Hillary Clinton: Has the Iowa Penny Dropped?

Ever since I got interested in American politics, one issue has confused me. Why did those seeking election not actively seek the women’s vote? It’s a straightforward issue. In America, there are more women than men who have the franchise. True, the margin is narrow but if a presidential candidate can attract the support of a substantial majority of women voters, the game might be as good as won.

Six years ago, Hillary Clinton was the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. In fact, she was “out of sight,” before the primary season started. Then came the Iowa caucus. She got a bloody nose when Barak Obama beat her into second place. True, Hillary recovered soon after in New Hampshire but the damage had been done. She fought a troubled fight, as she told too many fibs, such as being under sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia. Obama got the nod.

It is twenty six months before the next presidential election. Unlike Hillary and the Democrats, there is no Republican politician who has any real momentum or “the big mo” as the Americans coin it. In contrast, Mrs Clinton seemingly has no electable opposition for the Democratic top spot. However, two years is an eon in politics and by September, 2016, the field will look very different. Mrs Clinton will find it difficult to retain her lead for such a long time. What will she do to keep herself in the number one spot?

Last week may have provided the answer to this question. Hillary spoke to a Democratic Women’s Leadership forum event in Iowa. During her twenty minute speech she name-dropped Mary Burke and several other Democratic women running for office in November. She quoted Senator Patty Murray (D.Wash) about building relationships: “You work together and you get the best outcome you can.”

Last week’s speech is evidence that Hillary is going after the women’s vote. There are other women who might put their hats in the presidential ring but, at the moment, Mrs C has the gender field to herself. Currently, she is opposed by an array of Republican men. I anticipate her bringing out the argument that “it’s time for a woman president.” Added to this, she can also suggest it’s time for a new type of politics that gets beyond the DC grid lock in Congress. If she doesn’t make the gender card too obvious, she will be in a strong position.

I am not saying that Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. It’s far too soon to speculate with any accuracy. However, if I have understood her strategy correctly, I believe it’s not only a good one, it could well lead to a victory.

Mr Obama, Your Foreign Policy Needs a Reality Check. What Would Henry Kissinger Do?

 

As readers of this blog will know, I am a fan of President Obama and his administration. I believe he has achieved much to benefit American society in his five plus years in office. For example, he inherited an economy in its worse state since the 1930s and has overseen its recovery. The American car industry survived as a result of his government’s intervention. And virtually all Americans now have access to healthcare which they can afford.

However, there is an area of policy where the incumbent’s administration has shown itself to be feeble. As in the past century, American foreign policy has been questionable, not to mention inconsistent. FDR wanted free trade but told the trading world to keep its hands off China. Truman agreed to provide a home for the United Nations and within no time was at loggerheads with its administrative leaders.

Eisenhower failed to realise that by interfering in Vietnam, he meddled in a civil war. The Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford administrations were ensnared by Vietnam, ending in ignominious defeat. Carter agreed terms of a SALT treaty with the Russians, only to find it rejected by Congress.

Every administration since World War II has got foreign policy ideology wrong. There was a time after the War when Foggy Bottom – the home of the State Department – showed how foggy its thinking was when it stated that everything relating to communism came out of Moscow! In other words, the Chinese were of no matter, merely the Kremlin’s playthings, a point of view that might have amused Chairman Mao.

Reagan’s aggressive stance brought about the end of the Cold War, as he spent enormous sums on the military. He was fortunate to avoid impeachment over the Iran-Contra affair. By 1993, the occupant of the White House had lost the taste for war. Clinton, quite rightly, feared home reaction to American soldiers in body bags. His successor, the self-proclaimed “war president”, engaged in The War on Terror, with disastrous results for America.

President Obama is now faced with a number of foreign threats. In my view, the biggest danger to world peace is the probable desire of the Russian government for hegemony. The annexation of the Crimea and the insurgency in east Ukraine may be just the start of a plan to regain the former USSR. America shows no sign of leading its allies in opposition to Mr Putin, save through economic sanctions which are unlikely to work. Just look at trade sanctions against South Africa in the 1970s and 80s.

