Dwight Eisenhower followed by eight years of Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and so on.
The exceptions were Jimmy Carter's failure to win re-election in 1980 and the senior George Bush's success in holding the White House for a third straight Republican term in 1988. But Bush won primarily by capitalizing on Reagan's popularity and Democrat Michael Dukakis’ mistakes.
So Bertie Ahern is also bucking history, in much the same way the US Republican Party’s 2008 presidential nominee will be, in his bid for an unprecedented third term as Ireland’s Prime Minister
If FG/LP can make Bertie’s “personal loans” and failure to deliver promised government services in a cost effective way, bigger issues than they currently appear to be, then I would say that Ireland will have its closest election in many years and that there will be a new governing coalition come May 25th when the results are announced tomorrow.
Otherwise, I think you will probably wake up tomorrow morning facing another 5 years of the same governing FF/PD coalition, albeit one with fewer seats in the Dail and maybe even another coalition partner as well.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Republican Politics Irish Style
Republican Politics, Irish Style
Published May 17th in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my first very first column for Metro Eireann, I said that while I was here in Dublin “I hope to familiarise myself with the political landscape of Ireland.” Having lived here in Dublin, Ireland since last September, now that it is Election Day in the Republic of Ireland I guess it’s time for me to share an American Republican’s perspective on Irish politics.
But before I discuss Ireland’s political parties and my views about their electoral prospects, I want to weigh in with some opinions on the mechanics of the voting process itself. For starters, I think it is much more difficult to exercise your right to vote here in Ireland than it is back in the States.
What gives with this Irish voting procedure that only gives you 2 days to cast absentee ballots? US citizens, within and outside the US can cast absentee ballots by mail for 30 days prior to Election Day, which for all national elections every 2 years is on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
For reasons of both convenience and cost, the vast majority of state elections are also held that same day in conjunction with the national elections for Congress and (every four years) for the US Presidency. Furthermore, many states (including my home state of Texas) allow voters to visit designated polling places and cast their votes in person during that same 30 day window prior to Election Day.
One of the main reasons for allowing these early voting dates (including Saturdays) and absentee ballot procedures is to encourage more citizens to vote in local, state and national elections. Many states refer to them as “no excuses” voting measures in recognition of US citizens’ explanations for why they don’t vote more often, if at all.
In spite of these as well as other steps to make voter registration easier, in the last national election only 55% of eligible Americans bothered to vote. As dismal as this number is, the percentage drops to around 40-45 % in state and local elections if there isn’t a national election being held simultaneously. Worse yet, local elections for Mayor or city councils may draw as few as 20% of eligible voters to the polls.
The reason I am dwelling on this issue is because I see Ireland following this same path as the US, in terms of declining voter turnout over the last 30 years, from almost 78% in 1970 to under 63% in 2002. What I don’t see are steps by the government to address this issue. Calling for a national election on the Thursday before a bank holiday doesn’t strike me as a tactic designed to encourage voter turnout. In fact if I may be so bold as to make a prediction, I think participation in this year’s national election will probably drop below 60%.
On the other hand, I do like the fact that Ireland allows non-Irish citizens the right to vote in local elections. On this point, the US still has a long way to go, since only US citizens can vote in any local, state or national elections. Many US states go even further and do not allow US citizens who have been convicted of a felony to vote either. I find it shameful that while Ireland may one day allow its non-Irish residents the right to also vote in Dail and national elections, the US still won’t allow all of its own citizens this same privilege
I am also aware that Thursdays are the traditional election days here in Ireland much like the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is back in the states. But I find it ironic that this same government justified its decision to schedule Ireland’s first ever nation-wide Saturday election in 2002 in order to facilitate voting by students and younger workers in Dublin in a second vote on an EU treaty.
The government said it wanted to give them time to travel to their homes outside of Dublin and vote on a EU treaty. It must have worked since voter turnout was 50% higher in the second election, but apparently Bertie doesn’t feel as strongly about them voting in Ireland’s first national election in 5 years. I wonder why?
