US Presidential Election 2016: Restoring America’s Strength

In an a op-ed in Foreign Affairs, Marco Rubio, senator from Florida and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination writes that his foreign policy “would restore the post-1945 bipartisan presidential tradition of a strong and engaged America while adjusting it to meet the new realities of a globalized world.”

My Vision for U.S. Foreign Policy

by Marco Rubio

America’s status as the greatest and most influential nation on earth comes with certain inescapable realities. Among these are an abundance of enemies wishing to undermine us, numerous allies dependent on our strength and constancy, and the burden of knowing that every choice we make in exercising our power—even when we choose not to exercise it at all—has tremendous human and geopolitical consequences.

This has been true for at least 70 years, but never more so than today. As the world has grown more interconnected, American leadership has grown more critical to maintaining global order and defending our people’s interests, and as our economy has turned from national to international, domestic policy and foreign policy have become inseparable.

President Barack Obama has failed to recognize this. He entered office believing the United States was too engaged in too many places and that globalization had diminished the need for American power. He set to work peeling back the protective cover of American influence, stranding our allies, and deferring to the whims of nefarious regional powers. He has vacillated between leading recklessly and not leading at all, which has left the world more dangerous and America’s interests less secure. It will take years for our next president to confront the residual effects of President Obama’s foreign and defense policies. Countering the spread of the self-declared Islamic State, for example, will require a broadened coalition of regional partners, increased U.S. involvement in the fight, and steady action to prevent the group’s expansion to other failed and failing states. Halting Iran’s regional expansionism and preventing its acquisition of a nuclear weapon will demand equal urgency and care.

The Middle East, however, is far from the only region with crises. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Beijing’s attempts to dominate the South China Sea, resurgent despotism in South America, and the rise of new threats—from devastating cyberattacks to challenges in space—will all require the careful attention of America’s next president.Each challenge will be made more difficult by President Obama’s slashing of hundreds of billions of dollars from the defense budget, which has left the U.S. Army on track to be at pre–World War II levels, the U.S. Navy at pre–World War I levels, and the U.S. Air Force with the smallest and oldest combat force in its history. Our next president must act immediately on entering office to begin rebuilding these capabilities.

Physical strength and an active foreign policy to back it up are a means of preserving peace, not promoting conflict. Foreign involvement has never been a binary choice between perpetual war and passive indifference. The president has many tools to advance U.S. interests, and when used in proper balance, they will make it less likely that force will ever be required and will thus save lives rather than cost them.

My foreign policy would restore the post-1945 bipartisan presidential tradition of a strong and engaged America while adjusting it to meet the new realities of a globalized world. The foreign policy I propose has three pillars. Each can be best described through an example of a challenge we face in this new century, but they all reveal the need for all elements of American power—for a dynamic foreign policy that restores strength, promotes prosperity, and steers the world toward freedom.

A STRATEGY OF STRENGTH

The first and most important pillar of my foreign policy will be a renewal of American strength. This is an idea based on a simple truth: the world is at its safest when America is at its strongest. When America’s armed forces and intelligence professionals, aided by our civilian diplomatic and foreign assistance programs, are able to send a forceful message without firing a shot, the result is more peace, not more conflict. Yet when the United States fails to build or display such strength, it weakens our global hand by casting doubt on our ability and willingness to act. This doubt only encourages our adversaries to test us.

The Obama administration’s handling of Iran has demonstrated this with alarming clarity. Tehran exploited the president’s lack of strength throughout the negotiations over its nuclear program by wringing a series of dangerous concessions from the United States and its partners, including the ability to enrich uranium, keep the Arak and Fordow nuclear facilities open, avoid admitting its past transgressions, and ensure a limited timeline for the agreement.

How did a nation with as little intrinsic leverage as Iran win so many concessions? Part of the answer is that President Obama took off the table the largest advantage our nation had entering into the negotiations: military strength. Although the president frequently said that “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran, his administration consistently signaled otherwise. Several senior officials openly criticized the notion of a military strike, and the president himself publicly said that there could be no military solution to the Iranian nuclear program. This was underscored by a historic reluctance to engage throughout the Middle East, from pulling troops out of Iraq at all costs to retreating from the stated redline on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

President Obama became so publicly opposed to military action that he sacrificed any option that could have conceivably raised the stakes and forced the mullahs into making major concessions. Iran recognized that it could push for greater compromise without fear that the United States would break off the talks. The president’s drive for a deal caused him to forsake a basic principle of diplomacy with rogue regimes: it must be backed by the threat of force. As president, I would have altered the basic environment of the talks. I would have maneuvered forces in the region to signal readiness; linked the nuclear talks to Iran’s broader conduct, from its human rights abuses to its support for terrorism and its existential threats against Israel; and pressured Tehran on all fronts, from Syria to Yemen.

It is true that Iran, in response to these displays of strength, may have broken off negotiations or even lashed out in the region. History, however, suggests that even if Iran had created more trouble in the near term, increased pressure would have eventually forced it to back down. That is exactly what happened in 1988, when Iran ended its war with Iraq and its attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf after the Reagan administration sent in the U.S. Navy. More recently, after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran halted a key component of its nuclear program.

It’s not too late to mitigate the damage of the administration’s mishandling of Iran. By rescinding the flawed deal concluded by President Obama and reasserting our presence in the Middle East, we can reverse Iran’s malign influence in this vitally important region and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The security of the region, the safety of Israel, and the interests of the entire world require an American approach toward Tehran marked by strength and leadership rather than weakness and concession.

OPEN FOR BUSINESS

The second pillar of my foreign policy is the protection of an open international economy in an increasingly globalized world. Millions of the best jobs in this century will depend on international trade that will be possible only when global sea-lanes are open and sovereign nations are protected from the aggression of larger neighbors. Thus, the prosperity of American families is tied to the safety and stability of regions on the other side of the world, from Asia to the Middle East to Europe.

That is why Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty is much more than a question of where lines are drawn on the maps of eastern Europe. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and efforts to sow instability in eastern Ukraine were sparked, in no small part, by the decision of a sovereign Ukrainian government to seek closer political and economic ties with the European Union and the West.

Russia’s actions are a historic affront to the post–World War II global order on which the global economy depends, and they set a disturbing precedent in a world of rising powers with surging ambitions. Our halting and meager response sends a message to other countries that borders can be violated and countries invaded without serious consequences. The threat of this precedent is profound. America should never have to ask permission from a regional power to conduct commerce with any nation. We cannot allow the world to become a place where countries become off-limits to us as markets and trading partners because of violence, uncertainty, or the blustering threats of an autocratic ruler.

Russia’s actions are emblematic of a larger global trend. From the Strait of Hormuz to the South China Sea, authoritarian states increasingly threaten recognized borders and international waters, airspace, cyberspace, and outer space as a means of gaining leverage over their neighbors and over the United States. Since the end of World War II, the United States has prospered in part because it guarded those critical pathways, and U.S. engagement has a distinguished record of increasing the well-being of other countries, from Germany and Japan to South Korea and Colombia. By failing to maintain this devotion to protecting the lanes of commerce, the Obama administration has exposed international markets to exploitation and chaos.

I will also isolate Russia diplomatically, expanding visa bans and asset freezes on high-level Russian officials and pausing cooperation with Moscow on global strategic challenges. The United States should also station U.S. combat troops in eastern Europe to make clear that we will honor our commitments to our NATO allies and to discourage further Russian aggression.

If that support is coupled with more robust support for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and a willingness to leverage America’s newly gained status as a leader in oil and natural gas by lifting the ban on U.S. exports, we can help guard our European allies from Russia’s attempts to use trade and energy dependence as a weapon. This will also assist our efforts to help Ukraine’s leaders modernize and reform their economy and ultimately consolidate their independence from Moscow.

By preserving Ukraine’s freedom and demonstrating that the United States will not tolerate such threats to the global economy, the United States can begin to deter other potential aggressors from bullying their neighbors, including an increasingly ambitious China.

DEFENDING FREEDOM

Our approach to China in this century relates to the last pillar of my foreign policy: the need for moral clarity regarding America’s core values. Our devotion to the spread of human rights and liberal democratic principles has been a part of the fabric of our country since its founding and a beacon of hope for so many oppressed peoples around the globe. It is also a strategic imperative that requires pragmatism and idealism in equal measure.

Members of the Obama administration have signaled a disturbing willingness to ignore human rights violations in the hope of appeasing the Chinese leadership. In the administration’s early days in 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that human rights “can’t interfere” with other ostensibly more important bilateral issues, and in the months before Xi Jinping ascended to China’s top leadership post in 2012, Vice President Joe Biden told him that U.S. support for human rights was merely a matter of domestic political posturing.

As we have fallen silent about the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government has stymied democratic efforts in Hong Kong, raided the offices of human rights organizations, arrested scores of activists, redoubled its efforts to monitor and control the Internet, and continued repressive policies in Tibet and other Chinese regions, all while rapidly expanding its military, threatening its neighbors, establishing military installations on disputed islands, and carrying out unprecedented cyberattacks against America. China’s actions reveal a basic truth: the manner in which governments treat their own citizens is indicative of the manner in which they will treat other nations. Beijing’s repression at home and its aggressiveness abroad are two branches of the same tree. If the United States hopes to restore stability in East Asia, it has to speak with clarity and strength regarding the universal rights and values that America represents.