Instead of facing down the Russian incursion, the west is concentrating its aim on IS. The disgusting and disgraceful beheading of three men has galvanised the Americans into coalition-building and likely military action against these jihadists. Let’s look at what is going on. The media has reported that IS has 30,000 fighting men. How is it possible to defeat a force of this size by air power alone? Soldiers on the ground will be needed but America has declared it will not fight IS this way. Others will have to do it.

It was reported this week that twenty six nations are joining together to fight IS. But no sooner was the coalition announced when it showed cracks. Turkey withdrew because it feared reprisals on its citizens. Germany said it wouldn’t participate. The British foreign secretary said British air power would not be used and was chastised publicly by Downing Street for failing to be on message. Iran has declared its lack of faith in American policy. This is no way to conduct a war.

Add to these complications that IS must be challenged in Syria. America and the United Kingdom are already fighting the Assad regime. What next? Furthermore, the anti-IS coalition includes the Saudis, who are predominately Sunni Muslims. Will they support the Iraqi Shiites?

Finally, if American troops are involved in a coalition fight on the ground, American law states that its soldiers must be led by an American. Will the coalition partners agree to this?

I am staggered by the idiocy of current American diplomacy. It’s reminiscent of the Blair government which would announce a new policy before the details had been scrutinised. Henry Kissinger was the prince of American foreign policy. His style was to conduct his romantic affairs in the public gaze. “Power,” he said, “is the greatest aphrodisiac.” However, his diplomatic deals were negotiated in private. Please, Mr President, take a lesson from HK. Do you think IS don’t know what is happening when everything is publicised?  Stop telling your enemies what you’re going to do. Get agreement from your coalition partners in private and take your opponents by surprise.

Congress Returns. Same Old, Same Old.

America’s lawmakers have returned to Washington. Under the rules, the session will be abbreviated because of the mid-term elections in November. So what can be expected? My guess is same old, same old.

For the House Republicans, the guiding principle must be “do no harm.” I don’t expect a repeat of last autumn, when the Republicans shut the government down over Obamacare. But the House Republicans are nothing if not ideologues so there could still be trouble. To keep the government working after September, the House has to pass a temporary spending bill. Provided the measures are free from add-ons objectionable to Republican ideology, such as funding contraception, the Senate will probably go along. If not, another shutdown is on the cards, in which event the Party blamed by the public will get an election-style smack.

For the Democrats, Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has to help a number of endangered incumbents by introducing popular measures. Currently, Senate seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina look like endangered species.

One way to motivate the Democrat core may be an open attack on campaign funding. Currently, two recent Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United and McCutcheon, have allowed a vast, unregulated flood of money to be poured into political campaigns. We’re talking billions of dollars. Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) is leading the fight for a constitutional amendment to regulate campaign finance and stop corporations, unions and billionaire individuals from spending unlimited sums on political activity.

The measure may be popular with ordinary voters, depending on how it is promoted in the media. There seem to be equal numbers of wealthy people and institutions on both sides of the aisle, so handling the publicity could be awkward. Watch out for Mr Udall being portrayed as Don Quixote, fruitlessly tilting at Washington windmills in a hopeless cause. Let’s be frank. A constitutional amendment has no chance of success without a huge groundswell of popular support.

The Democrats will use the session to seek new laws on raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable and guaranteeing contraception coverage under Obamacare. These stand no chance of passing in the House but, once again, the failed measures may excite the core.

The Republicans will concentrate their attack on the administration with a special House hearing to investigate the 2012 attack on the US mission in Benghazi. Has the State Department taken steps to improve securing embassies and posts? Expect embarrassing fireworks of a partisan, political nature.

This week, Congress will be asked to approve military action against ISL. I will defer commenting further until I see chapter and verse of the government’s proposals. However, Congress should also be looking at the Russian situation and, if nothing else, strengthening sanctions. I doubt it will do anything concrete.