Could it be that the government was aware that those students and workers living in Dublin were more likely to vote in favour of this EU Treaty, (which the government was backing), than other voters in rural and western Ireland who had not experienced the same benefits of EU membership? Hmmm, I think it could be.
Is it possible that this same government is also aware that those students and young workers in Dublin do not remember the bad economic times, which makes them more sympathetic to charges that the current government has been wasteful and slow in improving health services and thus more likely to vote in favour of changing the governing coalition? Hmmm, this appears to be quite plausible to me as well.
What I can tell you with a high degree of certainty, is that my own Republican Party in the US, is very wary of high voter turnout in urban areas. Why? Because students and younger workers in urban areas tend to vote for the opposing Democratic Party in addition to the Democrat’s historic constituency of organized labour, lower income minorities and the urban poor.
Up until the 1970’s Democrats also received a majority of the lower to middle income working class votes as well. But that traditional Democratic constituency started to vote Republican in the southern and western parts of the US when Nixon was elected and has been solidly Republican ever since Regan was elected in 1980.
Republicans currently rely on older, middle and upper income constituents who live in suburban and rural areas as well as the working class voters in the western and southern states for most of their voting support. Since a higher percentage of older voters tend to go to the polls than younger and or minority voters, a low voter turnout also gives the Republicans and their constituents an edge in close elections.
Next week I will discuss my perspective on Ireland’s political parties and coalitions in what looks to be a very close and tightly contested national election.
Published May 17th in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my first very first column for Metro Eireann, I said that while I was here in Dublin “I hope to familiarise myself with the political landscape of Ireland.” Having lived here in Dublin, Ireland since last September, now that it is Election Day in the Republic of Ireland I guess it’s time for me to share an American Republican’s perspective on Irish politics.
But before I discuss Ireland’s political parties and my views about their electoral prospects, I want to weigh in with some opinions on the mechanics of the voting process itself. For starters, I think it is much more difficult to exercise your right to vote here in Ireland than it is back in the States.
What gives with this Irish voting procedure that only gives you 2 days to cast absentee ballots? US citizens, within and outside the US can cast absentee ballots by mail for 30 days prior to Election Day, which for all national elections every 2 years is on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
For reasons of both convenience and cost, the vast majority of state elections are also held that same day in conjunction with the national elections for Congress and (every four years) for the US Presidency. Furthermore, many states (including my home state of Texas) allow voters to visit designated polling places and cast their votes in person during that same 30 day window prior to Election Day.
One of the main reasons for allowing these early voting dates (including Saturdays) and absentee ballot procedures is to encourage more citizens to vote in local, state and national elections. Many states refer to them as “no excuses” voting measures in recognition of US citizens’ explanations for why they don’t vote more often, if at all.
In spite of these as well as other steps to make voter registration easier, in the last national election only 55% of eligible Americans bothered to vote. As dismal as this number is, the percentage drops to around 40-45 % in state and local elections if there isn’t a national election being held simultaneously. Worse yet, local elections for Mayor or city councils may draw as few as 20% of eligible voters to the polls.
The reason I am dwelling on this issue is because I see Ireland following this same path as the US, in terms of declining voter turnout over the last 30 years, from almost 78% in 1970 to under 63% in 2002. What I don’t see are steps by the government to address this issue. Calling for a national election on the Thursday before a bank holiday doesn’t strike me as a tactic designed to encourage voter turnout. In fact if I may be so bold as to make a prediction, I think participation in this year’s national election will probably drop below 60%.
On the other hand, I do like the fact that Ireland allows non-Irish citizens the right to vote in local elections. On this point, the US still has a long way to go, since only US citizens can vote in any local, state or national elections. Many US states go even further and do not allow US citizens who have been convicted of a felony to vote either. I find it shameful that while Ireland may one day allow its non-Irish residents the right to also vote in Dail and national elections, the US still won’t allow all of its own citizens this same privilege
I am also aware that Thursdays are the traditional election days here in Ireland much like the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is back in the states. But I find it ironic that this same government justified its decision to schedule Ireland’s first ever nation-wide Saturday election in 2002 in order to facilitate voting by students and younger workers in Dublin in a second vote on an EU treaty.
