As Mitt Romney inches closer to the Republican nomination, we, as a party, are going to have to start to seriously ask ourselves who the Vice President should be.This debate, speculation, and hoping has been plaguing the airwaves, the blogosphere, and the coffee shops across the nation.And, it is clear who the preliminary front runners are:Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Nikki Haley, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and several others (literally, I could list them all day).So, let’s go through them all one by one and break down what they would bring to the campaign, and what they might draw away.
Chris Christie came into the national spotlight in 2009 when he defeated Governor Corzine with 48.5% of the vote, to 44.9% of the Democratic ballots.After six years as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Christie had developed a reputation for blunt behavior, and a knack for getting things done.This, of course, created a lot of enemies – being found mostly in the ranks of the state’s corrupt. He led the charge against state corruption, in an essence, sweeping out from underneath the carpet the segments of the public service that had lost sight of their obligations.Fraudsters, the corrupt, and tax evaders all feel into Christie’s crosshairs, and felt the wrath of a population that was slowly growing weary of public waste.
As governor, in the middle of the housing crisis, he took steps to stem the tide by freezing the defunct Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and putting into place the Housing Opportunity Task Force that would be charged with re-evaluating the red tape that had hampered the economic conditions of the New Jersey housing market.In his first year, New Jersey was also heading for a cliff, and the breaks were cut – so, the Governor pulled the emergency break, and ordered a “state of fiscal emergency” in the face of the daunting $2.2 billion budget deficit that came from years of irresponsible Democratic spending and an economic downturn.
To cure the 2010 deficit, Christie cut about $1 billion from the deficit, and called on schools districts to “spend their surpluses in order to allow the state to withhold $400 million in aid.”With these steps, the Governor saved New Jersey from bankruptcy – he had cut negligent spending inherited from Gov. Corzine and had called upon the communities to also take some steps to help the state get out of the red.For, it is not the duty of Trenton to bailout the state; it is the duty of the state to bailout the state.Many today question the move to take surplus money from schools – and, under normal circumstances, I would agree.Why should our schools be targeted and asked to bear the burden of years of reckless Democratic spending?The facts are, if the state were to have gone bankrupt, the schools would have been asked to do a lot more than offer their surplus, there would have been cuts – and Catch-22 cuts are not the solution to any set of problems.The use of surplus as a barrier island in the face of a debt tsunami is a responsible move, and it is an example of a governor who saw the peril, and used the responsible, available tools to quell the threat.
In 2011, Christie vetoed 14 spending bills, passed by the State Assembly, with the intention of creating jobs.On the surface, the move appears to be a cruel smack in the face to the people of New Jersey – but alas, that is not the case.The Democratically controlled legislature passed these bills without proper financing.Just a year after averting catastrophe who could honestly expect a governor, who was forced to take surplus money from schools, to pass 14 unfunded bills?The veto power kept the legislature in check, and helped control the spending that had gotten the state in its original trouble.
Many view Governor Christie as a fat, brash, curt, bastard who is better at offending than reasoning.And to that I say, is that a bad thing.Yes, the governor is large – but when did the appearance of the person dictate the will of the heart and the clairvoyance of the mind?Yes, he is brash and curt – but who would be calm when dealing with an imbedded Democratic majority who, time and time again, insists on reckless spending, spending the state cannot afford.Christie has a record of reform and cleaning house.He invokes in my mind an image of a T. Roosevelt Republican, hell bent on reforming the government, and sweeping out from under the rug years of corruption and frivolity.Who better, I ask, to join Mitt in the fight for the White House, as Washington spending rolls about the deck like a loose cannon in a hurricane.Christie is not in the business of making friends; he is in the business of reform and upright representation!
There would be, I admit, a downside to Christie being the Vice President.Many in the Republican Party, the Conservatives of the Heart that I have recently begun writing and talking about, see Mitt Romney as an outsider, he is a big businessman born in Michigan, and based in Massachusetts who has a hard time connecting with the core of the party.And, those people want to look for someone they can connect with.Can the regular man in Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas really connect with Chris Christie?Can they see in him a man who holds their values at heart?I do not know, but I do know the base of our party is treading lightly at the notion of a northern-eastern ticket, packed with Nixonian Republicans.
If Gov. Christie represents this new wave of conservative house cleaners that followed the election of Barack Obama, then Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana represents a different brand of Republican.He represents the new old guard, a generation of politicians who rode to power on the coat tails of George W. Bush.During his 2005 gubernatorial campaign, his slogan, painted on the side of his RV, was “My Man Mitch” – the slogan given to him by President Bush.Bush campaigned with him twice, which, for a gubernatorial election, on an off-election year, is a pretty high number.
Daniels ran on the notion of cutting the state budget and privatizing public agencies – a move that mirrors the Conservative movement in Britain during the 1980s.As soon as he assumed office, Daniels created the Office of Management and Budget with the intention of reviewing state spending and finding areas where cuts could be made.He also rescinded the 1989 executive order that required all state employees to pay union dues – in doing so he also decertified all the government employee unions.On top of government reform, Daniels also took bounding steps to bring investment into Indiana.In his first term, he created the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) with the intent to “act at the speed of business, not the speed of government” to develop new jobs.From 2005 to 2008, Indiana had attracted $12.5 billion and over 60,000 new jobs, including investment from Toyota, Honda, and Cummins (Honda and Toyota were courted during Daniels’ 12-day trade mission in Asia.
In 2008 Daniels reformed Indiana’s property tax laws, cutting the average property tax by more than 30%, and even took steps, along with the help of a Democrat controlled legislature, to amend the tax limits to the state constitution.And, in 2010, the people of Indiana voted to ratify the constitutional changes, thus solidifying the tax record of the Governor.Also, in 2008, the Manhattan Institute gave Daniels the Urban Innovator Award for his dealing with Indiana’s rascal and urban problems. By 2010, riding the wave of anti-Obama and anti-Democrat popular sentiment, the Republicans swept the state legislature and came to power with two super-majorities.So, for the first time in Daniels’ career, the Republican Party had full control of the General Assembly.
It is at this time when the Governor breaks from his traditional, bipartisan aura, and he starts to appease the conservative wing of the party.In 2011, the Republican leadership began to press for a right-to-work law in the state.This would allow workers to be free from union dues and requirements.The theory, of course, is that this will make the state more competitive and profitable for both business and employers.The Democrats left the state, in a walkout inspired by the 2011 Madison Wisconsin walkouts, so the law could not be debated or voted on due to the lack of a quorum.Daniels decided, seeing how this issues was not one of the campaign vows of the new Republican leadership, it should be postponed and debated at a different time, a time when nerves would be relaxed and both parties would have cooler heads.