The best way for the United States to counter China’s expansion in East Asia is through support for liberty. The “rebalance” to Asia needs to be about more than just physical posturing. We must stand for the principles that have allowed Asian economies to grow so rapidly and for democracy to take root in the region. Only American leadership can show the Chinese government that its increasingly aggressive regional expansionism will be countered by a reinforcement of cooperation among like-minded nations in the region.

As president, I will strengthen ties with Asia’s democracies, from India to Taiwan. Bolstering liberty on China’s periphery can galvanize the region against Beijing’s hostility and change China’s political future. I will also back the Chinese people’s demands for unrestricted Internet access and their appeals for the basic human right of free speech. I will engage with dissidents, reformers, and religious rights activists, and I will reject Beijing’s attempts to block our contacts with these champions of freedom. I will also redouble U.S. support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and ensure that, once the trade deal is concluded, additional countries are able to join, expanding the creation of what will be millions of jobs here at home as well as abroad.

China will likely resist these efforts, but it is dependent on its economic relationship with the United States and, despite angry outbursts, will have no choice but to preserve it. President Ronald Reagan proved through his diplomacy with the Soviet Union that having a productive relationship with a great power and insisting on that power’s improvement of human rights are not conflicting aims. If the United States can pursue this agenda with China even as it continues its economic engagement, it will demonstrate that America remains committed to the cause of freedom in our time. I believe that when true freedom for the 1.3 billion people of China is finally attained, the impact will fundamentally change the course of human history.

FROM DISENGAGEMENT TO LEADERSHIP

These are only three examples of the challenges the United States will face in this century. They are all examples of problems that will require deft, multifaceted leadership. In addition to existing and emerging threats, we undoubtedly will be confronted with unexpected crises in the years ahead. These unknowns highlight the importance of establishing a fixed set of principles and objectives to guide American leadership. After years of strategic disengagement, this is the only way to restore global certainty regarding American commitments.

 By making retrenchment his primary objective, President Obama has put the international system at the mercy of the most ruthless aggressors. They are constantly seeking to undermine the basic principles of the post-1945 world by challenging American military primacy, threatening the global commons, and undermining liberal values. That Iran, Russia, and China are each challenging the United States in these spheres at the same time demonstrates their mutual desire for a departure from the postwar order.

The authoritarian rulers of these nations find an open international system deeply threatening to their exclusive grip on domestic political power. They cannot simply be reassured or persuaded, and they will push their agendas with whatever tools we give them the latitude to use. We cannot assume that these states will negotiate in good faith or see it in their interest to come to an agreement. If we allow the continued erosion of our military, economic, and moral strength, we will see a further breakdown in global order cast a lengthening shadow across our domestic prosperity and safety.

Retrenchment and retreat are not our destiny. The United States, by its presence alone, has the ability to alter balances, realign regional powers, promote stability, and enhance liberty. Only we can form coalitions based on mutual investment and mutual sacrifice. Our sole goal has never been to remain the world’s preeminent power. We will encourage and assist the rise of more powers when their rise is benign or noble. We wish to be a fraternal force rather than a paternal one.

This principle has marked the bipartisan tradition of U.S. foreign policy for the last 70 years. Our recent departure from this tradition has brought only violence, chaos, and discord. By advancing the three pillars of my foreign policy, I intend to restore American leadership to a world badly in need of it and defend our interests in what I’m confident will be another American century.

Reprinted with kindly permission of Foreign Affairs.

 

500 Years of Niccolò Machiavelli’s Masterpiece “The Prince” (1513)

“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.” Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince (1513)

December 2013 is dedicated to one of the greatest theorists of politics in history: Niccolò Machiavelli, whose masterpiece ‘The Prince’ came out on December 10, 1513—500 years ago.

In an op-ed in the New York Times John T. Scott (University of California) and Robert Zaretsky (University of Houston), and authors of “The Philosophers’ Quarrel: Rousseau, Hume and the Limits of Human Understanding.”, explore the legacy of ‘The Prince’.

“Yet Machiavelli teaches that in a world where so many are not good, you must learn to be able to not be good. The virtues taught in our secular and religious schools are incompatible with the virtues one must practice to safeguard those same institutions. The power of the lion and the cleverness of the fox: These are the qualities a leader must harness to preserve the republic.

For such a leader, allies are friends when it is in their interest to be. (We can, with difficulty, accept this lesson when embodied by a Charles de Gaulle; we have even greater difficulty when it is taught by, say, Hamid Karzai.) What’s more, Machiavelli says, leaders must at times inspire fear not only in their foes but even in their allies — and even in their own ministers.”

Read full story.

Historian Quentin Skinner on Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (1513)

American Jewish Committee begrüßt Stellenwert Israels im Koalitionsvertrag: „Sicherheit Israels für uns nicht verhandelbar“.

Pressemitteilung

Berlin, den 02.12.2013

Das American Jewish Committee (AJC) begrüßt das deutliche Bekenntnis zu Deutschlands Verantwortung für die Sicherheit Israels im Koalitionsvertrag und wertet die Aussagen als wichtiges Fundament für den Ausbau der deutsch-israelischen Beziehungen. Zugleich mahnt das AJC vor dem Hintergrund der jüngsten EU-Antisemitismusstudie die zügige Umsetzung des Bundestags-Maßnahmenbeschlusses an.

„Dass in diesem Koalitionsvertrag noch stärker als in der vergangenen Vereinbarung von 2009 die besondere Verpflichtung Deutschlands für den Schutz der Sicherheit Israels betont wird, zeigt den besonderen Stellenwert der deutsch-israelischen Beziehungen auf. Wir begrüßen zudem, dass die Feierlichkeiten zum 50-jährigen Jubiläum der Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Israel für das Jahr 2015 im Koalitionsvertrag hervorgehoben werden und das deutsch-israelische Verhältnis dadurch eine besondere Würdigung erhält“, so Deidre Berger, Direktorin des AJC Berlin Ramer Institute for German-Jewish Relations.

Im Koalitionsvertrag heißt es: „Wir bekennen uns zu der besonderen Verantwortung Deutschlands gegenüber Israel als jüdischem und demokratischem Staat und dessen Sicherheit. Das Existenzrecht und die Sicherheit Israels sind für uns nicht verhandelbar. 2015 feiern wir das 50-jährige Jubiläum der Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen zum Staat Israel. Dieses Jubiläum wird die Bundesregierung angemessen würdigen.“

Auch die transatlantischen Beziehungen werden im Vertrag besonders betont.

„Ein wichtiges Signal angesichts der jüngsten Spionage-Diskussionen“, sagte Berger weiter.

Beim Thema Antisemitismus und Rechtsextremismus wollen CDU/CSU und SPD zivilgesellschaftliche Initiativen und Programme verstetigen. Weitergehende Umsetzungsstrategien zum Thema Antisemitismus finden sich im Koalitionsvertrag jedoch nicht. Erst am 13. Juni beschloss der Deutsche Bundestag einen fraktionsübergreifenden Antrag zum Thema Antisemitismus. Die Resolution forderte die Bundesregierung dazu auf, den Maßnahmen-Katalog zur Bekämpfung des Antisemitismus umzusetzen.

„Die Ergebnisse der jüngsten EU-Studie, wonach mehr als 63% der deutschen Juden angaben, das Tragen jüdischer Symbole aus Angst vor Antisemitismus zu vermeiden, erhöhen den Handlungsdruck. Es braucht nun einen Umsetzungsplan der beschlossenen Maßnahmen, auch damit die Bekämpfung des Antisemitismus verbindlicher und kontinuierlicher erfolgen kann“, sagte Berger weiter.

Der Bundestags-Beschluss vom 13. Juni sieht unter anderem Förderprogramme zum deutsch-israelischen Austausch, Maßnahmen zur Unterstützung von Holocaust-Überlebenden durch deutsche Jugendliche und eine bessere Darstellung jüdischen Lebens im deutschen Schulunterricht vor.

Zum Thema Ghettorente vereinbarten CDU/CSU und SPD, dass „den berechtigten Interessen der Holocaust-Überlebenden nach einer angemessenen Entschädigung für die in einem Ghetto geleistete Arbeit Rechnung getragen wird“.

„Es ist wichtig, dass die zukünftigen Koalitionsparteien endlich eine Lösung beim Thema Ghettorenten erzielen wollen. Nun kommt es darauf an, dass CDU/CSU und SPD in den nächsten drei Monaten einen Umsetzungsplan für das Thema Ghettorenten vorlegen. Die noch wenigen Überlebenden können nicht noch länger warten, um verspätete Entschädigungszahlungen zu bekommen“, so Berger abschließend.

Pressekontakt

Deidre Berger, Director

Email: berlin@ajc.org

American Jewish Committee (AJC) Berlin Office

Leipziger Platz 15, Mosse Palais

10117 Berlin

Tel.: +49 (0)30 22 65 94-0

Fax: +49 (0)30 22 65 94-14

Wolfgang Kubicki: „Große Koalition ist großer Mist“

FDP-Präsidiumsmitglied und Vorsitzender der FDP-Fraktion im Landtag von Schleswig-Holstein Wolfgang Kubicki hat die Große Koalition wegen nicht eingehaltener Wahlversprechen und mangelhafter Wirtschaftspolitik kritisiert.

In einem „Stern“-Gastbeitrag wirft er der Bundeskanzlerin vor, die deutsche Wirtschaft durch staatliche Eingriffe zu schwächen. Immerhin seien die meisten Versäumnisse der Koalitionsverhandlungen der SPD zuzuschreiben.