The government said it wanted to give them time to travel to their homes outside of Dublin and vote on a EU treaty. It must have worked since voter turnout was 50% higher in the second election, but apparently Bertie doesn’t feel as strongly about them voting in Ireland’s first national election in 5 years. I wonder why?
Could it be that the government was aware that those students and workers living in Dublin were more likely to vote in favour of this EU Treaty, (which the government was backing), than other voters in rural and western Ireland who had not experienced the same benefits of EU membership? Hmmm, I think it could be.
Is it possible that this same government is also aware that those students and young workers in Dublin do not remember the bad economic times, which makes them more sympathetic to charges that the current government has been wasteful and slow in improving health services and thus more likely to vote in favour of changing the governing coalition? Hmmm, this appears to be quite plausible to me as well.
What I can tell you with a high degree of certainty, is that my own Republican Party in the US, is very wary of high voter turnout in urban areas. Why? Because students and younger workers in urban areas tend to vote for the opposing Democratic Party in addition to the Democrat’s historic constituency of organized labour, lower income minorities and the urban poor.
Up until the 1970’s Democrats also received a majority of the lower to middle income working class votes as well. But that traditional Democratic constituency started to vote Republican in the southern and western parts of the US when Nixon was elected and has been solidly Republican ever since Regan was elected in 1980.
Republicans currently rely on older, middle and upper income constituents who live in suburban and rural areas as well as the working class voters in the western and southern states for most of their voting support. Since a higher percentage of older voters tend to go to the polls than younger and or minority voters, a low voter turnout also gives the Republicans and their constituents an edge in close elections.
Next week I will discuss my perspective on Ireland’s political parties and coalitions in what looks to be a very close and tightly contested national election.
US Ambassador Foley discusses Bush's climate change policies
Republican Politics, American Style
Published May 10th in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
US Ambassador Thomas Foley began his talk at Dublin City University (DCU) by telling the audience what he hoped to accomplish with this appearance. He started out by trying to frame the issue in terms of where the US stood relative to other countries in Europe as regards energy consumption and reducing carbon emissions as suggested in the Kyoto Protocol.
The Ambassador was on pretty firm ground here and some of the facts he referenced may have come as a surprise to some audience members. He got the bad news out of the way early by acknowledging that the US was indeed the world’s biggest polluter in terms of generating green house gases. He duly noted statistics which for example show that on a per person basis, the US generated more than 2 times as much carbon based wastes as the average German, 3 times more than the French and 40% more than the average Irish resident. From this point on, the Ambassador moved into a defensive justification or attack mode.
He said that while the US was the largest polluter in terms of total carbon wastes generated by a single country, it would be overtaken this year by China. While I think this comment was a bit of a stretch since this won’t actually happen until 2009, I will nonetheless concede this point. But the Ambassador also failed to mention that China has over one billion more citizens than the US, which means the Chinese will still only be generating 25% of the carbon wastes that are generated by the average American once it does become the world’s biggest polluting nation.
Ambassador Foley then went on to defend the US decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it assigned mandatory emission limits for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to each signatory nation. He said that the 30% cuts in carbon emissions demanded of the US would have caused serious economic problems had the US agreed to these limitations. Mr. Foley then noted that Australia, which like the US relies on coal to generate much of its electricity, had also declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Ambassador Foley went on to say that the US wanted to ensure that carbon gas emission limits were also applied to countries such as China, which is not required to cut emissions under the current treaty. I must agree with him on this issue.
The Ambassador then pointed out that even though the US had not agreed to the limits, it had nonetheless done a better job of cutting the rate of growth in its carbon gas emissions than the EU countries which had signed the Kyoto Protocol. It may have come as a bit of a surprise to some in the audience that the US had cut this rate of growth to a level that was 40% less than the the EU average. But he also failed to mention that it is much easier to cut one’s rate of growth when you are already generating wastes at a much higher level than nations you are comparing yourself to.
