Bipartisanship, in modern politics, is a lie – a falsehood, a hopeless dream, a fantasy based on nothing.  And yet this doesn’t prevent either side of the political divide from using the idea of it as a tool for derision, division, and justification, even when those employing it know it to be nothing but empty words.

In the purest sense of the word, bipartisanship is a meeting of groups or individuals with opposing views, while sharing some common points of interest, that results in a healthy compromise between the disparate positions for the overall better.  American politics has not seen this kind of bipartisanship in the last few decades, if not longer, and the roots of partisan voting, including its vitriol, can be traced all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, with 2010 Washington doing their very best to continue this unhealthy state ad infinitem.

Recently, bipartisanship, or a lack thereof, has been used by Republicans in attempts to kill legislation of any kind, but their cries of partisanship avoid a certain fundamental truth:  President Obama’s Administration, and its Congress, have not been bipartisan for the simple fact that the Republicans have refused to participate.  The lack of a desire to govern is not at all comparable to a lack of bipartisan efforts, the latter of which has not been in short supply over the last fourteen months.  This is not so much a battle of diametrically opposing ideologies as it is a distinct dislike for President Obama and his efforts and goals, not to mention the striking characteristics of the GOP’s childlike political tantrum.

It’s time to give up, at least for the remainder of the Obama Administration, the idea of bipartisanship – on everything.  If the opposing party, in this case the Republicans, wish to participate with the President and his Congressional majority in the process of running the nation, they may do so, but concessions should not be made to a group of corrupt individuals that have absolutely no intention of being part of the legislative process except for their own personal gain.  While this applies to Washington at present, the same criticisms can be made for Administrations past, on both sides of the party line, and will no doubt continue into the future.

Until politics reaches a state of enlightenment that includes the ability to have reasoned, unemotional debates, bipartisanship is a lie.  Once the American people realize that the idea of bipartisanship is merely a tool used to garner votes for the party out of favor at election time, the country will have a chance at finally moving forward, as those within Congress will recognize the farce as being over.  Applied immediately, great benefits could be had within a very short period of time.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

It’s been over a year since the start of the healthcare debate, and for all the progress made there is little to yet show for it; however, President Obama released an outline for what he expects from a healthcare overhaul bill and while his direct intervention, however late, is welcome, it is not without problems.  The two glaring omissions of this entire process, President Obama’s efforts included, are that this reform process is not healthcare reform, but rather insurance reform, and that there is sill no public option or extension of Medicare.

President Obama’s outlines for a bill include a requirement for all citizens to purchase insurance plans, or receive a penalty – this is, to bastardize a phrase, feeding the hand that bites you.  One of the very reasons that the United States is in its current position of poor healthcare is the insurance companies that are more interested in profit than they are fulfilling the sole reason for their existence.  Besides argument of reactive vs. preventative care, insurance companies have continued to raise the financial bar for individuals to simply be able to see a doctor, have a broken bone addressed, or even visit a hospital in an emergency.  More importantly, in the event that an individual or family can afford to pay the absurd amounts demanded of them, their coverage is denied for a variety of obscure and self-serving reasons.

The entire process has focused almost solely on insurance, but from the substantially wrong perspective:  to provide insurance for the whole country, not to remove or, at minimum, fix the insurance system itself.  Rather than provide a Medicare-for-all package, public option, or the easy answer that would be socialized medicine, it has been deemed better to force some small, token amount of regulation on the insurance companies and require that their services be purchased.  Quite honestly, rewarding such abhorrent behavior with millions of new, coerced customers is not the rebuke of business and ethics practices that the insurance industry deserves, but is instead a twisted validation.

There is surprising growth of Congressional support for the public option, when it has been thought dead for months, that could be accomplished during the process of reconciliation between the House and Senate bills.  No matter that a public option, defined as the ability to purchase into a government-run healthcare plan, is not even close to socialized medicine does not seem to phase the screaming masses that can be found both inside and outside of the halls of Congress.  One of the typical arguments is that while Americans may go to Canada or Mexico for medicine, the citizens of those countries come to America for surgical procedures, but, like most of these talking points, it is a false and invalid comparison:  America has the best doctors not because of a better healthcare system or medical law, neither of which are true, but rather the simple truth that American doctors have substantially higher incomes and public visibility than any other nation in the world.