Zum Artikel.

Neues aus der Anstalt: Das Guttenberg-Syndrom in der Politik

Ein Kommentar von David Berger

WAS KÖNNEN WIR VOM VERHALTEN DES QUARTALS-IRREN DER KONSERVATIVEN GUTTENBERG LERNEN?

Mit Glämour wollte der Telenovela-Populist Karl-Theodor beim Fußvolk punkten, was ihm gelungen ist, da die Massen bekanntlich dumm und leicht manipulierbar sind. Eine heile Welt und schnelle Lösungen zu allen Problemen versprach denen der Messias des deutschen Stammtisches.

Wie es sich an der Bundeswehr-Reform herausstellte, ist davon nicht viel übrig geblieben, ausser mehr Probleme, die sein Nachfolger Thomas De Maizière ausbaden muss…

Mit mimosenhaften Verhalten, den man sonst nur aus dem Kindergarten kennt, meldet sich der narzissistische Baron zurück. Auf der einen Seite, Schelte für die Parteikollegen austeilen (nach dem Motto: “Ihr habt mein Spielzeug kaputt gemacht!”), auf der anderen Seite Mitleid beim Stammtisch suchen, um zumindest als Märtyrer bei denen besser anzukommen (nach dem Motto: “Seht ihr, sie sind alle böse zu mir!”).

Diagnose: Patient Guttenberg leidet offensichtlich an einer negativen narzisstischen Persönlichkeitsstörung.

Die Betonung liegt auf “negativ”, weil Selbstliebe an sich gut ist. Schlimm wird es erst, wenn der Patient an mangelndem Selbstwertgefühl leidet. Vermutlich hatte dieser Patient als Kind nicht genug Bestätigung von seinen Eltern bekommen. Die sucht er nun bei der Öffentlichkeit.

Rezept: solche Patienten sollte man möglichst den Zutritt zum Polit-Geschäft verweigern. Gefährlich und unberechenbar, daher ungeeignet ein politisches Amt zu bekleiden.

Michel Rocard, figure de proue de la gauche pragmatique

L’ancien Premier ministre fête aujourd’hui ses 81 ans.

J’aimais bien cet homme politique, qui avait eu le courage (ou la pusillanimité prétendent ses rivaux de gauche comme de droite) de renoncer à se présenter à la présidentielle de 1988, pour éviter ainsi à la gauche une lutte interne fratricide qui aurait bénéficié au camp adverse.

A l’époque, j’étais aussi déçu de sa décision, bien que je n’avais pas encore l’âge de voter. Un débat Chirac-Rocard (qui dans le privé sont des amis inséparables depuis Sciences-Po) aurait été sans nul doute intéressant.

N’importe: Michel Rocard a laissé une trace mémorable dans la vie politique française. Ce Protestant doté d’une intelligence brillante et d’une volonté d’action intrépidante a en réalité révolutionné la culture politique de la Vème République. Je fais notamment allusion à la fameuse «méthode Rocard» qui a résolu bien des problèmes, pas seulement celui de la Nouvelle-Calédonie.

Joyeux anniversaire, Michel Rocard!

In Hamburg sagt man Tschüss…zu den Grünen!

“Der höchste Grad von Ungerechtigkeit ist geheuchelte Gerechtigkeit.” Philosoph Platon über Bündnis 90/Die Grünen

Eine Jubel-Glosse von Narcisse Caméléon, Ressortleiter Deppologie, zum Tag der Befreiung Hamburgs von der Grünen Besserwisserei

Unsere Gebete wurden erhöht. Die Grüne Pest aka Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, die sich durch Bevormundung und Verfilzung auf Kosten der Bürger profilieren wollte, ist endlich weg aus der Regierungsverantwortung in unserer schönen Stadt Hamburg. Eine liberale gar libertäre Metropole wie Hamburg braucht definitiv keine Bevormundung und auch keine Besserwisserei à la Bündnis 90/Die Grünen.

Gott sei Dank haben die Hamburger die heuchlerische Partei Bündnis 90/ Die Grünen in die politische Wüste geschickt! “Die unideologischen Salon-Grünen haben es aufgrund von Fehlleistungen und Verfilzung am meisten verdient, nach der Wahl in der Opposition zu landen”, sagte zu Recht Alt-Bürgermeister Henning Voscherau.

Olaf Scholz wird ein guter Bürgermeister sein, vor allem weil er rechts von der SPD ist, also offen für eine sozialliberale Koalition ist, und die absolute Mehrheit hat. Er braucht Gott sei Dank die Grünen Parvenüs nicht. Die Grünen sind in Hamburg seit dem Scheitern der Schulreform (viele CDU-Wähler haben SPD gewählt, um Schwarz-Grün zu verhindern) und der Genehmigung des Kohlekraftwerkes in Moorburg (durch eine grüne Umweltsenatorin, ein Schlag ins Gesicht für die Grünen-Wähler) total abgebrannt, was eine sehr gute Nachricht für Hamburg und Deutschland ist.

Wir wollen hoffen, dass die Niederlage der Grünen ein bundesweiter Trend sein wird. Eine FDP-SPD-Koalition täte Deutschland gut, weil beide Parteien große inhaltliche Schnittmengen haben.

Absolute Mehrheit der SPD oder FDP-SPD-Koalition ist allemal besser für unsere Stadt. Das wackelige Experiment Schwarz-Grün ist endgültig gescheitert, und das ist gut so. Zukunftsmusik in Hamburg oder gar auf Bundesebene könnte eine sozialliberale Koalition sein. Wie einst mit Helmut Schmidt…

Wir gratulieren SPD und FDP, dass sie die Grünen verhindert haben.

Die in HIRAM7 REVIEW veröffentlichten Essays und Kommentare geben nicht grundsätzlich den Standpunkt der Redaktion wieder.

“Zwischen Populismus und Aufklärung” – 4. Freiheitskongress am 19. Januar 2011

Die Stiftung für die Freiheit veranstaltet in Berlin ihren vierten Freiheitskongress am 19. Januar 2011 unter dem Thema “Zwischen Populismus und Aufklärung”.

Teilnehmer sind Wolfgang Gerhardt, Vorsitzender des Vorstandes der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit, Walter Krämer, Professor für Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistik an der TU Dortmund und Autor des Buches “So lügt man mit Statistik”, Christel Happach-Kasan, Vorsitzende der Arbeitsgruppe Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz der FDP-Bundestagsfraktion, Hans von Storch, Klimaforscher und Meteorologe, sowie Vince Ebert, Wissenschafts-Kabarettist und Physiker.

Zur Anmeldung.

Hamburger Grüne provozieren aus reiner Machttaktik Neuwahlen

Dagegen-Partei Bündnis 90-Die Grünen

Pressemitteilung

Hamburg – 28. November 2010 – “Die Grünen wollen aus purer Machttaktik Neuwahlen, um noch schnell die guten Umfragen im Bund zu nutzen, bevor die Blase platzt”, erklärte FDP-Generalsekretär Christian Lindner nach dem Scheitern der schwarz-grünen Koalition in Hamburg.

Nun stünden Union und Grüne mit leeren Händen vor dem Wähler. Die von den Grünen geforderte Abschaffung der Gymnasien sei Dank engagierter Eltern verhindert worden und beim Bau des Kraftwerks Moorburg seien die Grünen ohne äußeres Zutun umgefallen. Neuwahlen seien nun eine “Chance für einen Senat der Mitte, der für Wachstum und Bildung und nicht gegen Wachstum und Bildung arbeitet”, meint Lindner.

FDP-Parteichef Guido Westerwelle hielt fest: “Wir freuen uns auf Neuwahlen. Sie bieten die Chance für einen bürgerlichen Neuanfang in Hamburg.” Es sei jetzt an der Zeit, das “Gewürge und die Hängepartie” zu beenden. Dadurch, dass sie “das Weite suchen, wenn es schwierig wird”, würden sich nicht nur die Grünen selbst disqualifizieren, sondern das Modell Schwarz-Grün gleich mit. “Schwarz-Grün ist ein toter Vogel, so Westerwelle, der einen “guten und engagierten Wahlkampf” ankündigte.

Über den folgenden Link findet man Informationen über das wahre Gesicht der Grünen: www.gelb-statt-gruen.de

Pressekontakt: FDP Hamburg – Henry C. Brinker – Telefon: 040 3099 880 – Email: hcb@fdp-hh.de

French Presidential Election 2012: Nicolas Sarkozy reshuffles his Cabinet ahead of 2012 battle

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, facing slackening polls ahead of the 2012 re-election, reappointed his old friend and new rival François Fillon, the country’s prime minister, as part of naming a new, more conservative French cabinet, The New York Times reports.

François Fillon’s quiet tenacity has earned him the respect of the nation. Foto: RFI.

France’s Socialist Party leader Martine Aubry, the charismatic daughter of former European Commission President Jacques Delors, and far-right veteran Jean-Marie Le Pen could challenge Nicolas Sarkozy for the country’s leadership, the article said.

“Mr. Sarkozy won in 2007 by uniting the right around him. He is known to be worried now about a growing level of support for the National Front to his right, which could damage his 2012 re-election prospects if the opposition Socialists united around a credible presidential candidate.”

Read full story.