President Bush’s strategy to tackle global warming basically relies on scientific developments and voluntary measures, rather than curbs on greenhouse-gas emissions.As part of his sales pitch to pesuade the audience that the Bush administration is seriously doing something to address the problem of global warming, Ambassador Foley outlined three methods being used to cut US green house gas emissions followed by an assessment of each method’s impact
First he mentioned greater energy efficiency being derived from the use of low wattage flourescent light bulbs and better home insulation. He then noted that even if this method was broadly utilized it would, at best, result in a 20-30% increase in energy efficiency which would be equivalent to the growth of energy consumption.
Secondly, he referred to the use of alternative sources of energy such as wind, hydro, solar and nuclear. He mentioned France as a country which emits less green house gases per person, largely because it derives 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy. The Ambassador then stated that while the US obtains about 18% of its electricity from such sources currently, their contribution was likely to drop in the near future due to the long lead times involved in bringing these types of power generation on line. In fact it has been almost thirty years since the US ordered its last nuclear plant, due to the US public’s fears about nuclear accidents after the near meltdown at Three Mile Island and the subsequent release of the anti-nuclear plant movie “The China Syndrome”.
Finally, the Ambassador alluded to the recapture of carbon emissions and sequestration of green house gases through the use of rapid reforestration, which involves planting new forests of trees on land which is no longer being used for agriculture. The impact of this program is hard to quantify, but suffice to say it is not going to result in major reductions in green house gas emissions.
By outlining all of the available “voluntary” measures for reducing green house gas emissions, Ambassador Foley had thus set the stage for what President Bush touts as the ultimate solution, new technologies. The Ambassador cited the need for technological breakthroughs in the development of fuel cells and nuclear fusion as sources of clean energy which could then be used to replace carbon based energy sources. But to realize this goal entails continuing to grow economically so that money can be generated to invest in these new technology solutions.
Noticeably absent from Ambassador Foley’s discussion of President Bush’s proposals to reduce green house gases are federal government regulations to increase automobile fuel economy standards and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Ambassador noted that individual states like California had always led the way in this area and that the US government would follow once a consensus had emerged at the state level. However, as I mentioned in my previous column, the US Supreme Court recently chastized Bush appointees at the EPA for refusing to regulate automobile emissions of green house gases as mandated by existing federal laws.
Nor was any mention made of a separate and unanimous Supreme Court ruling which said that the EPA also had authority over factories and power plants that add generating capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants. One must therefore conclude that the Bush administration’s refusal to uphold existing federal laws governing green house gas emissions by automobiles and power plants is seriously at odds with the Ambassador’s contention that President Bush is very concerned about this problem and is actively working to address it.
While I believe the US Ambassador was being sincere and honest in discussing what he believes the Bush administration is doing to address climate change, the actions of the Bush administration thus far speak much louder than Ambassador Foley’s words.
Published May 10th in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau
US Ambassador Thomas Foley began his talk at Dublin City University (DCU) by telling the audience what he hoped to accomplish with this appearance. He started out by trying to frame the issue in terms of where the US stood relative to other countries in Europe as regards energy consumption and reducing carbon emissions as suggested in the Kyoto Protocol.
The Ambassador was on pretty firm ground here and some of the facts he referenced may have come as a surprise to some audience members. He got the bad news out of the way early by acknowledging that the US was indeed the world’s biggest polluter in terms of generating green house gases. He duly noted statistics which for example show that on a per person basis, the US generated more than 2 times as much carbon based wastes as the average German, 3 times more than the French and 40% more than the average Irish resident. From this point on, the Ambassador moved into a defensive justification or attack mode.
He said that while the US was the largest polluter in terms of total carbon wastes generated by a single country, it would be overtaken this year by China. While I think this comment was a bit of a stretch since this won’t actually happen until 2009, I will nonetheless concede this point. But the Ambassador also failed to mention that China has over one billion more citizens than the US, which means the Chinese will still only be generating 25% of the carbon wastes that are generated by the average American once it does become the world’s biggest polluting nation.
Ambassador Foley then went on to defend the US decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it assigned mandatory emission limits for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to each signatory nation. He said that the 30% cuts in carbon emissions demanded of the US would have caused serious economic problems had the US agreed to these limitations. Mr. Foley then noted that Australia, which like the US relies on coal to generate much of its electricity, had also declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Ambassador Foley went on to say that the US wanted to ensure that carbon gas emission limits were also applied to countries such as China, which is not required to cut emissions under the current treaty. I must agree with him on this issue.