The governor realized that emotions were too high to pass this measure – it was simply too much too fast, and it would be better for the state to move at a much slower pace.JFK once said that those who ride to power on the pack of a tiger are bound to windup inside.In other words, those who move to fast create an environment of resentment that will only lead to a pendulum of critical reform.And, because of this Indiana is a right-to-work state.Daniels had the Republicans work with pace, in a manner that would allow the Democrats to debate the legislation fairly.
Overall, I believe Daniels is a middle of the road leader, who is almost the opposite of Christie.Whereas Christie is renowned for his in-your-face governance (a lot like an LBJ), Daniels is a compromiser.He knew right-to-work was the right path, but realized that human emotions would not permit the Democrats to debate the bill in the first months after the sweeping election.Also, Daniels has been known to reach across the aisle – something that has vanished from politics after the election of Obama in 2008.
There is a haunting trend immerging in our society, and this schism is even more prevalent amongst members of my generation.This frightening idea is that we live in a pure democracy – many people in our society wrongly believe that the United States is not a federal republic, where the rule of law trumps that of the excitable “will” of the people.Let us set the record straight and realize the true exceptional nature of our American system of government.The same system that has made our country politically stable, with the exception of the American Civil War (which, mind you, follows a global trend where the landowning conservatives were ousted from power by more industrial segments in almost every western state, with few exceptions), for just about 230 years.
Democracy is the tool used by dictators, fear mongers, and tyrants to impose their treacherous will upon a frightened and easily susceptible population.With that said, I am not proposing the abolition of democracy, but merely regulating its practice.How can this be done, how can the state regulate democracy, to do so would be to contradict the values of the United States.Well, it has been done; the United States has in place the Electoral College – a system that regulates the election of the President of the United States.It is a hybrid and compromise between those who wanted Congress to elect the President and those who wanted the people, through the tantalizing process of pure democracy, to elect the President.The Electoral College is a culmination of New World perfection – there are elements of democracy, federalism, and compromise.
With that said, there were systems in place that have been extinguished over the years as the central government, in the wake of the Civil War, began to chisel away the authority of the 10th Amendment and the original checks in the Constitution that once helped curtail pure democracy.The most prevalent of those old checks would be the election process of the upper house in Congress, the Senate.The Senate was initially designed to represent not the will of the people, but the will of each sovereign state in the Union.Members of the Senate were not meant to be elected by the people, they were meant to be appointed by the state legislature.The direct election of Senators was truncated in 1913 by the passage of the 17th Amendment, a law that strips the power in the Senate from the state, and gives it to the people.So, in essence, the sovereignty of the states in the US Federation has ceased to exist.
In recent years, during the Lords’ Reform, one of the debates arguing against the election of the Lords was the fear that a politicalization of the chamber would lead to the eventual downfall of educated professionals, being replaced instead by politicians.Politicians on the federal level owe very little to their state, and when they are no longer appointed by the state, but instead elected by the people, the Senators become sensationalists.We are seeing the results of this right now in the US Senate, as both sides are sticking to their political ideologies, instead of working together, in a practical manner, to do what is best for their states and populations.Allow the House of Representatives, with their short term limits and their small constituencies to be the house of politics and pure democracy – but, at the same time we must ensure the checks are in place.
So long as the 17th Amendment is left in place, and people continue to hamper the Electoral College, our unique system of government will be at risk.Our federation was designed to be a conglomerate of sovereign states who determine their own domestic systems and policy, while allowing the Federal government to insure that the states can thrive in a peaceful and secure environment.It should be the role of the Federal government to insure our liberties, outlined in the Bill of Rights – nothing more, nothing less.Furthermore, it is the duty of Congress to be a place where the appointed state governments and the people’s representatives cooperate and work to check the power of the President.And, it is that necessary check on the President, who is elected by the electors of the state in which they represent.
It is key to maintain a Federal Republic, with checked democracy, lest we allow our populace to be manipulated by those who wish to undermine our government – where law trumps all else and the states are independent and free of the yoke of a central government.Again, I wish to be clear:The United States cannot survive without democracy, for it is the cornerstone of our state’s legitimacy.But, we cannot allow democracy to thrash the pace of our governance.Government, in the modern age, will be encouraged to speed up to match the times.This encouragement, though well intended, will destroy the fabric of our state’s existence.Our institutions are over 200 years old, and must be respected and treated properly – the moment we strike with a hatchet the solid trunk of our government is the moment we weaken all that makes our country special, all that makes our institutions, our sprawling branches and bright green leaves of liberty, the greatest in the world.
The role of the Federal government is to provide a peaceful and proactive milieu for the individual states.It is not the job of the Federal government to dictate domestic policy.And, it is that guarantee by the 10th Amendment that makes our country so great and diverse.If we were a nation of dictation, where the states have no representation, and the biggest population trumps that of any other interest, we will quickly see a country that is forced to mold to format of that the largest and loudest.And, the more people clamor for a more direct democracy, the closer we get to mob rule, and the closer we get to being just another democracy, where the central authority has no natural opposition – and the moment central authority is free to impose its uncontested will is the moment this country fails to abide by its founding principles.
I fear in a nation of centralized dictation, we would be susceptible to a monopoly of governance where states are barred from competing on the ideological market.Today in the United States a liberal can move to California and a conservative to Texas, and there they will find a state government that suits their epitomes and ideals.But, without state representation that is an impossible realization, without New Federalism we will become a hodgepodge of monotony, and without regulated democracy we will fade into the abyss of exceptional multiculturalism through individual states, into the cavern of mass political upheaval prompted by the urge for quick results and the rapid rejection of progressive failure.
The situation along the US-Mexican border has reached a point of true disgust.As the news of yet another horrific massacre in the borderlands comes to light, it has become apparent that the government of Mexico lacks either the will or the means to combat the ever strengthening power of the drug cartels.In this rise of crime comes a scene that eerily equates the situation that enveloped Europe around the year 1000 – that is, the country is rank with Medieval feuding, where one “drug” family strikes out at another and those who bear the burden of this constant aura of hostility are the people of the Mexican state.