The Legacy of Niccolò Machiavelli: The Common Sense in Politics

„The first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them.“ Niccolò Machiavelli

„Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power’s disappearance.” Hannah Arendt

Historians Hannah Holborn Gray, Roger D. Masters, Mark Musa, Robert Hariman, Henry Kissinger, Gary Hart and Donald Kagan recalled Niccolò Machiavelli, the founder of modern politics.

Historian Quentin Skinner on Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513)

China-Bashing contaminates 2010 United States midterm elections

China is emerging as a common adversary in midterm U.S. election campaigns, as candidates from both parties seize on anxieties about China’s growing economic power to attack each other on trade policies, outsourcing, and the deficit.

 

French political cartoon from the late 1890s. A pie represents "Chine" (French for China) and is being divided between caricatures of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, William II of Germany (who is squabbling with Queen Victoria over a borderland piece, whilst thrusting a knife into the pie to signify aggressive German intentions), Nicholas II of Russia, who is eyeing a particular piece, the French Marianne (who is diplomatically shown as not participating in the carving, and is depicted as close to Nicholas II, as a reminder of the Franco-Russian Alliance), and the Meiji Emperor of Japan, carefully contemplating which pieces to take. A stereotypical Qing official throws up his hands to try and stop them, but is powerless. It is meant to be a figurative representation of the Imperialist tendencies of these nations towards China during the decade.

 

With U.S. economic revival still slow, trade policy looms as a an issue in midterm races, The Wall Street Journal reports.

***

China-Bashing Gains Bipartisan Support

By Naftali Bendavid, The Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2010

China is emerging as a bogeyman this campaign season, with candidates across the American political spectrum seizing on anxieties about the country’s growing economic might to pummel each other on trade, outsourcing and the deficit.

In television ads, China is framed as an ominous foreign influence in a time of economic anxiety, often accompanied by red flags and communist-style stars and sometimes by Asian-sounding music. Democrats say Republicans support tax breaks that reward companies for moving jobs to China; Republicans blame Democrats for a federal budget deficit they say forces the U.S. to borrow money from China.

“Candidates are looking to speak in a visceral way to the fears and concerns of voters about jobs,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “Bashing China is safe.”

The heated rhetoric puts the White House in a bind. Administration officials often don’t mind Congress putting pressure on China, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner himself in a speech Wednesday offered a blunt critique of Beijing’s currency policy. But officials also worry that a confrontational approach could backfire.

Both nations may feel compelled by public opinion to engage in “an escalation of rhetoric that is going to be difficult to manage” after the election, said Charles Freeman, chairman of China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Wang Baodong, a spokesman for Beijing’s embassy in Washington, criticized candidates’ use of his country in campaign messages. “China is committed to promoting strong bilateral trade and economic cooperation, which brings about enormous benefit to the welfare of our two peoples,” Mr. Wang said. “So making China an issue in the elections or in any other forms is irrelevant and wrong-targeted.”

Mark Schauer, a Michigan Democrat facing a tough re-election fight, has aired an ad against his Republican rival saying, “Tim Walberg made it way too easy for companies to outsource our jobs to China.” Mr. Walberg said the ad was misleading and that he considered American products superior to Chinese ones.

In Ohio, Democratic Senate candidate Lee Fisher has focused on GOP opponent Rob Portman’s stint as a House member and as U.S. trade representative under President George W. Bush. “Congressman Rob Portman knows how to grow the economy—in China,” said a recent Fisher ad.

The Portman campaign rejected these assertions, saying Mr. Portman fought to increase exports and was the first U.S. trade representative to take China to court and win.

Republicans, for their part, cited China in their recently released “Pledge to America.” “We now borrow 41 cents of every dollar we spend, much of it from foreign countries, including China, and leave the bill to our kids and grandkids,” it said, as it attacked Democrats for “unparalleled recklessness with taxpayer dollars.”

Warnings of foreign influence have often been a feature of U.S. elections, especially in times of economic insecurity. And there is little reason to believe the latest ads will have a long-term effect on U.S.-China relations. or on the fate of anti-China legislation, which has struggled in Congress.But with China on the rise, warnings about it seem to have a special resonance this campaign season. The House, with GOP support, passed a bill in September to penalize Beijing’s foreign-exchange practices. A few days earlier, Democrats unsuccessfully pushed a measure to end corporate tax deductions for expenses related to shifting jobs overseas.

Meanwhile, in West Virginia, an ad by Republican Spike Maynard against Rep. Nick Rahall featured Asian music and Chinese flags. It cited a Texas wind farm that reportedly planned to apply for federal stimulus funds while obtaining its windmills from China. “It’s on our jeans, even our children’s toys: ‘Made in China,’ ” the narrator said.

Democrats said the windmill project would have materials manufactured in the U.S. and that the operator hadn’t applied for stimulus funds.

A similar back-and-forth is unfolding in Virginia, where an ad by Republican State Sen. Robert Hurt accuses Rep. Tom Perriello (D., Va.) of voting to give tax breaks to foreign companies “creating jobs in China.”

That’s a reference to a portion of the stimulus package that gives tax breaks for green jobs. The Perriello campaign said Mr. Hurt’s pledge not to raise taxes means he’d oppose closing tax loopholes for companies that move jobs overseas.

About the author: Naftali Bendavid covers Congress and politics for The Wall Street Journal. Before coming to the Journal, he covered the White House and the Justice Department for the Chicago Tribune. Bendavid also spent five years as deputy Washington bureau chief for the Tribune, overseeing its coverage of government and politics. Bendavid has covered such stories as the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Al Gore presidential campaign, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the Supreme Court confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor.

Reprinted with kindly permission of The Wall Street Journal.

Principles for Economic Revival

Top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers announced he will leave, allowing President Barack Obama to reshape his economic staff after midterm elections.

President Barack Obama makes his point to Lawrence Summers, left, head of the National Economic Council, and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, seated next to Summers, during a budget meeting in the White House Roosevelt Room in the President's first week in office. Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, is seated to the President's left (Photo: Peter Souza; January 24, 2009).

The Federal Reserve said yesterday it was prepared to do more to help the U.S. economy but stopped short of announcing specific measures.

In the Wall Street Journal, George P. Shultz, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan Meltzer, and John B. Taylor outline a set of policies to guide economic policymakers back to rapid growth, including lowering taxes, balancing the budget, modifying Social Security and healthcare entitlements, and a stronger monetary policy.

Read full story.

Interview with ISAF Commander David Petraeus

Although violence in Afghanistan‘s parliamentary elections over the weekend could be a serious setback for U.S. efforts, some experts see an opportunity for change if the elections lead to serious conversations about corruption.

General David Howell Petraeus

In the Hamburg weekly Der Spiegel, U.S. commander David Petraeus says despite polls that show 70 percent of the Afghan population has no confidence in their national parliament, other polls show “that Afghans are optimistic about their future.” There is “understandable concern about the pace of progress, which also means that there are high expectations.”

Read full story.

The Arab Lobby and US Foreign Policy

The Arab lobby is one of the strongest in America—even stronger than Israel’s, argues a new book written by Mitchell Bard – The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America’s Interests in the Middle East.

A book review by Alan M. Dershowitz

While the media and politicians engage in frenzied debate about the virtues and vices of building—or preventing the building of—a Muslim community center (cum mosque) near the “sacred ground” of 9/11, Iran continues to build a nuclear weapon, as the Israelis and Palestinians take a tentative step toward building a peaceful resolution to their age-old conflict.

Inevitably, whenever Middle East issues take center stage, the question of the role of lobbies, particularly those that advocate for foreign countries, becomes a hot topic. This book by longtime Middle East authority, Mitchell Bard, is a must read for anyone who cares—and who doesn’t?—about the role of lobbies in influencing American policy in the Middle East. Its thesis, which is sure to be controversial, is easily summarized:

Yes Virginia, there is a big bad lobby that distorts U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East way out of proportion to its actual support by the American public. Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, author of the screed, The Israel Lobby, are right about that. But the offending lobby is not AIPAC, which supports Israel, but rather the Arab lobby, which opposes the Jewish state.

Both the pro-Israel and pro-Arab lobby (really lobbies because there are several for each) are indeed powerful but there is a big difference—a difference that goes to the heart of the role of lobbying in a democracy. Bard puts it this way:

“One of the most important distinguishing characteristics of the Arab lobby is that it has no popular support. While the Israeli lobby has hundreds of thousands of grass root members and public opinion polls consistently reveal a huge gap between support for Israel and the Arab nations/Palestinians, the Arab lobby has almost no foot soldiers or public sympathy. It’s most powerful elements tend to be bureaucrats who represent only their personal views or what they believe are their institutional interests, and foreign governments that care only about their national interests, not those of the United States. What they lack in human capital in terms of American advocates, they make up for with almost unlimited resources to try to buy what they usually cannot win on the merits of their arguments.”

This is a critical distinction for a democracy. The case for Israel (though not for all of its policies) is an easy sell for pro-Israel lobbyists, especially elected representatives. Voting in favor of Israel is popular not only in areas with a large concentration of Jewish voters, but throughout the country, because Israel is popular with Evangelical Christians in particular and with much, though certainly not all, of the public in general. Lobbies that reflect the will of the people are an important part of the democratic process. Thus, the American Association of Retired People (AARP), the principal lobbying group for the elderly, is extremely powerful because there are so many elderly people in this country who want to protect social security, Medicaid, and other benefits. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a powerful lobby precisely because so many Americans, for better or worse, love their guns. And The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a powerful lobby because Americans, in general, support the Middle East’s only democracy and reliable American ally.