The Ambassador then pointed out that even though the US had not agreed to the limits, it had nonetheless done a better job of cutting the rate of growth in its carbon gas emissions than the EU countries which had signed the Kyoto Protocol. It may have come as a bit of a surprise to some in the audience that the US had cut this rate of growth to a level that was 40% less than the the EU average. But he also failed to mention that it is much easier to cut one’s rate of growth when you are already generating wastes at a much higher level than nations you are comparing yourself to.
President Bush’s strategy to tackle global warming basically relies on scientific developments and voluntary measures, rather than curbs on greenhouse-gas emissions.As part of his sales pitch to pesuade the audience that the Bush administration is seriously doing something to address the problem of global warming, Ambassador Foley outlined three methods being used to cut US green house gas emissions followed by an assessment of each method’s impact
First he mentioned greater energy efficiency being derived from the use of low wattage flourescent light bulbs and better home insulation. He then noted that even if this method was broadly utilized it would, at best, result in a 20-30% increase in energy efficiency which would be equivalent to the growth of energy consumption.
Secondly, he referred to the use of alternative sources of energy such as wind, hydro, solar and nuclear. He mentioned France as a country which emits less green house gases per person, largely because it derives 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy. The Ambassador then stated that while the US obtains about 18% of its electricity from such sources currently, their contribution was likely to drop in the near future due to the long lead times involved in bringing these types of power generation on line. In fact it has been almost thirty years since the US ordered its last nuclear plant, due to the US public’s fears about nuclear accidents after the near meltdown at Three Mile Island and the subsequent release of the anti-nuclear plant movie “The China Syndrome”.
Finally, the Ambassador alluded to the recapture of carbon emissions and sequestration of green house gases through the use of rapid reforestration, which involves planting new forests of trees on land which is no longer being used for agriculture. The impact of this program is hard to quantify, but suffice to say it is not going to result in major reductions in green house gas emissions.
By outlining all of the available “voluntary” measures for reducing green house gas emissions, Ambassador Foley had thus set the stage for what President Bush touts as the ultimate solution, new technologies. The Ambassador cited the need for technological breakthroughs in the development of fuel cells and nuclear fusion as sources of clean energy which could then be used to replace carbon based energy sources. But to realize this goal entails continuing to grow economically so that money can be generated to invest in these new technology solutions.
Noticeably absent from Ambassador Foley’s discussion of President Bush’s proposals to reduce green house gases are federal government regulations to increase automobile fuel economy standards and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Ambassador noted that individual states like California had always led the way in this area and that the US government would follow once a consensus had emerged at the state level. However, as I mentioned in my previous column, the US Supreme Court recently chastized Bush appointees at the EPA for refusing to regulate automobile emissions of green house gases as mandated by existing federal laws.
Nor was any mention made of a separate and unanimous Supreme Court ruling which said that the EPA also had authority over factories and power plants that add generating capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants. One must therefore conclude that the Bush administration’s refusal to uphold existing federal laws governing green house gas emissions by automobiles and power plants is seriously at odds with the Ambassador’s contention that President Bush is very concerned about this problem and is actively working to address it.
While I believe the US Ambassador was being sincere and honest in discussing what he believes the Bush administration is doing to address climate change, the actions of the Bush administration thus far speak much louder than Ambassador Foley’s words.
Monday, May 7, 2007
My Chat with US Ambassador about Climate change
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on May 3rd 2007 in Metro Eireann
By Charles Laffiteau
The US Ambassador to Ireland, Thomas Foley recently spoke to students at Dublin City University (DCU) about what the United States is doing to address concerns about climate change due to global warming. I must say that I admire the Ambassador for his willingness to discuss this issue and field questions about Bush administration policies from an audience that he knew would be less than sympathetic.
While I think Ambassador Foley did a good job of framing the problem, I don’t think he made as much headway in terms of persuading the audience that the Bush administration was very concerned about this issue. It isn’t easy to defend the steps the Bush administration has taken to reduce US green house gas emissions when these proposals simply do not square with the view that President Bush sees this as a serious problem.