How long can the United States sit idle as the God given rights of the Mexican people are infringed?Nearly 60,000 people have been killed in this pointless violence, just under a thousand children, and nearly one and a half million people have been displaced.How can we, as the great champion of human rights and liberties, stand blindly by as the crisis grows?Well, I am here to tell the innocent people of Mexico that they are not forgotten.Right now the people of Mexico have been dragged into the revolting trends of drug violence.Right now, the people of Mexico are paying for the sins of the great northern Colossus – we are the root of this evil, and because of that we must be charged with its eradication.
Thousands have died because an ever growing segment of our population has found it impossible to kick the evils of their drug habits.With every puff, snuff, and injection of the great evil there is blood, death, and ruin.There is blood on the hands of America’s drug users, dealers, and enablers – and, every moment action is not taken on our country’s drug epidemic is a moment in which we are, as citizens, accessories to murder.The war on drugs cannot be a lost cause, because if the United States can turn its back on such an internal and regional problem, there will be no mandate or justification for the export of our ideology and style.
How can I, as a patriot, champion American greatness when our society seems content with self-derogation and a criminal fascination with an errant affair with illicit drugs?This is a question I grapple with whenever I read the headlines highlighting the injurious crime plaguing the Mexican people.When President Monroe told the Europe to stay out of the New World in 1821 and established the Western Hemisphere as an independent region, free from the influence of Old World powers, the United States took under its wing Latin America.From that day on the United States took an oath to keep Latin America and the New World’s best interests in the mind.This idea, authored (intentionally or not, for that purpose) an idea that resonated through to today – an idea that has been defined further by T. Roosevelt, JFK, and Ronald Reagan, an idea that has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy.
And, to see our country turn a blind eye to Mexico’s woes, woes that derive from our own addictions, is heartbreaking, and one quickly realizes the root of Latin American resentment.I have come to support a policy where the New World is a collective community, led by the United States, in a quest to procure a free trade, liberal zone, where the cooperating states in the region are free to express themselves as our part of the world evolves in the wake of our latest economic crisis.But, this dream can never be actualized if the people of Latin America view the United States as a bully partner.Now believe me, I am a lobbyist for raw American power – but I realize the importance of winning over the hearts and minds of the local populations.
I propose intervention.The United States must intervene in Mexico at the soonest possible moment.We cannot sit idle any longer as our brothers, and fellow free men, die in a senseless crime that has its roots in our own heartland.The United States must take responsibility for the seeds it has sewed in Mexico, we must show the Latin American world that we detest the cartels just as much as they, and we must show that the United States will no longer maintain this level of ignorance in the face of a daunting task.The cartels represent evil in its purest form, and as the beacon of hope for those oppressed, the United States must work to eradicate that evil.
With that said, we must also continue to pressure the domestic consumers of drugs.The only reason the cartels can remain in power is because of the constant flow of capital, rushing from our impoverished and unaware communities.Let us make it perfectly clear today that every dime that goes to the consumption of illicit drugs, be they domestic or foreign, aids crime.Drugs grown in the United States drive down the market price, and force the cartels to cut the cost of production.These cuts come from local exploitation.And, this exploitation is the root of the crime and suffering.
E. H. Harriman was an American railroad tycoon during the late 1800s, early 1900s, who was renowned for being an adventurer and one of those old school, ambitious, hard-workers who helped industrialize the United States at the turn of the century.Harriman gained his initial wealth through the family estate, but realized that wealth and economic power was no longer tied to the land, and began to invest in railroads.At the time of his death he controlled seven major rail companies, and was worth over $100 million.His motto:“Much good work is lost for the lack of a little more.”In other words, tis the job of man to excel and meet all daunting tasks with fervor, lest the opportunity fade into the catacombs of mere ideas, ideas that were never actualized.
The task before us is overwhelming and intimidating – but we cannot shrink from the task.We cannot, because it is hard, back from the duty we have to our Latin American neighbors.We are the New World’s big brother, we are the leading power in the Western Hemisphere, and because of that we cannot back down, we cannot abandon our Mexican brothers, and we cannot allow ourselves to live in filth while expecting the world to abide by a doctrine that our own people are starting to neglect.Drugs are the greatest threat to our traditional domestic way of life – when a citizen surrenders to drugs, they surrender to the traditional foundation of the American identity.
We are a nation of free men, and man cannot be free when he is shackled to the ball and chain of addiction.When man cannot exercise free thought, then man is not free.When man cannot live in a safe environment, man is not free.When man must cower and slouch away from his own identity so another can implement and impose another, man is not free.Freedom is the key, and should forever be the key and fulcrum of the American state.John F. Kennedy was famous for talking about the need of the state to export the American Revolution, at a time when the Soviet Union was “exporting” their revolution.Well, I believe that time has come again – the time has come for the United States to once again return to our revolutionary roots, and take steps to solidify our identity and culture through mass exportation.We will defeat the scourge of drugs and the associated violence if we dictate the conversation, and lead the charge.General James Longstreet once said, “You can’t lead from behind,” when General Lee told him not to get too close to the front, during the heat of battle.Well, we are in the heat of battle and we cannot afford to relax in the rear.We must take charge, we must GO TO THE FRONT!
In these hard times, it is more than easy to glance at our political system and blame the procedures and its players for this rough patch of political stagnation.But, in doing so, we run the risk of creating an anti-constitutional sentiment that could easily grow into a movement that assaults the American modus operandi and the institutions that unify our diverse nation.Just as water takes the path of least resistance, so does man, weakened by desperation and fatigue, as he begins to question the state of our Union and the path our country should embark upon in the coming years.
The institutions of the United States are the catalyst of our people’s inherent rights and freedoms, and because of this, when being critiqued, we must tread lightly lest we feed a fire that we will be unable to extinguish – we must not dismantle the systems that keep the 50 states and over 300 million people of our country amalgamated with a common identity and cause.Furthermore, the institutions of our government must forever be held in as pristine a condition as is possible.Many like to say the Constitution and the other stately documents of our country’s biology are “living documents.”To that I say yes, they are very much living documents, and, just as other living things evolve over the generations so to must they.But, the evolution of our state’s fiber must not be rushed, clumsily forward to appease people of haste and agitation.Instead change must be slow, thorough, and executed with great care – otherwise, the tremors of radical disruption can cause the buttresses of the New World to crack and weaken.
That is why, when I listen to those who see the Washington gridlock as fault of our system I find myself aware of a forever growing frustration with our political system.A few days ago NPR interviewed Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, the authors of It’s Even Worse than it Looks, a book bemoaning the “radicalization” of American politics, seem to have taken the stance that our system has a fundamental flaw that allows an uncooperative faction of the government to hamper the advent of the ruling party’s will.The Republicans, they say, have hijacked the Democratic Party’s flawless agenda and have not allowed the President’s will to be realized.