But why is the Arab lobby, and most particularly the Saudi lobby, also powerful? Saudi Arabia has virtually no support among Americans. Indeed, it is widely reviled for its export of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, its manipulation of oil prices, its anti-Christian and anti-Semitic policies, its total deprivation of any semblance of freedom of speech or dissent, and its primitive forms of punishment that include stoning and amputation. Yet, as Bard demonstrates, the Saudi lobby has beaten the pro-Israel lobby over and over again in head-to-head conflicts, such as the sale of sophisticated weapons to a regime that doesn’t even have the technical skills to use them, and the conflict over whether to move the United States’ embassy to Jerusalem. Even now, Saudi Arabia is lobbying to obtain a multibillion-dollar arms deal, and it is likely to succeed over the objections of Israel.

How then does a lobby with no popular support manage to exert influence in a democratic country? The secret is very simple. The Arab lobby in general and the Saudis in particular make little effort to influence popularly elected public officials, particularly legislators. Again, listen to Bard:

“The Saudis have taken a different tact from the Israeli lobby, focusing a top-down rather than bottom-up approach to lobbying. As hired gun, J. Crawford Cook, wrote in laying out his proposed strategy for the kingdom, ‘Saudi Arabia has a need to influence the few that influence the many, rather than the need to influence the many to whom the few must respond.'”

The primary means by which the Saudis exercise this influence is money. They spend enormous amounts of lucre to buy (or rent) former state department officials, diplomats, White House aides, and legislative leaders who become their elite lobbying corps. Far more insidiously, the Saudis let it be known that if current government officials want to be hired following their retirement from government service, they had better hew to the Saudi line while they are serving in our government. The former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, who was so close to the President George H.W. Bush that he referred to himself as “Bandar Bush,” acknowledged the relationship between how a government official behaves while in office and how well he will be rewarded when he leaves office. “If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you’d be surprised how much better friends you have when they are just coming into office.”

Bard concludes from this well known quid pro quo that: “given the potential of these post-retirement opportunities, it would not be surprising if officials adopted positions while in government to make themselves marketable to the Arab lobby.”

The methodology employed by the Arab lobby is thus totally inconsistent with democratic governance, because it does not reflect the will of the people but rather the corruption of the elite, while the Israeli lobby seems to operate within the parameters of democratic processes. Yet so much has been written about the allegedly corrosive nature of the Israeli lobby, while the powerful Arab lobby has widely escaped scrutiny and criticism. This important book thus contributes to the open marketplace of ideas by illuminating the dark side of the massive and largely undemocratic Arab lobbying efforts to influence American policy with regard to the Middle East.

© Alan M. Dershowitz

***

About the author: Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is a Brooklyn native who has been called “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer” and one of its “most distinguished defenders of individual rights.” He is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Professor Dershowitz’s new novel, The Trials of Zion, will be published by Hachette Book Group on October 1, 2010

The Making of Barack Obama: Honolulu, Harvard, and Hyde Park

Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great. (Niccolo Machiavelli)

David Remnick,   editor of The New Yorker, delivers with The Bridge fresh insights about Barack Obama’s personal and political odyssey – particularly when it comes to understanding the degree to which Obama is a product of New England’s commitment to social and global reform.

A Book Review by Walter Russell Mead 

Barack Obama’s appeal has always been something of a paradox. On the one hand, Obama’s election as the United States‘ first African American president can be seen as a triumph for “identity politics” and a blow to the near hammerlock that white Protestant males have had on the presidency since George Washington.

On the other hand, it moves the country closer to an era of nonracial or postracial politics, in which racial identity will matter less and less.

Obama is a clear break from past generations of black politicians. In the parlance of the civil rights movement, he is a member of “the Joshua generation” — a term drawn from the Bible that refers to the generation of Jews who did not remember the Exodus but lived to enter the Promised Land. And he has embraced a very different political style from those of other black politicians, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. With a white mother and a Kenyan father who lived in the United States only briefly, Obama had little personal connection to the forces and history that shape African American identity. Growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, two places where black-white relations were a marginal and distant force, young Barry Obama’s life was touched only tangentially by race. From this start, Obama emerged as the most commanding figure in African American politics ever and was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Who is Obama? What does he really believe? How has his quest to find and understand his place in American life shaped him and his vision for the United States? These are the questions that David Remnick, the author of Lenin’s Tomb and the editor of The New Yorker, sets out to investigate in The Bridge, an intelligent and searching biography of Obama. Although he covers ground that has already been examined by other writers (most notably, Obama himself), Remnick nevertheless manages to frame important questions about the current occupant of the Oval Office. The Bridge is a significant accomplishment and a compelling read. At its best, it illuminates some very dark corners.

The book is not always at its best. Most readers will feel that Remnick spends entirely too much time on detailed accounts of the ultimately irrelevant candidates who tried and failed to stop Obama’s march to the Senate in 2004. Instead, Remnick should have put his intelligence to work on the mostly white world of liberal Hyde Park activism, which had a profound effect on Obama during his years in Chicago. This is a regrettable oversight, since, as Remnick’s narrative makes clear, white (and often Jewish) friends and associates formed a critical part of Obama’s network. Remnick has a gift for laying bare the cultural and intellectual forces at work in a person or a milieu; had he turned that searchlight on Hyde Park, he would have produced a much richer account of the president’s intellectual and political journey.

When it comes to the world of black Chicago, Remnick gets closer to the story. His portrait of Representative Bobby Rush, the former Black Panther who defeated Obama in a congressional primary, is particularly sharp; his take on Jeremiah Wright, the spellbinding preacher who built the church in which Obama found his faith, although good, leaves readers wanting more. The book’s dominant metaphor is a bridge — Remnick compares Obama’s role in society to the bridge in Selma, Alabama, that was the site of one of the most significant struggles of the civil rights movement — and to some degree, the image closes as many doors as it opens. The image is a compelling one, but African American politics, religion, and culture are about much more than civil rights. By scanting this complexity, Remnick leaves readers with a less than totally satisfying depiction of Obama’s encounter with the world of black Chicago.

THE PRESIDENT FROM NEW ENGLAND

Nevertheless, Remnick delivers some fresh insights about the president’s personal and political odyssey that open up new perspectives on American society as a whole — particularly when it comes to understanding the degree to which Obama is a product of New England’s commitment to social and global reform. The Bostonian vision of the United States as “a city on a hill,” whose government is the moral agent of a society of good people determined to suppress vice and establish virtue, has fueled some of the country’s most important and lasting social movements, and it is this tradition that seems to have shaped Obama most profoundly.

The high school that Obama attended in Hawaii, the elite Punahou School, was founded in 1841 to educate the children of the New England missionaries who led the kingdom of Hawaii into both Christianity and the United States. In 1851, it was opened up to students from all racial and religious backgrounds, and today, like any good New England boarding school, it attempts to infuse its students with an ethic of service, along with solid academic skills. This Exeter of the Pacific did more than give Obama the academic skills he would need at Columbia and Harvard Law School; socially and culturally, it helped prepare him for both the ideas and the people among whom his lot was to be cast.

At its best, the tradition of New England reform, with its moral earnestness and its willingness to call on the full powers of a strong state, is a nonracial or postracial vision. Punahou’s 1851 decision to open its doors to nonwhite and non-Christian students reflected more than the missionary ambitions of its founders; it represented the New England faith in the essential equality, and even similarity, of all people under the skin.

That same faith led more modern representatives of the New England spirit to promote the admission of increasing numbers of nonelite and nonwhite students to schools like Punahou and Harvard Law. But the goal of these powerful establishment reformers was less the celebration of diversity than its abolition. That is, just as the missionaries believed that given Christian values and education, the Sandwich Islanders would build their own version of a New England commonwealth, so modern reformers have believed that giving African Americans, Roman Catholics, and other formerly marginalized Americans greater access to better education would ultimately lead them to embrace New England’s core values.

This seems to have worked in Obama’s case. Just as President John F. Kennedy, the Harvard-educated scion of Boston Irish-ward politicians, out-WASPed the WASPs by placing himself firmly in the line of high New England moral and political leadership, so Obama has used his eloquence and conviction to emerge as the leading representative of this old and deeply American political tradition. Yet the perception among some Chicagoans that if pressed, Obama would say, like the narrator of the famous William Blake poem, “I am black, but O, my soul is white!” nearly ended his political career in 2000, when Rush humiliated him in a congressional race.

For Obama to emerge as a postracial candidate, he first had to become racial; he had to find a way to become culturally black. The quest to connect with African American history, culture, and values shaped much of his personal and political activity from adolescence through 2006. Remnick does a better job with this aspect of Obama’s development than many writers because he grounds much of his story in Obama’s struggle to find his place in black America. And for a white writer, he gives an unusually detailed and nuanced portrait of the intellectual and political world in which Obama had to find his way.

More would have been better. In particular, readers would have benefited from a fuller and richer treatment of Wright. He represents the road that Obama ultimately chose not to take: Wright’s Afrocentric theology and impassioned black nationalist rhetoric offered a competing vision with which Obama had to come to terms to find his place in black Chicago — but that could never adequately express either the hopes or the vision that Obama brought with him from Hawaii and Harvard. Forced to choose between the spirit and legacy of New England reform as embodied in the likes of Oliver Wendell Holmes and McGeorge Bundy on the one hand and the Afrocentric vision of Wright on the other, Obama stands with Massachusetts every time.