While a public option would not solve all the needs of true healthcare reform, where the system would be tightly regulated and converted into that of preventative medicine, it would be a substantial start.  A public option, essentially no different than paid-for Medicare, would provide the competition to the insurance industry that is sorely needed in order to stop their disturbing behaviors and insane price hikes.  Furthermore, the public option, if proven successful, could eventually be a gateway to a true nationalized healthcare system – one of the few talking points that the reform bill’s detractors have gotten correct.

If healthcare reform is to happen, it must happen now, in the immediate present – but healthcare reform without a public option, tighter industry regulation, or any substantial action against the predatory practices of those who latch on to the pockets of all Americans is not reform and should not, in any fashion, be passed into law.  For Congress, and ultimately President Obama, to approve such toothless and ineffective legislation is nothing less than political theater that will inevitably produce results only worse than those that currently exist – especially if the process takes another six months under the guise of false bipartisanship, consideration of a public option, or various other carrots to the American people that are truly just billyclubs.

Real healthcare reform must be passed now, not later, in order for both the American people’s faith to be restored in the political process and their health retained before another medicine, procedure, or facet of care is denied to them under false pretenses.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

It’s become fashionable over the last few decades for Republicans, and otherwise conservatives, to proclaim that Big Government is unnecessary, a waste of taxpayers’ money, and generally bad – President Obama’s release of the FY2011 Budget was no exception to such cries of foul against the spending of money by the federal government; however, those who proclaim government spending to have such attributes have missed the central point that such spending is not only not evil, but necessary.

While it may be understandable that significant protests will rise out of announcing a federal budget for a year that numbers in the trillions of dollars in the midst of the Great Recession and record deficit spending, those with complaints should not only remember that President Obama inherited many of the reasons to spend such exorbitant amounts, but that federal spending is the tool that has kept America moving forward.  More importantly, federal financial support is the sword that many Republicans/conservatives have fallen upon by proclaiming its evil and then accepting, or even demanding, kickbacks as motivation to pass legislation – Senator Ben Nelson’s recent healthcare reform behavior is a prime example.

Federal spending is what launched American astronauts to the Moon, saw the success of World Wars I and II, built the national highway/interstate system, partially funds the ever-popular Medicare and Social Security programs, subsidizes public education, defends the nation, finances longterm scientific research programs, and considerably more – the federal government is arguably responsible for America being one of the leaders of the world in technology and innovation, as well as allowing the nation to remain a singular entity.  For those that believe the intervention, or simple existence, of the federal government is intrusive and unnecessary, a question looms large:  would America still be an independent entity encompassing the majority of a continent as a federation of states into a large nation?  Or would states have long ago imposed their own border restrictions, broken from the union, or been conquered by other nations?  The latter is the likely answer, especially during the earlier years of republic.

NASA has received a budget expansion, so long as the Constellation and its associated endeavors program is terminated, and this has caused an outcry from Congress on both sides of the ideological dividing line – especially from those representing states with substantial interest in the funding of space, irrespective of the definition of “expansion”.  Many of these selfsame Congressmen are those that eschew government spending and federal involvement in a state’s business, in which there is substantial irony, or, perhaps, a revelation of corruption and two-faced behavior.

It is absolutely necessary for the federal government to spend money on a large scale, lest they lose control and let the United States degenerate into a chaotic mishmash of nation-states that have no interest in each other.  In an era where states are essentially broke and choose to cut funding to education and other important programs, rather than pet projects or their own salaries, federal intervention is more important than ever, and the Obama Administration realizes this.