It seems that Mann and Ornstein oppose the true nature of our government’s design – we live in a federal democracy that is dependent on continual friction, acting as a natural check to the domination of one political party or ideology over another.For example, the Senate, and the entire political process, can be held at bay by a single politician, through the use of the filibuster.This procedure was not put in place by mistake, the founding fathers realized that ideas have power and individuals, represented symbolically through the lone senator, should have the right to have their voice heard.Now, folks like Mann and Ornstein, I imagine, would see the filibuster and all it stands for as a corruption of the well-oiled machine of opportunistic tyranny and single party rule.
“When we did get action, half the political process viewed it as illegitimate, tried to undermine its implementation and moved to repeal it.”With that statement, referring to the Republicans continual contention of the Democratic agenda, Ornstein attempts to bemoan the very thing that makes our process unique and so successful.Opposition and political friction are the trademarks of all healthy democracies, and to see this “gridlock” in Washington is not a sign of our system’s failure, but instead is proof that our society is capable of civil disagreement.I do not understand the crux of Mann and Ornstein’s argument – they both have conservative tendencies, yet they seem to believe the Republican Party should stop the contest and yield to the will of the opposition in a bid to appease the nerves of the political majority.
But, is that a valid option?For the sake of broad political appeasement, should the opposition neglect serious competition in the gala of ideological rivalry when doing so would, in essence, guarantee an unopposed advancement of the government’s schema?It makes no sense, and I am surprised two learned individuals would so clearly damn the opposition.The two take everything a step further by comparing today’s political situation to that of the time before the outbreak of the Civil War.So, in a way, they are comparing modern Republicans and conservatives to the Southern Democrats and pro-slavery men of the nineteenth-century.In spirit, the comparison is derogatory and places a negative stigma over the modern conservative movement (just to be perfectly clear, there are very few sane members of society who would advocate a return to the slave system of yore).
As we draw closer to the 2012 election fork-in-the-road, the country will have two very distinct and clear ideologies to choose from. On one hand the electorate can pick a path that will take the country down a path of continued respect for our country’s political traditions and customs of spirited debate and opposition, and on the other hand there is a path of a progressive tampering with the traditional core of American values.The country will have to choose between the conservative movement, with a corner stone of enthusiastic obstruction to socialism’s leisurely advance.Or, the country will have to cast their vote for a movement that has no real allegiance to America’s core beliefs.
In 1917 William Tyler Page wrote the American’s Creed, and it is as follows:
“I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States, a perfect union, one and inseparable, established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support it Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”
It is in these words that Mr. Page defines the principles the new conservative movement is attempting to protect.Nowhere in his creed, does Page write of a solemn duty to prevent gridlock.Nowhere does he write of a need to agree on all issues.Nowhere does he write that it is the duty of the government to blindly march, in lockstep, to the beat of the administration’s bellowing drum.Nowhere does he mention the need for a unilateral agreement or pleasant compromise on issues of the ideological heart.The most American trend of civil disobedience is pegged in the genetic code of the American spirit, to contend the colossus of authority in the face of pressure and scrutiny, is under attack on all fronts.The Republican opposition to the Democratic White House and Senate is the most American of deeds, and to see it projected as dejection, instead of a glorious and noble deed deserving not political or personal agreement, disheartens this patriot.
I fear that in these times of radicalization, man will grow impatient with our subtle mode of government.Conservatives are usually characterized as people who trust their “gut.”So, with that dependence on the heart, should one really be surprised that the Republican Party has fallen into the rut of, as Mann and Ornstein put it, ideology over “fact.”With that said, let he who lives in a glass house throw the first stone – the fact of the matter is that both of the major parties are both steeped in ideology, but the major difference is that the Democrats have no modern icons with which to praise.The Republicans continuously evoke the aura of Reagan, but who is the icon of the Democrats?They have not the success story or great modern leader to hoist atop the liberal ladder – Bill Clinton?Jimmy Carter?Neither of these presidents could be seen as the Democratic success story – Bill Clinton was shrouded in scandal, and Carter reigned during the near realization of international Communism.
This resentment of Republican loyalty to ideology over raw fact, by Democrats, could be seen as not a referendum on the radical nature of the conservative movement, but instead this resentment could be seen as a jealousy from the left as they have, time and time again yielded to the young, one shot solution, messiah, only to find their leader descend into failure.The furious Republican polarization comes as the Democrats do the same – Southern Democrats are becoming a thing of the past, just as liberal Republicans can be found only in the index of the Nixonian Age.The truth is, if the roles were reversed, and a radical conservative won the election in 2008 the Democrats would oppose his agenda with the same amount of gusto.At the end of the day, both parties are working with America’s best interests in mind, there are no great conspiracies infecting the hallowed halls of our institutions, but those institutions are under threat, they are under attack from within by men who know not what they do.
In his 1992 Republican Convention speech, Pat Buchanan publicized the Culture War that has been raging in our country since the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s.In this speech, Pat says many powerful things, but one of the moments that stuck with me the most is when he said there was a growing rift in the conservative movement, and in the United States.At the top of the conservative counter-revolution there are the learned leadership who can, at times lose sight of the mission.And, that mission is reaching out to those in the heartland – the folks in the trenches, the folks who make our country great.Here is an excerpt from Mr. Buchanan’s speech that really sends the message home:
“My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us.They don’t read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did.They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams.They are the conservatives of the heart.They are our people.And we need to reconnect with them.We need to let them know we know they’re hurting.They don’t expect miracles, but they need to know we care.”
This statement struck my core, and reminded me that though the debates may be amongst the intellectuals and professionals, the debates are over great issues that strike and effect every man.Barack Obama came to power on the back of broad popular support – the common man knew not the answer to our nation’s problems and Obama won them over with great promises and grandiose ideas that have no root in reality.Barack Obama spoke to the common man and convinced them he felt their pain, and understood their fear and anguish.
Today, the battle for the average man rages on.Mitt Romney has gained the support of the intellectual leadership of the Republican Party, but the average man, as I discuss the issues with classmates and friends, is having a hard time connecting with the candidate.This mistrust has come about because our party has not held true the lesion given by Buchanan – we are drifting away from our conservative roots, we are drifting away from the central population that makes up the base of our party.