BLACK LIKE HIM

The path Obama had to navigate as he built an identity and found friends and allies within the world of Chicago’s African American politics was a winding one. Remnick moves rather too quickly along it, but he does help readers appreciate the magnitude and difficulty of Obama’s progress. Although the circumstances of Obama’s need to connect his cosmopolitan upbringing and education with the hopes and fears of a particular community of voters were unique, the task is common. The U.S. educational system is largely deracinating: it aims to do more than take the boy out of Iowa; it wants to take the Iowa out of the boy. For those graduates who seek a career in electoral politics, the process must be reversed.

Returning to Arkansas after his years as a Rhodes scholar and Yale law student, Bill Clinton, the great chameleon of modern American political history, had to reconnect with an American vernacular. George W. Bush had to navigate the transition from Andover, Yale, and Harvard Business School back to the pork rinds of Texas. The declining political fortunes of the Kennedy dynasty seem connected to the way that each succeeding generation has been more Harvard and less South Boston; by contrast, each generation of the Bush clan has moved further away from its blue-blooded, bluenosed Connecticut roots toward a more total immersion in rising American subcultures.

Given the unique and uniquely charged history of black America, African American politicians face tougher challenges than their white, Latino, and Asian peers. The loyalties are deeper, the suspicions on all sides greater, the questions to be addressed more explosive. Obama’s success in finding a path through these obstacles and developing a political stance and style that has attracted both black and white voters to his side reveals a powerful intellect linked to a capacity for empathy and a receptiveness to others that recalls both Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Reflecting on Obama’s path from Harvard Law to the South Side of Chicago also helps one understand the limits of his political appeal. Learning to integrate his New England value system into a public persona that could reach Chicago’s black voters gave Obama a potent and even mythic political appeal, but it also left him with a weak suit: the folks out in the hills clinging to their God and their guns. For many Americans, the New England vision of a strong state acting as the enforcer of a common moral purpose has always been something to resist. Jeffersonian and Jacksonian radicals fought to abolish the state establishment of religion in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the South fought the abolitionists and then the Freedmen’s Bureau during Reconstruction, the white working-class South and North united in defiance of Prohibition, and so on.

Obama’s effect on this populist tradition is like that of a red flag on a bull. As a New England reformer building a larger, more intrusive state, and as the most prominent beneficiary of New England’s determination to broaden access to its most elite institutions, Obama represents forces that many populists instinctively oppose. At the same time, nothing in Honolulu or Cambridge or Chicago taught Obama what Clinton learned in Arkansas: how to reach out to these people and to know what, and what not, to say to them. The economic crisis of 2008 and the country’s unhappiness with the Bush administration gave Obama an opportunity to be heard by populist voters; since his inauguration, they have shown signs of retreating to their former loyalties and ideas. Obama’s hopes for reelection in 2012 may turn on his ability to bridge yet another divide in America’s soul and to reach out to a constituency that so far has proved resistant to his charms.

THE WORLD BEYOND

Students of foreign policy will be bemused and somewhat alarmed by the near-total absence of evidence in Remnick’s book that Obama ever showed any interest in foreign policy before running for president. There is a casual mention of the human rights scholar Samantha Power as an adviser to and influence on Obama, and there are narrative descriptions of Obama’s sojourns abroad with his mother and a fascinating account of his father’s troubled career in Kenya. But to judge from this book, Obama spent little time dealing with foreign policy until he failed to get the Senate committee assignment he really wanted and was forced to make the best of an appointment to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. While traveling with Senator John Kerry and others in 2005, Obama saw the poor security surrounding Russian nuclear materials and was seized by the importance of getting the world’s nuclear material under better control. This is a worthwhile idea, and it bore fruit at the recent Nuclear Security Summit, but one looks in The Bridge in vain for more clues to the future of U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration.

It seems reasonable to infer that Obama’s foreign policy instincts, like his domestic policy ideas, are rooted in the New England tradition that blends a form of moralism tempered by pragmatism, a faith in strong government, and a commitment to leading by example. One could look to John Quincy Adams for an example of the foreign policy ideas to which Obama might aspire. Like Adams, Obama believes in American power and in an American destiny to do well by doing good; yet also like Adams, he prefers to hold power in reserve when he can and is conscious of the United States’ capacity to err. Whether he can succeed in foreign policy as well as Adams did remains to be seen; Adams was immersed in diplomacy all his life, whereas Obama is still finding his way.

The Bridge is a biography of a life still being shaped; everyone, including Obama, will know much more about who he is and what really counts to him once his presidency has drawn to a close. This makes for a book that in some ways is frustratingly open ended and sometimes feels unfinished. Nevertheless, it accomplishes the one thing that it needed to do: it encourages readers to ask the right questions about Obama.

Reprinted with kindly permission of The Council on Foreign Relations.

Iran: Prospects for Regime Change

As the Obama administration attempts to garner international support for strengthened sanctions against Iran, Iran continues to make progress in its nuclear program. Despite increased international attention, Iran continues to pose perhaps the greatest threat to peace of any country in the world.

The ongoing turmoil in Iran almost nine months after 2009’s fraudulent presidential election raises questions about the continued viability of the Iranian regime.

With the United States exploring sanctions at the United Nations and key members of Congress calling for increased support to the Iranian opposition, the Foreign Policy Initiative will host a half-day conference on “Iran: Prospects for Regime Change,” on Tuesday, April 6th.  Leading Iran experts will examine the state of the opposition and discuss U.S. policy options.

With a growing consensus in Washington that the actions of the Iranian regime make a negotiated settlement to the Iranian nuclear crisis unlikely, this timely conference will explore the prospects for change in Iran from within and what the United States should be doing to support Iran’s democrats and resolve the Iranian nuclear question once and for all.

Also, the ability of the regime to clamp down on the Green Movement in recent months, especially its efforts on February 11, have caused some outside observers to argue that Iran’s opposition movement has fizzled out roughly nine months after the election that brought thousands of protesters into the streets.  In the wake of last month’s events, many questions have been raised regarding the ability of the opposition to succeed against the regime’s brutal tactics.

***

The Foreign Policy Initiative
Iran: Prospects for Regime Change

Tuesday, April 6, 2010
(Rescheduled from February 11, 2010)
8:30AM – 12:00PM
1777 F Street NW

8:30 – 9:00        Registration and Breakfast
9:00 – 10:15      State of the Green Movement

Panelists: 
Reuel Gerecht, Foundation for Defense of Democracies 
Mehdi Khalaji, Washington Institute for Near East Policy 
Mohsen Sazegara, Research Institute for Contemporary Iran

Moderator: 
William Kristol, The Weekly Standard and The Foreign Policy Initiative

10:15 – 10:30     Break

10:30 – 12:00     U.S. Policy Options

Panelists:     
Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations 
Danielle Pletka, The American Enterprise Institute 
Ray Takeyh, Council on Foreign Relations

Moderator: 
Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and  The Foreign Policy Initiative

For more information or to arrange an interview with Jamie Fly, head of the Foreign Policy Initiative, please contact MNS Publicity:

Sandy Schulz, (202) 244-1460 or sandy@mnspublicity.com

Spätnordrheinwestfälische Dekadenz: Rent a Minister

Das Wort zur Sonntagswahl 2010 in Nordrhein-Westfalen

von Narcisse Caméléon, Ressortleiter Deppologie der HIRAM7 REVIEW

Hinter der sichtbaren Regierung sitzt auf dem Thron eine unsichtbare Regierung, die dem Volk keine Treue schuldet und keine Verantwortlichkeit anerkennt. Diese unsichtbare Regierung zu vernichten, den gottlosen Bund zwischen korruptem Geschäft und korrupter Politik zu lösen, das ist die Aufgabe des Staatsmannes. (U.S. Präsident Theodore Roosevelt)

 

“]

“Die Bourgeoisie hat in der Geschichte eine höchst revolutionäre Rolle gespielt.

Die Bourgeoisie, wo sie zur Herrschaft gekommen, hat … kein anderes Band zwischen Mensch und Mensch übriggelassen als das nackte Interesse, als die gefühllose ‘bare Zahlung’. Sie hat die heiligen Schauer der frommen Schwärmerei, der ritterlichen Begeisterung, der spießbürgerlichen Wehmut in dem eiskalten Wasser egoistischer Berechnung ertränkt. Sie hat die persönliche Würde in den Tauschwert aufgelöst und an die Stelle der zahllosen verbrieften und wohlerworbenen Freiheiten die eine gewissenlose Handelsfreiheit gesetzt. Sie hat, mit einem Wort, an die Stelle der mit religiösen und politischen Illusionen verhüllten Ausbeutung die offene, unverschämte, direkte, dürre Ausbeutung gesetzt.

… Sie hat den Arzt, den Juristen, den Pfaffen, den Poeten, den Mann der Wissenschaft in ihre bezahlten Lohnarbeiter verwandelt.

Die Bourgeoisie hat dem Familienverhältnis seinen rührend-sentimentalen Schleier abgerissen und es auf ein reines Geldverhältnis zurückgeführt.” (Karl Marx, Das Kommunistische Manifest)

Wo bitte ist der Skandal um die CDU-Sponsoring-Affäre? Wozu die scheinheilige Aufregung?

Die “gefühllose bare Zahlung”, das “reine Geldverhältnis” im Kapitalismus beruht auf Leistung und Gegenleistung, auf Kauf und Verkauf. Die Rüttgers-Affäre spiegelt die natürliche Entwicklung des demokratischen Kapitalismus wider, in dem das Spiel von Angebot und Nachfrage im politischen Prozess erweitert wird.