The most important point, however, is that federal spending is managed intelligently and delivered on an as-needed basis – there is no room, both now or in the future, for wasteful spending and pet projects that should be funded by other means, including the military industrial complex.  For the nation to climb out of the massive hole of debt, taxes must be raised on those that can afford it, such as investment bankers, and spending must be trimmed to the minimum amount necessary to continue to exist as a nation and advance its interests.  The cycle of tax cuts, corporate loopholes, and increasing debt must be stopped before it’s too late, but not at the expense of the people, their health, their livelihood, or their safety – Big Government is absolutely necessary, but it must be guided by individuals with the requisite knowledge to steer it in the proper direction.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

A year ago, Barack Hussien Obama, son of an African Muslim, a child of divorce with an international, multi-racial, and multi-cultural upbringing gave hope to America. In fact, he gave hope to the world. He was a living image of the North American Dream – a symbol of the notion that anything, no matter how far away it may seem, is possible in the land of opportunity. A year later, although his mere presence in the White House still inspires many and his diplomatic and intellectual approach to ge0-politics continues to make  him incredibly popular overseas, Obama is in crisis at home.  After what was perhaps the most partisan first year in American Presidential history, Obama is on the ropes. The question now is, will he come back firing or set his sights on appeasement in the name of re-election? RELATIVTY OnLine’s American coorospndent Kyle Brady poses this very question to the man himself.      

Dear President Obama,

I’m writing to you as a 22-yr. old Democrat that not only helped vote you into the Presidency, but as an individual politically changed by your campaign and ascendancy.  I’m writing to you as a so-called young adult that’s heavily interested in politics, thanks in no small part to you, and is concerned about the current political climate.  I’m writing to you because your State of the Union, in combination with your Address to the GOP, gave me hope – one of your overriding political principles.

I was impressed with your campaign because you seemed interested in returning intelligence, self-respect, and poise to American politics, all of which were sorely diminished after your predecessor’s disastrous Terms of Office.  And, to be fair, you have done all you can to return these values to our way of life, most especially with respect to the foreign view of our nation.  The actions you have taken to give science, math, and education their rightful places in American society are extremely respectable, as are many of the other changes you have wrought either via Executive Order or a forceful wrangling of Congress.

While I don’t support your decisions unilaterally, such as the various bailouts of corrupt and broken institutions, I do support your overall message of change.  Healthcare reform, in its truest sense, is widely recognized by the American people, in an overwhelming majority, as necessary to both our continued healthy and profitable existence, just as are the reforms of financial institutions and legitimately addressing climate change.  However, your supporters are beginning to lose faith because of your insistence on fair politics.

Your interest in bipartisan politics is highly respectable, especially given that you’ve chosen to tackle a historically disastrous issue in a political climate that is far less than favorable, and no-one will ever deny you this fact.  But the attempts over the last year to have bipartisan involvement in federal-level politics have proven to be mostly fruitless, exempting the few special cases such as Defense spending – why should this offer of cooperation continue to be extended?  The GOP’s response to the State of the Union, and the not-so-subtle hostility that you received when addressing them at their own invitation, should be evidence enough that not only do they not wish to cooperate, on any level, but that they will also take great steps to slight you in any manner possible.

What you likely already realize, but bears repeating regardless, is that the Congressional Republicans unequivocallydo not represent the American people, just as the Teabagger movement does not represent the majority of the Republicans within the United States of America.  Healthcare reform, even if a public option must be temporarily forgotten, is too important to relinquish due to a subset of the population that is either completely corrupt or do not fully understand what they are protesting.  Even if the result is a Republican rancor like never before seen, this legislation must be pushed through.

The myriad other issues at hand must also be quickly addressed, possibly at the expense of your own political career, because I have no great faith that your successor will have the same strength of will or interest in carrying out necessary reforms that are not politically favorable.  You have the chance to be the modern generation’s FDR, and I hope you take that chance – even if you only have a single Term of Office, instead of three.  The nation’s infrastructure began crumbling long before the banks or the people did, and ensuring their survival is every bit as important as healthcare reform, alongside other longview policy decisions that will ultimately not produce a visible result for years into the future.