The Republican Party does not have the luxury of a dependent urban population or union memberships to keep the party afloat like that of the Democrats; the Republican Party instead has to reach out to the heartland, the country side, and the rural community to garnish support.And, admittedly, this task is daunting and many will say that the country side will remain forever conservative and Republican.But, with a weary fear, I say that is not the case.
During spring break I did not traverse to Florida or the beach, no.I ventured to the US-Canadian borderlands in upstate New York.Now, for those of you who have never been to the region, upstate New York is a rural, mountainous region, and as you approach the border the land become flat and more agrarian as the Adirondacks fade into the rearview mirror.While there, I spent time talking to some of the people from my generation about some of the larger issues at hand, and found myself a little worried.These folks, who I thought would be thumping their chests with conservative pride, were actually drifting down the enabling position of moderation.And, from that moderate position, I fear many of them will soon become ripe for the liberal picking.The truth of the matter is, these people have been abandoned by the mainstream of the party, and they are now reaching out to any one system that will yield the biggest reward for the least amount of risk and work.
How can we remedy this daunting issue?How can we reach out to the conservatives of the heart?We need to, instead of slouching towards the mainstream of the urban, liberal utopia, be marching proudly towards the conservative homeland – a place where man is not a ward of the state, but is instead as the fresh air of the rural society.During my trip, I found myself along the banks Raquette River (the fifth longest river in the state), that runs into the St. Laurence.While I stood there, striking a Theodore Rooseveltian pose, I was overwhelmed by the liberating aura of the cold, crisp air, cooled even more by the thundering water that smashed against the ancient rocks along the rapids.I was, at that moment, unknowingly aware, of the conservative heartland.We are not, as the media, social networks, and revisionist ideology would like you to believe, a urban people.We are a people of the land; we are a people of wilderness’s possibility.
No man’s grandfather migrated to our country to wander the unforgiving streets of our great cities – they came to our country to obtain a peace of our nation’s wilderness and form, out of the untamed potential, a place that was theirs.We are a people who are genetically programmed, through the choice and voluntary nature of immigration, to seek independence.We would all, if given the option of hyper-individuality or dictated conformation, select the option that gives us total liberty.And, we must defend that notion.We must not retreat from our historical roots, we must not retreat from our genetics, and we must not turn a blind eye to the people with whom we share our parallel ambitions with.
I understand that only 16% of the country’s population is rural, and that is could be rather tempting for a political party to abandon this minority in pursuing other, more profitable demographics for political gains – but, in ostracizing the countryside, we run the risk of losing our conservative base forever.Furthermore, the loss of the rural vote would be the loss of the party’s conservative anchor.
Pat Buchanan failed to win the 1992 nomination; instead he yielded to George H. W. Bush.During the campaign it was Buchanan’s only objective (though every candidate says they are in it to win it, that is not always the reality) was to pull Bush away from the center, with the hopes of making the presumptive nominee address some of the pressing conservative issues of the day, including the attack on private education, the growing opposition to gay marriage, abortion„ immigration issues, and the ongoing “culture war” against traditional American ideas.Pat said it best when he said, “If the country wants to go in a liberal direction, if the country wants to go in the direction of [Democrats]…, it doesn’t bother me as long as I’ve made the best case I can.”
And, Buchanan did a fine job publicizing the issues, successfully drawing Bush to the right on abortion and gay marriage, and also obtaining a silent agreement on the immigration issues – though Bush Sr. did not speak quite as furiously.The modern example of this role could be owed to Rick Santorum’s run against Mitt Romney is the most recent Republican cycle.Rick drew Mitt further to the right.Now, many in the center may view this as damming, preferring to keep social issues and more sensitive topics in the political closet – but, as a conservative Romney supporter, I found Santorum’s show of conservative force to be a healthy stage in the evolution of the Romney campaign.
Rick Santorum always spoke of the “need to draw clear distinctions” between the Republican candidate and Barack Obama.And, if Romney was not challenged by Santorum, it is quite possible that the electorate would not have been exposed to many of Romney’s stances.This primary cycle has been a healthy one, but still the fear that the party might be turning a blind eye to the rural electorate in favor of a more suburban and centrist demographic – and, such a change would be an abandonment of the conservative of the heart.
During the past week both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have agreed that, by the end of the year, the government should take steps to prevent the interest rates for student loans across the country from going up.As of right now, the current student loan interest rate is at 3.4%, and, if all stays the same, the rate will go up to 6.8% on July first.So, in a vote of 215-195 a Republican sponsored bill that would prevent the increase in student interest rates has been passed.
This bill was put through primarily by the moderate sect of the Republican Party and actually caused a split in the party with conservatives saying the government cannot afford to cover the $5.9 billion gap that would be created by keeping the interest rates low.Though I agree that the government is indeed in dire straits, I do believe it is important to do all it takes to prevent the student loan bubble from popping – plunging our Obama-led recovery into another recession.
The $5.9 billion is coming from Obama’s “preventative healthcare fund” that, many on the left say, protects women (that’s the dominant reason as to why only 30 Democrats supported the measure to suspend the raise in the interest rate).But, the truth is, the preventative fund is poorly written, and many speculate it is nothing more than a slush fund that will benefit no one.
“Give me a break;” Speaker of the House John Boehner roared when asked about the move, “This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women, entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gains.”And it is true, the left has been drumming up radical-feminists, and misguided women in the recent months with the intention of creating some sort of sex-war for the upcoming election, after the loose Rush Limbaugh comments made after a hearing on contraception in the capital.
The facts are clear – student loans are going to almost double at the end of the year, the government, and both presidential candidates have spoken about the need to suspend the rise in rates, and the radical left has taken steps to scare women into the Democratic camp, thus making the move impossible.The administration has said that they would veto this bill if it was passed.It is obvious that in an era where there should be no domestic sacred cows, the Administration has decided to throw its lot in with the Health Care Law, regardless of the other political ramifications.When studying the current president, the Health Care Law, as dreadful as it may be in delegating our inherent freedoms, is the president’s only success – and even still, that success is highly volatile, especially after the Supreme Court took a critical stance in the past month.
Earlier this week a poll was released showing the president was losing his large lead over the Republican field in the “under 30” demographic.In 2008 Obama had about a 30 point lead over McCain pertaining to the youth – and it is that dominating lead that gave the president such a healthy margin on the campaign trail.Today, that gap is closing as many graduates are realizing the harsh reality of the Obama Economy as they try to find work in their field.And, I see Obama’s rejection of the youth vote, and a turn towards the feminists as an attempt by the administration to curry further favor with female voters.