Im öffentlichen Leben ist (fast) jeder käuflich: Angebot und Nachfrage bestimmen den Preis. Ganz einfach gesagt: Je größer ein Angebot an Waren auf einem Markt ist, desto stärker fallen die Preise. Je größer aber die Nachfrage ist, desto höher steigen die Preise. Ein Dinner mit Barack Obama ist zum Beispiel wesentlich teurer als eine Kaffeeklatsch-Stunde mit einem deutschen Ministerpräsidenten. Wenn man die 6.000 Euro pro Termin am Rande des Parteitags mit der Millionenspende an die Mövenpick-Partei vergleicht, betreibt eigentlich die NRW-CDU unfaire Dumpingpreise.

Keiner regt sich über die hohe Summen auf, die im Fußball-Geschäft – das einem Menschenhandel ähnelt – fließen. Warum sollte es in der Politik anders sein? Politiker sind auch Menschen, die sich nun mal vermarkten müssen, um im medialen Wettbewerb zu stehen. Fragen Sie mal die Grünen, die sich kurz vor den Wahlen gern als Moralprediger profilieren wollen.

Anmerkung der Redaktion: HIRAM7 REVIEW distanziert sich ausdrücklich von diesem höchst bedenklichen Artikel, der natürlich nicht die Meinung des Herausgebers widerspiegelt, und zudem die Politikverdrossenheit in unserem Land bestärken sowie Argumente für verfassungsfeindliche Parteien liefern wird. Politiker sind ehrbare Menschen, die Respekt und Dank seitens des Volkes verdienen. Wie dem auch sei: “Jedes Volk hat die Regierung, die es verdient”, befand der französische Philosoph Joseph Marie de Maistre.

Plebiszite: Volksabstimmung oder Volksverstimmung?

In einem Essay erschienen in der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung klärt der Historiker Christoph Jahr die Frage, wie demokratisch Hitler an die Macht gekommen ist und was Hitlers Machtergreifung für die Debatte um Plebiszite in Deutschland bedeutet. Sind Volksabstimmungen nur noch ein Erfolgsmittel von Populisten?

“Tatsächlich kam Hitler 1933 durch die Entscheidung eines kleinen Zirkels von Beratern des Reichspräsidenten von Hindenburg an die Macht, wobei Letzterer, wie der Historiker Wolfram Pyta jüngst dargelegt hat, keineswegs jene willenlose Marionette war, als die er lange Zeit erschien.

Hitler wurde aber nur deshalb Reichskanzler, weil er zu bieten hatte, woran es den alten konservativen Eliten gebrach: eine Massenbasis.

Und ohne diese waren alle Versuche aussichtslos, Deutschland in einen rechtsautoritären Staat umzuformen, wie die Jahre ab 1930 mit ihren – ab 1932 immer schneller wechselnden – Präsidialkabinetten gezeigt hatten.”

Zum Artikel.

Jacques Chirac rechnet in seinen Memoiren mit Nicolas Sarkozy ab

Nicolas Sarkozy hatte damals schon diesen Willen, sich unentbehrlich zu machen und immer dabei zu sein, war hibbelig, übereifrig und begierig, zu handeln“, schreibt Jacques Chirac in seinen Memoiren, aus denen die französische Tageszeitung Le Parisien Auszüge veröffentlichte.

Der junge Sarkozy sei stets ein Meister der medialen Inszenierung gewesen.

„Er war immer mehr als ein einfacher Mitarbeiter“, schreibt Jacques Chirac. Sarkozys Unterstützung von Biedermann des bürgerlichen Lagers Edouard Balladur (im Hintergrund von Chiracs Erzfeind Valéry Giscard d’Estaing manövriert worden) bei der Präsidentschaftswahl gegen ihn habe ihn verletzt, gesteht der einstige politische Ziehvater von Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac.

Der erste Band der Memoiren, der von Donnerstag an im Handel erhältlich ist, beschreibt den Beginn von Chiracs politischer Karriere bis zur Präsidentschaftswahl 1995.

Externer Link (französisch): Avec ses Mémoires, Jacques Chirac règle ses comptes, Artikel in der französischen Tageszeitung Le Parisien.

Alan Poseners Kolumne: Der Untergang der doitschen Sozialdemokratie

Der britisch-deutsche Journalist Alan Posener kommentiert wöchentlich das Zeitgeschehen in Politik, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Kultur für HIRAM7 REVIEW.

Von Alan Posener
Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag  / HIRAM7 REVIEW

Unter den vielen Wrackteilen, die der Untergang des Tankers SPD an die Oberfläche spült, fand ich folgende Bemerkung von Wolfgang Thierse interessant: „Wir sind keine Wendehälse“, sagte er nach der Wahl des Verlierers Steinmeier zum vorläufigen Fraktionsvorsitzenden, „die heute ‚Hosianna!’ rufen und morgen ‚Kreuziget ihn!’“

Thierse spielt auf das Evangelium des Johannes an, dem zufolge (Joh. 12,12-19) „die Volksmenge“ Jesus von Nazareth beim Einzug in Jerusalem mit dem ruf „Hosanna!“ begrüßt hätten, und auf das Evangelium des Matthäus (Mat. 27,11-26), demzufolge „das Volk“, „die Menge“, das „ganze Volk“ wenige Tage später vom römischen Statthalter forderte: „Ans Kreuz mit ihm!“ Es folgt bei Matthäus jene berüchtigte Stelle, in der „das ganze Volk“ ruft: „Sein Blut komme über uns und unsere Kinder!“ Was sich die Christen nicht zweimal sagen ließen, sooft sie die Gelegenheit dazu hatten.

Nur nebenbei sei erwähnt, dass – vermutlich wahrheitsgemäß – bei Markus, Matthäus und Lukas durchscheint, nur die Jünger beim Einzug Jesu in Jerusalem „Hosianna!“ gerufen haben (vgl. Mat. 19,28-40); und dass die Geschichte von Pilatus, der seine Hände in Unschuld wächst, während die blutdürstigen Juden nach dem Tod des Messias rufen, mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit apokryph ist, eine Anbiederung der frühen Christen an die Besatzungsmacht, die den Wanderprediger aus dem Hause David hingerichtet haben, weil er den Anspruch erhob, „König der Juden“ zu sein. So schrieben sie es ja ans Kreuz, und es blieb den Christen vorbehalten, diesen Sachverhalt umzudeuten und zu behaupten, die Römer hätten den „Hohenpriestern“ die Drecksarbeit abgenommen, die Jesus wegen Blasphemie hingerichtet haben wollten.

Dass die jüdischen religiösen Autoritäten keine Probleme damit hatten, dieses dreckige und barbarische Geschäft selbst vollziehen zu lassen, zeigt sich an der Steinigung des Stephanus (Apostelgeschichte 7,54-8,1a), bei der ein gewisser Rabbiner namens Saul aus Tarsus teilnahm, und an der Hinrichtung von Jakobus, des Bruders Jesu, einige Jahrzehnte später, von dem uns Josephus Flavius berichtet.

Nun gut, aber was sagt der Katholik Wolfgang Thierse? 1943 geboren als Sohn eines Rechtsanwalts („Rechts“anwalts, sollte man zu allen sagen, die in jener Zeit „Recht“ sprachen), sagt der Mann, der als Literaturwissenschaftler in der DDR tätig war (Literatur„wissenschaftler“): wir SPDler sind nicht wie „die Juden“. Wir praktizieren doitsche Treue.

Dass in einem Volk, das 1933 dem Führer zujubelte und 1945 plötzlich entdeckte, das es immer schon antifaschistisch war, oder das am 1. Mai 40 Jahre lang brav mitjubelte, um dann 1989 zu entdecken, dass es immer schon antikommunistisch war (aber nach wie vor gern die SED wählt) – dass ausgerechnet in einem solchen Volk ein Politiker zur Illustration von Prinzipienlosigkeit, Verrat und Blindheit auf die Juden zurückgreifen muss, wäre ein Skandal, wenn es nicht das Erwartbare wäre.

Die in HIRAM7 REVIEW veröffentlichten Essays und Kommentare geben nicht grundsätzlich den Standpunkt der Redaktion wieder.

Bundestagswahl 2009: Der liberale Herbst

 

LEITGLOSSE ZUR SCHLIESSUNG DER JAGDSAISON BZW. BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2009

von Narcisse Caméléon, Ressortleiter Deppologie der HIRAM7 REVIEW

Wir alle sind Egoisten, aber nur wenige verstehen es, das Beste für sich daraus zu machen. Die meisten Menschen passen sich lieber der Mitwelt an. Sie tun alles, um geliebt, gelobt und anerkannt zu werden. Damit machen sie sich zu Marionetten allgemeiner Verhaltensklischees und verzichten darauf, ihr eigenes Leben zu leben. (Josef Kirschner, Die Kunst, ein Egoist zu sein)

Ein Egoist entscheidet für sich selbst, hängt keinen Moden nach und redet niemandem nach dem Mund. Klingt unbequem? Nur für die, die uns manipulieren wollen.