I believe that you realize the hostile political climate may very well mean you won’t be re-elected in 2012, but this does not seem to matter greatly to you, as some of your more recent comments have indicated.  It is for this reason that I, on behalf of Democrats, Republicans, and thinking persons throughout the country, beg you to make good on your intentions to be a great one-term President instead of simply a mediocre two-term one:  finish healthcare reform, and move on to the other issues – there is a long list, and it is only getting longer.

We are a year into your Presidency, and you have accomplished much – but you have three years and far to go.  Don’t let a wish for bipartisanship, or a fear of misperception, tarnish your good intentions and strong ideals, as the nation will ultimately suffer for those actions.  It’s important that you continue to make the well informed, careful decisions that you have been, but with a more apolitical eye towards popularity and likability in the future; history smiles on those who affect great change and produce significant contributions, not those who wish to be liked and popular.

The American people are behind you, even if the media often states otherwise, and we will likely continue to support you through the bitter end, barring some inconceivable political change of course.  As a young, intelligent, and possibly idealistic citizen of the United States, I’m proud to say that you’re my President and that you have given me hope for the future of our political system, even as Congress appears to be more and more broken by the day.

Here’s hoping you choose the path of FDR over that of Coolidge.

Sincerely,

Kyle Brady

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From American Correspondent Kyle Brady… 

As is already widely known, Sarah Palin has joined FOX “News” as a commentator, not the host of a show, but there is a point of interest being widely ignored within the opinions on this not-so-unexpected issue:  any hopes that Palin had of a future political career are now dead.

Sarah Palinis best known for being the Vice Presidential running-mate of John McCain in 2008 that very likely destroyed the campaign, and went on to quit her job as Alaskan Governor, long before her Term of Office was up, in order to pursue a career of media attention, Facebook blogging, and fake book writing.  The most shocking part of her entire situation, however, is that she seemed to believe that, between her blogging, carefully prepared soundbites, and book/booktour, she was laying the groundwork for a run at the Presidency in 2012 – one that she assumed she would win without much effort.

Despite Palin’s criticism of Barack Obama for supposedly having “no real experience” in either governing or politics, it’s worth remembering that the position of U.S. Senator is a higher office than that of State Governor, not to mention that Palin’s only legitimate political position was given up because it no longer interested her – a far cry from disappearing from the Senate to campaign for a very timely Presidential run.  But the war of words from this Alaskan blogger has only strengthened over the last year, after discovering that she has a small but faithful audience among the fringe-party teabagger nutjobs, and she seems to relish this power.  Ever since Sarah Palin began speaking of her own accord on political topics, the Republican Party has accelerated its devolution into a party run by the tenet of lunacy, an “in the bag” election was lost because of intra-party division, and 2010 midterm elections are not likely to be as profitable for her favorite side of the political divide as she’d hoped.

Do these decisions seem like those of an individual that wishes to be President?  Perhaps she would be amenable to people demanding that she take an IQ test before being sworn in as President – that would be an ironic allegory to her support of the birthers.

She has, however, ruined any remote chance she had at taking a national political office, even if she hasn’t realized it yet:  joining FOX “News”does not make a politician appear more likable, sane, rational, or even believable.  Whether or not her commentary role involves live or carefully pre-recorded and edited pieces is irrelevant, because she has decided to be under the direct employ of a “news” network that dedicates itself to promoting conspiracy theories, outright lies, opinion as fact, and de factoopposition of anyone that’s not, in their minds, “conservative enough”.  This move may benefit Sarah Palin in the short term, through an increase in book sales and a greater fervor among the small minority that finds her favorable, but, ultimately, this ruins any and all credibility.

The extreme wings of both sides of the political divide tend to stalwartly vote for their own candidates, so FOX “News” will not effect the future voting behaviors of the teabaggers – the important change is within the moderates and the mainstream swing votes.  American people, while not necessarily the smartest group of people at every turn, tend to have an innate ability to sense the viability and sincerity of both individuals and institutions, so when the then-former commentator from FOX “News” decides to campaign, it seems highly unlikely that anyone but the most irrational voters would decide such an unrepentantly biased person even deserves a chance at a national office.