The White House has said the Republican move to fund student loans with healthcare money is not a proper solution.The left would much prefer the welfare state was left intact, and the cost to cover the loans come out of the defense budget.That would be unacceptable, for a state’s defense trumps that of lighter domestic issues.In the United States, we live in a Federation – a government designed with a central government charged with protecting the local, state government. Those local governments have been bequeathed the duty of providing domestic needs to the people, so the Federal government can be free from the impossible task of providing umbrella, cookie cutter solutions to local problems.It is foolish to believe that in a nation of 50 states and over 300 million people that a single, overbearing government can provide healthcare for the people.Healthcare should be, as the 10th amendment so clearly states, left to the states or the people – get out, big government, of domestic issues, and provide security and stability.
So now, after stopping at three major universities in three swing states, the president has, for all intents and purposes, wasted his time and political points for the half of the month, because now he has to veto the very idea that he had supported.When it comes to a corrupt health plan that no one understands, and many fear, the president is going to learn fast that money will do most of the talking.As I walk through the hallowed halls of SUNY New Paltz and talk with my friends, fellow students, and fellow bloggers, there is one common theme – money is tight, and these bills are daunting, especially as the economy continues to stagnate.I propose the president give students the opportunity to care for themselves, I propose the president give all citizens the ability to care for themselves.
We need a society that is not dependent; we need a free and healthy society that can insure the United States prospers, as it had in the 20th Century, through the 21st Century.And, the way to do that is to give the people the means to endure.Instead of clinging to a doomed healthcare plan that seeks to make the people a ward of the state, we need to free the people of their burden – a burden of escalating debt, a poor economy, and a state that no longer retains the principles of freedom and liberty.
John D. Rockefeller once said, “Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.”I agree with Rockefeller, and extend that principle to the domestic policies of the state – there should only be in place programs that will make man free, not dependent.And, vetoing a plan to diminish the debt of college students for the preservation of a program that will only ensnare people, sticking them to the nanny state is injurious.It is injurious, criminal, and vile to think that man should sacrifice self-ability for the nominal benefit of temporary gratification.
This year, as the economy dominates the talking points of the 2012 presidential election, we cannot forget a very important role our president must bare – the Commander and Chief of the United States holds our country’s mandate of existence.In other words, it is the duty of the president to preserve the sovereignty of our state, and it is also his job to insure our people can live in an environment hospitable to our core beliefs.And, the only way to indemnify our population’s liberty is to play an active role in international politics – because, as a wise man once told me, he who dominates the agenda will find that his objectives are met while the objectives of the enemy are buried.Pick up any book on chess, warfare, or debate and you will see just that, he who sets the stage is not charged with reacting to the actions of an opposing player.
Now, if we look at where the world is today, we can see many examples of a United States not taking control of the agenda, and in not doing so, we see a world that has gone rouge.We no longer live in a world dominated by socially excepted “hard-power” and because of this, many western populations are turned off by a state exerting itself on another.They will say that such an execution of politics has no place in the modern world that we should instead resort to the diplomatic corps and let reason triumph.Now, I would have to agree with part of the modern man’s statement – yes, we do have to utilize all the tools in our political arsenal, but at the same time we cannot throw our hammer into the abyss when faced with a stubborn nail.The nail, regardless of ration, will not budge for the carpenter – the hammer is the catalyst is achieving our goal and there is no shame in using it.
Our president has no hammer.Our president does not even have a blueprint.If I were to ask you right now what the president’s objective on the international stage is you would be hard bent on finding a healthy example.It would appear to me that there are two possible Obama-plans.One is the management of America’s inevitable decline – that is, he believes just as the British Empire faded into the annals of history so too will the United States.And the second plan is the Dream of My Father.This plan is much darker than that of the decline theory, because in the first plan at least America’s perceived interest is till trump.Obama Sr.’s dream was one of a shackled America, an America that could not, as the European powers had for hundreds of years, dominate the rest of the world.Obama Sr.’s dream was one of a level playing field – global socialism on the international stage, where the smallest of states could, in alliance, strangle the most powerful because those states had eroded from within.
I ask you, do either of those “plans” strike the patriotic chord of your heart?Do either of those “plans” make for a better world?And, most importantly, do either of those “plans” take into account the best interest of the United States?My answer is a simple and unwavering NO.Those plans would put our state in the back of the bus, and with that said, we could not guarantee which unpredictable force would be driving.As the world around us sees an ever growing level of international hostility aimed at the core beliefs of the Western world, as the American Creed comes under fire from every angle, and as those remaining tyrants tighten the noose around the neck of their people, should we really be contemplating the notion of American decline?Is that the right thing for our country, our nation, our people, and the American idea?Again, I say NO.
It is time for the people of the United States to join the crusade against totalitarianism and oppression.A few weeks ago I was perusing Barack Obama’s official website where he, for laymen like ourselves, outlines his foreign policy.This page sent a chill down my spine as I realized our president did not have a progressive, driver’s seat plan for our country – and, if you look at the plans they are all merely reactionary.How, Mr. President, can the leader of the Free World not have a plan for dealing with the un-free world?
It is clear today that our immerging opponent on the international stage is going to be China.In the coming years China will pass the United States as the world’s largest economy, and the military power will follow close behind (around 1900 the United States passed the UK as the world’s top economy, 40 years later the British Empire was nothing more than a neon sign over an empty parking lot).And, already, China is beginning to push her neighbors, be it India, Japan, or the Philippines, as she seeks to impose herself on the region.And still, not ONCE is China mentioned on the page.I SAY AGAIN, not once does Obama mention China on his re-election page.It is obvious that our president is going to continue down the same path we have been on for the last three and a half years:wait until China does something we do not like, then call them to the table and “negotiate” with them, giving them aid, as they continue to bemoan our objective.
Just last week we saw EXACTLY what will happen under Obama Part II.North Korea wants to develop nuclear weapons and missiles.The United States does not want that to happen.We give them food aid to stop.They take the aid, and launch the missile anyway.China, Russia, North Korea, and every anti-American is rolling over laughing at the naïveté of our current administration, and they are justified in doing so.Military might is the dominant force in North Korea.It was once said that Prussia is an army in possession of a state – the same is true for the DPRK.So, how can the administration think, that on the 100th anniversary of the birth of their first president (the same man who begged Stalin to allow him to wage an aggressive war with South Korea in the early 1950s) North Korea would stop launching a multi-million dollar project for a few shipments of grain?