So, little is likely to be accomplished in the short session but there will be plenty of political hot air. As William Shakespeare coined it, “Much Ado About Nothing.”

The Weakness of America and its Allies

George Satayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The recent aggressive moves by Russia in Crimea and East Ukraine have not been met with force, except by local fighters. So far, the West has limited its response to economic sanctions. There are now proposals by America and the United Kingdom to send arms to the Ukrainians. The Russian invasion and annexation of The Crimea is almost forgotten. It is a fait accomplit.

The big question is, what will Putin do next? Has he designs on Poland or Hungary? Does he intend to restore the CSSR? Will Angela Merkel remain calm when the Red Army is camped on the borders of East Germany?

This weekend, I was asked a question, “why did the World Wars occur?” As an historian, I’m meant to have some of the answers. So, I replied, starting with World War 1. “When the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum to Serbia with very severe demands. Germany supported Austria’s position. Although the Serbs capitulated to most of the demands, Russia started to mobilize its forces to aid and defend the Serbs. Austria refused to accept the Serbian offer and declared war. As a result of a series of Treaties, Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain were drawn into the conflict.”

As for World War 2, I answered, “Western Europe ignored Hitler’s re-armament of Germany until it was too late to take action and stop it. Japan, bent on empire-building, invaded Manchuria without any real challenge. When America denied Japan access to raw materials, Japan took action by declaring war on America.

Next, I analysed the similarities between the two world wars. Both wars started because the aggressors anticipated no challenge and leadership was weak. In 1914, none of the major powers really expected to fight, despite the nationalistic and jingoistic mood of the countries involved. None of the political leaders were strong enough to prevent mobilization of the Russian and German armed forces. By 1939, the West’s policy of appeasement, as well as the Non-Intervention Pact in Spain, convinced Hitler he would be unchallenged when he swallowed up one country after another. The allies believed his appetite for annexation would be sated but when the Germans occupied Poland in 1939, it was a step too far for Great Britain and France. Just like the run-up to WW1, political leadership was weak.

In both world wars, the Americans stayed out of a perceived local difficulty, not understanding the threat which Germany posed in global terms. Eventually, two strong Presidents, Wilson and Roosevelt, recognised the dangers if America did not take part and seek to defeat the aggressors. The sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbour were the catalysts for America’s intervention which was crucial to the allied victories. 

Today, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine could be viewed as “a local difficulty.” There is no apparent strategic interest for intervention by the West, nor is the humanitarian crisis equating the scale of Iraq or Syria. However, where will a power-hungry Russia stop? What does it have to do before the West takes military action?

Is it imaginable that Ronald Reagan would have ignored Russia’s incursions? I have no doubt he would have threatened the Russians with all the considerable armed forces available to him. Since Reagan, the Cold War has ended and the world has moved on. America has fought harsh wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the American public has no appetite these days for body bags. Therefore the easiest route for the current administration and President Obama is to utter words of condemnation and impose sanctions. Will this halt Russia or bring it to the negotiating table? So far, the answer is strongly negative. This week’s cease fire agreement failed within 24 hours!

One solution is to make the Ukraine a temporary member of NATO, enjoying the same privileges as America, Western Europe, Scandinavia and its other members. NATO forces, albeit depleted since the 1990s, are still formidable. A real show of force might deter Mr Putin from further aggression and bring him to the negotiating table.

Will this happen? I am an admirer of President Obama but his administration’s foreign policy over recent months has left me scratching my head. He does not seem to understand the meaning of alliances and the need for a Western coalition, led by America, to stand up to the Russians.

I do not want to see another Cold War, nor a hot one for that matter but bullies need to be stopped. Mr Putin and his government are undoubtedly bullies and must be dealt with accordingly. Sanctions won’t work. So, come on, Mr Obama, spend some time thinking about history and accept that aggression is needed. Don’t get side-tracked by ISIS. If you ignore the current situation in Ukraine, you may be forced to repeat the past with awful consequences.