When the time comes, this moment may be remembered as a day that Democrats, Progressives, and rational Republicans will celebrate for the rest of time:  it was the watershed event that returned American politics to rationality and responsibility through a rather insane, twisted, and unintelligent career choice by a woman who had created a fake political career around her consistent failures.

Click Here for Kyle Brady’s Bio   

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court made a decision, on a 5-4 vote, that corporations are entities with corporate personhood, and, as such, are allowed the rights of Free Speech.  This essentially reverses decades, if not a century, of precedence that understood fictional creations do not have even a close resemblance to people, and do not deserve the same freedoms, rights, and considerations.  However, the ideological, and tangentially financial, interests of a bitterly divided Court are apparently more important than the structure and sanity of the nation or its people.  Corporations are now permitted to essentially spend their funds, in a political context, as they see fit – inevitably leading to even greater corruption than already exists within the American government.

It should come as no surprise that the current Court, a body of nine individuals, holds six members that were appointed by a Republican President, and all but one of them voted in favor of this decision.  Republicans have, in the last three decades, lauded the ideals of Big Business, the free market, and deregulation, and this ruling is nothing less than a major victory for their party’s ideology and financial backers.  As evidenced by the last year of political nonsense, the process of passing legislation within America is nothing less than selling out to the highest bidder, and, since Republicans consider Big Business to be their greatest supporter, they have sold out at an even greater cost than ever before:  the ultimate vitality and stability of the nation.

Much has been said about how this is going to destroy American politics, especially by President Obama and the ever-bold Representative Alan Grayson, as nearly every thinking citizen realizes that allowing oil companies, Wall Street, the insurance cartel, and other corporate interests with large bank accounts the ability to influence politicians, or those voting politicians into office, will lead to nothing but utter disaster – there was a reason why corporate interests were divested from the political process in the first place.  Even those Republicans/conservatives without a political career understand what a terrible moment for Democracy this decision is.  Healthcare legislation has been difficult enough to pass without the direct intervention of the very industry that wants so desperately for it fail, but what will happen when they are allowed an even greater influence?

It is sad, disappointing, and, above all, embarrassing that the Republicans of the Supreme Court would place party interests over intelligent decisions on cases, essentially eschewing the very job they are paid to do.  Even more worrisome, however, is that these Justices are of the very same party that shouted in self-righteous anger, during the Justice Sotomayor confirmation process, about using the Court to make policy and allowing personal politics to become embroiled in the judicial process – a deeply ironic moment for the Republican party.  One of the prevailing rules of the American judicial system is that precedent counts heavily in case decisions, with the weight increasing relative to its age and strength, but this no longer seems to matter.  The case that resulted in the outrageous decision to allow corporate personhood was not one that was brought to the Supreme Court for this purpose, but rather was reformed for this purpose to allow a bully pulpit for the conservative Justices to shape American politics through their substantial influence that is entirely independent of an election process or term limits.  If ever there was an example of using the Court to make policy, placing personal politics before the judicial process, and abusing power, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is it.

If Congress has become so corrupt and politically divided as to become almost impotent, and the Supreme Court is willing to overturn laws, regulation, and precedent at ideological whims, who is left to defend the people of the United States of America?  In a three-tiered government meant to produce the best possible outcome, not the worst, only the President is left to stand up for what is right, ethical, and noble.  But while the Office of the President has gained power since the foundation of the nation, President Obama can only produce so much either by himself or through sheer political strength of will.  He has many grand ideas based on what has historically produced the best results, such as industry regulation, and the successful policy decisions of other nations, such as a progressive overhaul of healthcare; however, none of this can be accomplished on his own, or by any lone President, because of the very structure of America’s government.