We have a novice in the White House, and it is quite clear that his economic policy is just as destructive as his foreign policy – but while that dominates the talking points, I implore you to, if you are still on the fence about this guy, to look into his plans for the coming century.This century should be an American century, where the United States manages the agenda, not a second-class century where we are a balloon in a hurricane, unsure of our direction, and unable to dictate our own destiny.I am an advocate for Mitt Romney, but I am not going to tell you what his plans are – I want YOU to study the options and see for yourself which of these two men should be in the White House at a time of international crisis.
Should our state have a progressive plan for the march forward, or should our state, like a spent boxer, rest against the ropes as the international community deals blow after blow against our prestige and capabilities?Will the great liberal experiment strive for international prowess, or will it fade away just as those who have come before us?
There has been an important re-shuffling of Yemen’s top military brass in the wake of the 2011 uprising against 33 year president Selah.After the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, George Bush and his government took steps to stamp out international terrorism, and Selah was recruited in 2002 by Vice President Dick Cheney to do just that.There were two major conflicts that arose in Yemen during the 2000s.One of which was the Shia insurgency in the north and the other would be the South Yemen separatist insurgency – both of which have close ties to terrorist and radical groups.
The Shia Insurgency has been underway in the north of Yemen, along the Saudi border since 2004, and the Houthis (anti-government protagonists) have tried to establish an independent state in which Shai religious law could be implemented.The Shai are different from mainstream Islamists in that they believe that their leaders are decedents of the Prophet Muhammad – and this puts them at odds with the leadership of other Islamic sects.The main interest in this conflict is that to support the secessionists would be to oppose the government in Sana’a.And, to oppose the government in Sana’a would be to undermine the greater bids made by the official government to quell radical Islam in other parts of the state.As of right now, the Shia Insurgency has complete control over some northern provinces, and maintains a heavy presence around the capital.
The campaign against the northern rebels has accelerated in recent years, and in 2009, with the help of US drone support, the Yemeni government launched a major offensive that has stemmed the spread of the rebellion into the core of the country.In 2010 the rebels agreed to a ceasefire, but when the popular uprising against the government began in 2011, and the Houthi were quick to join the anti-government forces.This ignited more conflict between the government and the rebels in the contested areas.As of today, the rebellion has settled, but the risk of escalation is right around the corner, and the Houthi people still want to establish an independent region.Also, in 2011 al-Qaeda declared a holy war against eh Houthi, and this has led to an escalation of terrorist activity in and around the capital and the contested Houthi regions.
With Sana’a so heavily committed to combating the crisis in the north, southern secessionist who had unsuccessfully tried in 1994 to succeed from Yemen took up arms in 2009 to combat government forces.In this region al-Qaeda has taken root, and is using the instable region as a base of operations for wider strikes both in the Middle East and around the world (around Christmas a year or two ago a bomb was discovered on a plane bound for the US from this part of Yemen).It is vital to regional stability and security that the South Yemenis are not able to establish an independent state that can be used as a base for terrorist operations.And, because of this the government of Yemen, with US support, has been so strongly contesting the uprising.Just as in the Shia Insurgency, the rebels in this conflict were encouraged by instability in Sana’a that arose from the 2011 protests.Both conflicts are raging on today, and there is a risk that the whole of Yemen will descend into chaos if these two separatists movements are not put into check – Yemen could easily become the Somalia of the Middle East, sending a ripple through the region, as a failed Yemen could be used as a base of operations for direct attacks on Saudi Arabia and Oman, which would drastically effect the price of fuel and global stability.
President Selah was not the best leader in the Middle East, but he was doing a decent job combating these two rebellions at the US’s behest.The fact is that the US needs a strongman like Selah in such an instable state as the force that keeps it from being torn apart.In 2011 he was ousted and replaced with Vice President Hadi.Hadi has pledged to continue fighting al-Qaeda and international terrorism in Yemen, but in recent days there have been growing protests in the capital for the new president to rid the military of the leaders who were loyal or related to Selah.
So, as two conflicts roast the state of Yemen, because of domestic political pressure, the military has been forced to change its top leadership, at a time when such a transition is more dangerous as putting an inexperienced leadership at the helm might lead to more harm than good.Many report tell of who has been removed from power, but none of them have yet told who will be replacing the ejected leadership.Militaries should, at most costs, be free from politics and free to practice their craft in a legal fashion – and, to politicize the military as has just been done is to run the risk of military intervention in political matters, as the military is now unable to police itself and has to medal in domestic affairs to ensure its own autonomy.
Yemen is a state in crisis, being pressed by domestic protests and two rebellions and to have its military leadership shaken at a time when the military should be licking its wounds and preparing for the summer offensive is surprising.The choice to ruffle the feathers of the top brass was one that should have taken place as a slow and thorough transition, so the new leadership could be given proper, on the job training to ensure the military does not jump out of the pan and into the fire.
(Capt. Sanogo announces the reinstatement of the 1992 constitution.)
The success of the Tuareg uprising in Mali this past week is a referendum on the international community’s action against the popular coup and military government in Bamako.Last night as the world slept, the Malian forces in Timbuktu fled the last northern outpost in the face of a seemingly unstoppable advance of the rebel army, well armed in the wake of the Libyan Civil War.Reports state that there was a brief artillery bombardment of the military compound in the town before the Tuaregs entered the abandoned streets, guarded only by a small local militia comprised of mostly ethnic Arabs.There was minimal looting in the city after the government forces fled. There are further reports that the local militia may have joined the rebellion.
Captain Sanogo has realized the failing of the coup, and has promised to, as the Monday ECOWAS deadline looms over the current government, reenact the 1992 constitution and return power to the civilian government.In just a week, the military government had lost control of three major outposts and had isolated itself completely from their local support.Mali, a land locked country, found itself without the close local support that it had grown to depend on, and was unable to quell the Tuareg tide when ECOWAS decided the coup was more dangerous to local economic stability than a rebellious, rouge state in the north of Mali.
The fall of Timbuktu is being seen as the final step in the creation of the Azawad (Tuareg homeland), and the government in Bamako has come to terms with their inability to contain the uprising.The military government has sent envoys to the north with the hopes of procuring a ceasefire, and one could imagine that the Tuareg leadership will demand recognition for that ceasefire, or press on as they have the upper hand, militarily in this situation.The majority of the Tuareg rebels want to establish a homeland, but there is a growing sect of the movement that has close ties with al-Qaeda and who want to control the whole of Mali with the intention of establishing Sharia law.