To find out precisely what those steps are, you can access President Bush’s environmental proposals on the web at www.whitehouse.gov. Be forewarned that you will have to do a bit of searching once you get there though. On the White House home page you will have to click on “other issues” at the end of an IN FOCUS issues column of 15 categories including Immigration, Iraq, Pandemic Flu and the Patriot Act. Mind you, these are also important issues, but you nonetheless get a sense that the environment isn’t exactly a top Bush administration priority.
This feeling is reinforced when you get to the “other issues” page which highlights President Bush’s judicial nominations and efforts to strengthen social security. But if you will ignore this and look in the right hand column under “Policies and Initiatives” there is an alphabetical listing which includes one on Environment. Click on this and the next page will highlight the President’s US National Parks Centennial Initiative.
Now don’t get discouraged. If you will look very carefully in the right hand column under the “Documents” heading, in the smallest print on the page, you will find a listing for “Global Climate Change Policy Book”. Click on this and you will find out exactly what the Bush administration proposes to do to address global climate change. In the Executive Summary President Bush says: "Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment." In other words, the solution to solving the problem of global warming is to keep consuming energy and growing economically, while we wait for new affordable technologies to be developed.
President Bush goes on to state that: “The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change." Note the President’s use of the phrase: “While scientific uncertainties remain” as regards the effects of green house gas emissions on climate change.
This statement underlines Bush administration officials’ efforts to censor statements and scientific reports by the US Government’s own climate scientists regarding the reality of global warming and what is causing it. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has a track record of removing “uncertainties” (as it did with highly questionable rumours and intelligence reports of WMDs and al-Qaeda’s pre-war presence in Iraq) or injecting them (as Philip Cooney did in his editing of government scientists’ climate reports over several years) to justify the Bush administration’s actions or inaction on various issues.
Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was the “climate team leader” for the American Petroleum Institute (the main oil industry lobby) before he joined the White House staff. He was subsequently hired by Exxon Mobil after he resigned his White House position in 2005. Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his changes to climate science reports on the “most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge”, yet was unable to identify who these authoritative sources of scientific knowledge were. Oil company scientists no doubt.
On the other hand, the US space agency, NASA’s top climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen protested this editing by Mr. Cooney, calling it censorship of US government scientific reports. He cited this and efforts by other Bush political appointees to limit scientists access to the news media as attempts to “muddy the waters” of the US public debate about global warming and climate change issues.
While Ambassador Foley privately acknowledged that this may have been true a couple of years ago, he truly seems to believe that this is no longer the case. I think the Ambassador honestly feels that no one in the Bush administration is still questioning whether or not climate change due to global warming is really happening. I hope his assessment is accurate even though one might still doubt this given the fact that the Global Climate Change Policy Book still references “scientific uncertainties”.
There is also other evidence to suggest that the Bush administration still doesn’t get it. Just last month the US Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. This decision represented a strong reprimand to the Bush administration, which had argued that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion which stated that; “The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading,” adding that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.” Even more damning was the Supreme Court’s assessment of the Bush administration’s justification for not regulating such pollutants. The Justices were very critical of the Bush administration’s defence of its position, stating that it amounted to nothing more than a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate.” The Court went on to state that Bush’s political appointees running the EPA had defied the Clean Air Act’s “clear statutory command,” to regulate green house gas emissions.
Given all of the aforementioned examples, one cannot help but question President Bush’s “real” concerns about climate change and the Bush administration’s position that it is actively working to address this issue. If the US Supreme Court doesn’t buy these contentions, why should I?
Next week I will discuss some of the specific issues Ambassador Foley highlighted during his attempt to make a case for President Bush’s proposals on what the US is doing to address the problem of climate change.
Published on May 3rd 2007 in Metro Eireann
By Charles Laffiteau
The US Ambassador to Ireland, Thomas Foley recently spoke to students at Dublin City University (DCU) about what the United States is doing to address concerns about climate change due to global warming. I must say that I admire the Ambassador for his willingness to discuss this issue and field questions about Bush administration policies from an audience that he knew would be less than sympathetic.