In dieser Hinsicht können wir uns  über den unumstritten Sieg der Liberalen sehr freuen, die ein hoffentlich endgültiges Ende der Rot-Grünen Bevormundung in Aussicht stellt. Endlich Schluß mit der Tyrannei der Besserwisser à la Rot-Grün, die die von Gott gegebene Freiheit des Menschen durch (Rat)Schläge und Verbote einschränken wollen, um ihre eigene willkürliche Macht zu sichern…

Der Clou dieses Wahlabends: Ausgerechnet der Erfinder von Agenda 2010 und von Hartz IV, der Spitzenkandidat der SPD, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, spricht von sozialem Ausgleich und warnt vor Schwarz-Gelb…zum Totlachen! So sprach die Stimme der Selbstgerechten und Heuchler der Prosecco-Fraktion.

Die SPD und die Kriegspartei Bündnis Verrat an den Wählern/Die Grünen bzw. die Toskana-Fraktion-Linke (sprich Wasser predigen, aber Prosecco trinken) sollen in der politischen Wüste für die nächsten 20 Jahre krepieren, das haben sie reichlich verdient, nachdem sie ihre Wählerschaft jahrelang betrogen haben. 

Sic transit gloria lupi.

Die in HIRAM7 REVIEW veröffentlichten Essays und Kommentare geben nicht grundsätzlich den Standpunkt der Redaktion wieder.

Alan Posener’s Column: German Election Blues – and Reds, Greens, and Yellows

by Alan Posener
Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag  / HIRAM7 REVIEW

With the German election drawing near, commentators have turned from castigating the politicians for the alleged lack of alternatives they present (bullshit, actually), to a more general wail of despair about an alleged crisis of democracy itself, as represented by the growth in the number of non-voters.

In the last election, we are told, non-voters were a bigger group than those who voted for Angela Merkel, and polls seem to indicate that the number of non-voters will be even higher this time around. Crisis! Bullshit again.

The point about democracy isn’t that everyone goes to vote. That’s what happens in dictatorships. The point about democracy is that I’m free to vote or not as I see fit. So if people don’t go to vote, that’s a sign that democracy is working.

The point about democracy isn’t that voting produces good governments. That’s patently not the case. The point about that democracy is that really bad governments can be voted out. (Good governments can be voted out, too.) Karl Popper once compared the democratic procedure to the procedure by which a scientific theory is defined. If a theory is scientific precisely because it can be falsified (J.B.S. Haldane’s famous “Precambrian rabbits” that would falsify Darwin’s theory of evolution), a government is democratic if it can be falsified – i.e. discarded – by the voters. If the voters choose not to – either by voting for the government or by not voting, i.e. not voting against it: well, that’s the way the democratic cookie crumbles.

As I said above, I don’t think the German election is boring at all. We have a clear choice: between Angela Merkel plus Walter Steinmeier and a continuation of the high-tax / high-spending CDU/CSU/SPD coalition, and Angela Merkel plus Guido Westerwelle and a CDU/CSU/FDP coalition dedicated to boosting growth through lower taxes. As a taxpayer, I know where I’m going to make my cross. It isn’t rocket science.

Ousting the Social Democrats from power will probably result in a putsch by the Left within the SPD, which will eventually lead to some form of rapprochement between the SPD and the “Linke”. This in turn will mean that in 2013 at the latest, probably much sooner, say 2011, a left-wing coalition will challenge Merkel’s right-of-centre government, and things will get really exciting again: How will the Greens react? Will they choose “Jamaica” in order to keep the extreme left out of power, or will they try to tame the left by joining a “Red-Red-Green” government?

And what will the electorate say? One good guess is: they won’t be staying at home.

Why Are Jews Liberals?

In a new book out this month, columnist Norman Podhoretz addresses the question he says he is asked more frequently than any other:  “Why Are Jews Liberals?”

Bill Clinton – U.S. Democratic Party Icon

Six notable American Jewish thinkers, Rabbi David J. Wolpe, Dr. Jonathan D. Sarna,  Michael Medved, William Kristol, Jeff Jacoby, and David Gelernter, reflect on his argument in a Commentary Magazine Symposium.

Read full story.

Alan Poseners Kolumne: Dienstwagen und Diners

Der britisch-deutsche Journalist Alan Posener startet heute eine neue Kolumne. Er wird  wöchentlich das Zeitgeschehen in Politik, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Kultur für HIRAM7 REVIEW unter die Lupe nehmen.

Von Alan Posener
Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag  / HIRAM7 REVIEW

Es ist schon komisch: Milliarden und Abermilliarden gibt die Regierung aus, um Banken zu retten, Firmen vor den Folgen unternehmerischer Fehlentscheidungen zu schützen oder dem Volk vor der Wahl zu neuen Autos zu verhelfen. Und worüber regt sich der Wähler auf?

Über die paar tausend Euro Steuergelder, die Ulla Schmidt verpulvert hat, um ihr Dienstauto und ihren Chauffeur in den Urlaub zu nehmen. Oder über Angela Merkels Geburtstagsessen für Josef Ackermann.

Eine solche Personalisierung der Politik ist Ausdruck einer Infantilisierung. Einer Kapitulation vor der Komplexität. Wer kann aus dem Kopf sagen, worin die Gesundheitsreform eigentlich besteht? Aber es sagt einem doch der gesunde Menschenverstand – also der Neid, dieser verlässlichste aller Sozialinstinkte, dass die Ministerin in Spanien keinen gepanzerten Dienstwagen mitsamt Chauffeur braucht. Unsereiner fährt doch auch Fiat Panda.

Und wer vermag schon zu beurteilen, ob die Banken, die ihrerseits gnadenlos jeden vor die Hunde gehen lassen, der seine Raten nicht zahlen kann, wirklich so systemisch relevant sind, dass sie ihrerseits nicht pleite gehen dürfen?

Aber es sagt einem doch der gesunde Bürgerneid, dass die Kanzlerin unsere Steuergelder nicht verpulvern darf, um  Herrn Ackermann ein Geburtstagsessen auszurichten. Vielleicht schweigt aber auch der Neid. Denn wir mögen die Kanzlerin.

Die Gesundheitsministerin hingegen können wir nicht leiden. Neulich mussten wir für die Zahnfüllung zuzahlen, und der Zahnarzt sagte, das sei wegen der Gesundheitsreform. Und dann fährt sie auch noch mit dem Dienstauto in den Urlaub!

Zwei Drittel aller neu zugelassenen Autos in Deutschland sind Dienstwagen. Man darf annehmen, dass damit auch privat gefahren wird, und dass nicht jede private Fahrt abgerechnet wird. Und wer private Essen als Geschäftsessen abrechnen kann, tut es. Wir haben die Politiker, die wir verdienen. Und gerade das nervt uns.

Natürlich nervt auch die Patzigkeit, mit der die ehemalige Genossin des Kommunistischen Bundes Westdeutschland und heutige Sozialdemokratin Ulla Schmidt ihr Recht auf einen Dienstwagen verteidigt. Ein bisschen Zerknirschtheit wäre angebracht. Deutsche Politiker sollten wenigstens so tun, als gehörten sie zu uns.

Was man Ulla Schmidt vorwerfen kann, ja muss, ist dies: sie hat dieses Grundgesetz der deutschen Politik vergessen. Das ist eher ein intellektuelles als ein moralisches Versagen. Umso schlimmer übrigens. Wie konnte sie glauben, das käme nicht raus? Oder dass sie damit durchkäme? Es kommt immer raus.

Und man kommt damit nicht durch. Es sei denn, man ist französischer Präsident. Aber das ist eine andere Geschichte. 

Die in HIRAM7 REVIEW veröffentlichten Essays und Kommentare geben nicht grundsätzlich den Standpunkt der Redaktion wieder.

The Death of Conservatism

The twenty-first season of American Enterprise Institute (AEI)’s Bradley Lecture Series will commence September 8, 2009 with Sam Tanenhaus, editor of The New York Times Book Review, discussing his book, The Death of Conservatism (Random House, 2009).

Sam Tanenhaus argues that for seventy-five years conservatives have been split into two factions: the “realists” who believe in the virtues of government and the “revanchists” who distrust government and society. He argues that the revanchists have won the argument and that this has caused conservatism to falter.

AEI’s Steven F. Hayward and Henry Olsen will respond to Sam Tanenhaus.

Date:	Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Time:	5:00 PM – 6:30 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Media Contact: Veronique Rodman
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-862-4870
E-mail: VRodman@aei.org

Iran’s New Revolution

Iran entered its final day of campaigning before its presidential elections tomorrow. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s challengers held rival protests in the city, criticizing the president for his crackdowns on personal freedoms and his troubles managing Iran’s struggling economy.

Several media have noted that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s challengers, mostly the reformists Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, once appeared pretty weak but seem to have gained momentum in recent weeks. It remains to be seen, of course, whether any of the challengers stands a chance of unseating the president. Some analysts have predicted that Mousavi and Karroubi will split the reformist vote, undermining one another.

The Economist says the results of the vote could hinge primarily on voter turnout, with higher turnout benefiting the reformists. The piece notes that recent televised debates seem to have energized Iranians “as much as any [election] since the Islamic revolution of 1979.”

The New York Times reports the state of the Iranian economy has emerged as a defining issue ahead of the vote.

EurasiaNet has an analysis arguing that Ahmadinejad may be trying to foment a “revolution within the Islamic Revolution” in hopes of establishing a “neoconservative dictatorship with the blessing of the country’s spiritual leader.” The problem, the article says, is that Ahmadinejad’s opponents are stronger than the Iranian president once thought.

Foreign Policy has a special report on the elections questioning whether a new revolution might be taking place.

Read full story.