The failure of the coup d’état this week will have dramatic ramifications for the region as other countries try to combat their own ethnic differences.The same conflict between ethnic Africans and Arab peoples that we have been observing in Mali these past nine days also exists in almost every large West African state, and similar differences exist amongst Mediterranean states between the costal peoples and the inland nomadic tribes.And, the conflict between conservative militaries and more liberal, stagnant elected government who, I suspect opposed the Malian coup not because it was an attempt to quell a rebellion, but because the ECOWAS states realized that they might also be swept up in a similar circumstance.I find it despicable that the West African bloc turned a blind eye to the cause of the Malian crisis solely because they wanted to maintain the political status quo.
In the coming days we will see the reaction of ECOWAS to the coup’s digression.Will they view the return of the 1992 constitution as an acceptable transition, or do they want the government to re-instate president Touré.If they do not see Sanogo’s concessions as enough of a step in the right direction, it is possible that on Monday the sanctions will be imposed on Mali now – and, if the sanctions were in put in place it is quite possible the Tuaregs would advance into the Malian heartland, crippling the country and creating a dead state.
Regardless, Azawad is a very bad precedent for West Africa, as most every country on the continent is rife with ethnic strife and the continent and its current state system could be torn apart.The state will be hospitable to terrorists, and would provide a great base for strikes on Algeria, Libya, and many of the West African Atlantic states.Africa must be a place of stability, because without stability there can be no economic growth, and without economic growth the populations of those small states will be driven into the hands of radicals.And, with a misled population beguiled into the camp of terror and anti-American sentiment the United States will find itself dealing with a region drifting constantly away from Washington’s influence.
There should be but one goal in dealing with these events in Africa, and that should be the preservation of American interests in the region – Captain Sanogo and his soldiers have been fighting a proxy war in Mali since 2006 with American support and training.Now that the coup is on the way out, American influence is at risk of shrinking away.And, with the Malian military now in disarray there will be a power vacuum that is going to be filled by the Tuaregs or ECOWAS.Neither of these two groups have American interests at heart, though ECOWAS is the lesser of two evils in that they, more than the Tuaregs, want regional stability.But, with that said, ECOWAS does not want to combat the rising ethnic tension, and I believe it is quite possible that the bloc will continue to parade down this path of inability as the tensions in the bloc flare up just as they had in Ivory Coast and Gabon last year and Mali this year.
The dominoes continue to fall as Reuters reports the fall of Mali’s northern city of Gao.The city is the second to fall, following the fall of Kidal under 48 hours earlier.Gao was home to two major forts, the northern command, and a population of just under 90,000 people.The fall of this city will have dramatic repercussions as the battered, retreating Malian army is all that stands between the Tuareg army and the historical outpost of Timbuktu (Tombouctou) and unabridged control of the northern half of the country.
This attack comes just a day after ECOWAS declared a wave of strong economic sanctions if the military government does not take immediate steps to transition to a civilian government.The military had, in the past week, published a new constitution and announced their intention to host election in which the jaunties would be barred from partaking.So, as of now it is hard to gage what exactly ECOWAS wants in such short time.It must be realized that the coup in Bamako was not one to replace the government’s institutions; it was one to replace the country’s idle leadership.
On Monday, if ECOWAS’s demands are not met, Mali will find herself in political and economic isolation – her neighbors are going to close their borders and halt the shipment of supplies to the landlocked country from their harbors.Mali is one of the world’s poorest countries, and their weak economy depends heavily upon imports.And, there are fears that the sanctions will cause critical shortages in fuel and food, causing the state to grind to a halt.
The Tuareg army has out-gunned the Malian forces ever since the fall of Kaddafi’s regime where they were used as mercenaries in the Libyan Civil War.Now that the rebels have this newfound strength they were set to challenge Bamako and they were given an opportunity to legitimately establish a Tuareg state.The liberation of the Tuareg homeland is the overwhelming goal of the movement, though there is a growing sect of rebels who want to implement Sharia law over the country.Regardless of the reason, it is clear that the rebels have close ties to al-Qaeda, and it is feared that the establishment of a Tuareg state will lead to one of two things – one, the new homeland would be hospitable to al-Qaeda and two the conflict will create in West Africa a failed state that parallels the situation in Somalia.
To have an established Islamic state in West Africa would have dramatic effects on the region as a whole.The Azawad could be used as a base of operations for attacks on Algeria, Niger, and many other states where there is a clear, ethnic divide between more liberal, costal populations and the inland, conservative, tribes.The entire region could be swept up in a new wave of terror and instability that will wreak havoc on the already underdeveloped and instable economies of the area.And, if there is one thing to remember from the trends of history is that instability and poor economic circumstance is just the formula needed to drive the youth and the fearful into the hands of radical ideologies.
And, with the proven oil reserves of over 86 billion barrels in Libya, Algeria, and Nigeria the world cannot allow West Africa to descend into chaos – we must assure that there is economic stability in the region and in the world.Freedom and liberty appear to be entering a year in which they will be tested – it is the fear of myself, and many others, that our system of governance and way of life might not, if we fail to act responsibly, come out of this year in the same condition as it had entered.
As Mali and her citizens unite around the military government in this test of national strength and unity, the rest of the world must ask itself if this hard line stance against the popular coup is equal to the risk the country faces today.I am a champion of the liberal dream, where freedoms and rights are assured and the people represent their opinion not through the will of the sward but through the cunning of the ballot box and the whip of the pen – but, with that said, I do believe that democracy can only survive in an environment that is established, with a population that is loyal.And right now the formula for democracy does not exist in Mali, and I understand and appreciate the military’s desire to take immediate action in the face of growing pressure.In two days Mali has lost two of her northern outposts and is primed to lose another – did the country really have the time to wait another two months for the next round of domestic elections?
Those who would put the credence of democracy over the life of the state run the risk of self obliteration – it is the duty of the state to ensure the protection of the citizenry and the population.And, a state that would allow the Tuaregs to advance unchallenged is, in my opinion, unqualified to rule.I support the intentions of the military as they struggle to protect their homeland in the face of un-antagonized international pressure.In fact, I view the sanctions of ECOWAS not as the move of a concerned regional bloc, but as the move of a paranoid, corrupt elite who are now cautiously looking over their own shoulder for a military that someday soon might have to take the defense of the state into their own hands as conditions on the continent grow more and more unsound.