While I think Ambassador Foley did a good job of framing the problem, I don’t think he made as much headway in terms of persuading the audience that the Bush administration was very concerned about this issue. It isn’t easy to defend the steps the Bush administration has taken to reduce US green house gas emissions when these proposals simply do not square with the view that President Bush sees this as a serious problem.
To find out precisely what those steps are, you can access President Bush’s environmental proposals on the web at www.whitehouse.gov. Be forewarned that you will have to do a bit of searching once you get there though. On the White House home page you will have to click on “other issues” at the end of an IN FOCUS issues column of 15 categories including Immigration, Iraq, Pandemic Flu and the Patriot Act. Mind you, these are also important issues, but you nonetheless get a sense that the environment isn’t exactly a top Bush administration priority.
This feeling is reinforced when you get to the “other issues” page which highlights President Bush’s judicial nominations and efforts to strengthen social security. But if you will ignore this and look in the right hand column under “Policies and Initiatives” there is an alphabetical listing which includes one on Environment. Click on this and the next page will highlight the President’s US National Parks Centennial Initiative.
Now don’t get discouraged. If you will look very carefully in the right hand column under the “Documents” heading, in the smallest print on the page, you will find a listing for “Global Climate Change Policy Book”. Click on this and you will find out exactly what the Bush administration proposes to do to address global climate change. In the Executive Summary President Bush says: "Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment." In other words, the solution to solving the problem of global warming is to keep consuming energy and growing economically, while we wait for new affordable technologies to be developed.
President Bush goes on to state that: “The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change." Note the President’s use of the phrase: “While scientific uncertainties remain” as regards the effects of green house gas emissions on climate change.
This statement underlines Bush administration officials’ efforts to censor statements and scientific reports by the US Government’s own climate scientists regarding the reality of global warming and what is causing it. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has a track record of removing “uncertainties” (as it did with highly questionable rumours and intelligence reports of WMDs and al-Qaeda’s pre-war presence in Iraq) or injecting them (as Philip Cooney did in his editing of government scientists’ climate reports over several years) to justify the Bush administration’s actions or inaction on various issues.
Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was the “climate team leader” for the American Petroleum Institute (the main oil industry lobby) before he joined the White House staff. He was subsequently hired by Exxon Mobil after he resigned his White House position in 2005. Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his changes to climate science reports on the “most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge”, yet was unable to identify who these authoritative sources of scientific knowledge were. Oil company scientists no doubt.
On the other hand, the US space agency, NASA’s top climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen protested this editing by Mr. Cooney, calling it censorship of US government scientific reports. He cited this and efforts by other Bush political appointees to limit scientists access to the news media as attempts to “muddy the waters” of the US public debate about global warming and climate change issues.
While Ambassador Foley privately acknowledged that this may have been true a couple of years ago, he truly seems to believe that this is no longer the case. I think the Ambassador honestly feels that no one in the Bush administration is still questioning whether or not climate change due to global warming is really happening. I hope his assessment is accurate even though one might still doubt this given the fact that the Global Climate Change Policy Book still references “scientific uncertainties”.
There is also other evidence to suggest that the Bush administration still doesn’t get it. Just last month the US Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. This decision represented a strong reprimand to the Bush administration, which had argued that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion which stated that; “The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading,” adding that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.” Even more damning was the Supreme Court’s assessment of the Bush administration’s justification for not regulating such pollutants. The Justices were very critical of the Bush administration’s defence of its position, stating that it amounted to nothing more than a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate.” The Court went on to state that Bush’s political appointees running the EPA had defied the Clean Air Act’s “clear statutory command,” to regulate green house gas emissions.
Given all of the aforementioned examples, one cannot help but question President Bush’s “real” concerns about climate change and the Bush administration’s position that it is actively working to address this issue. If the US Supreme Court doesn’t buy these contentions, why should I?
Next week I will discuss some of the specific issues Ambassador Foley highlighted during his attempt to make a case for President Bush’s proposals on what the US is doing to address the problem of climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