This dire political state will only further collapse if corporate interests and personal greed are continued to allow free reign within the political system of the United States.  For a great nation that has accomplished so much and influenced the world in such a large and beneficial fashion, the devolution into a non-functioning Democratic Republic that does not represent its people has apparently arrived to the great sadness of thinking persons worldwide.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

By way of background, the nation of Haiti experienced a 7.0 earthquake last week that resulted in massive devastation and death on an order that is not only incomprehensible, but improbable, from within the Western World, most especially America.  As could have been easily predicted, the United States federal government, along with a large number of rich corporations, ran to the aid of the collapsed country within mere hours of the onset of the disaster, while millions of individuals from within the country donated a substantial sum when considered in total – all in the midst of the Great Recession.  There is, however, a major problem with this situation:  the federal government seems entirely willing to move millions of dollars in aid and resources at a moment’s notice to a foreign country with virtually no prior ties, but will not, or cannot, solve domestic problems a noticeable degree of magnitude smaller.

Haiti was a nation that did not particularly like the Western World, and contained millions of citizens that reached far beyond the upper limits of the poverty line.  Entire cities were only slightly better than shantytowns, there were only the most limited of public services, and extreme corruption existed within almost all levels of its government.  This was a country that existed on a major tectonic fault line, but ignored the danger implicit in such a position – as a result, the government has both physically and metaphorically collapsed, hundreds of thousands of people within its borders are now dead or injured, and anarchy is beginning to rise out of the ashes.  As sad as the situation may be, this is not a natural disaster – it is a crime of supreme and willful negligence that substantially exacerbated a foreseeable situation.

If Haiti had prepared, in any fashion, for an earthquake, the situation would not be so dire – even if the only preparation was to sequester food and water for emergencies, or to have a contingency plan in place for such an occasion.  This, quite obviously, did not happen and has brought the country and its people to the ruinous point at which they currently stand.  The fact that the United States came running so quickly to its aid is questionable at best, despicable at worst:  for the last few decades, the federal government has operated on the policy that any and all disasters could, and should, be solved by intervention.  The majority of Africa, a portion of the Middle East, parts of Asia, countless South American countries, and now Haiti can all lay claim to “big brother America” riding in on a white horse to save the day with money, food, water, and manpower, but New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina cannot.

What is wrong with this picture?  The answer should be immediately obvious to any and all observers of the ongoing situation, no matter how impassioned or emotional they may be.  When somewhere close to half of the world does not want the assistance, or even presence, of America during the course of normal operations, why, then, should they be aided in times of distress?  There are no ethical qualms about aiding allies when necessary, and if England were to be attacked by a fast-moving and unnoticed glacier from farther north, there should be no doubt that the United States would rightly rally to assist.  However, the government has no business spending the nation’s money on foreign affairs that do not effect its people’s future in any fashion, as a poor nation with no interest in its benefactors does not advance the cause of anyone but those who receive said aid.

America is in the midst of several crises, none of which have been solved or even adequately addressed:  the Great Recession still continues, no matter what Ben Bernanke wishes to claim; the institutions that were largely behind the collapse, and subsequent job losses, still run free and rampant; healthcare reform remains unimplemented, with its best hope being a questionable reform status; the military engagement in Afghanistan continues, along with the cleanup of Iraq; the nation’s infrastructure is crumbling around the feet of its people; the number of unemployed, impoverished, underfed, underprivileged, and uneducated continues to rise beyond tolerable limits; secularist society appears threatened by a resurgence of religious dependence; highly polarized and vitriolic politics continue to rend the nation into distinct factions and pieces – the list continues at great length.  With all of these issues unsolved, why should money that is, in tandem, both funded by taxes and deficit spending be expended to solve someone else’s problems that have nothing to do with the country, not even tangentially?

Suggesting to ignore the plight of those around the world is not a popular position to take, especially in the midst of an ongoing disaster, but it is an important one to be taken, so long as there are valid reasons.  The United States has a famously short-term and selective memory, where Haiti has become all-important, while so many other crises exist, and have for years, around the world – this is merely the latest headline-grabbing tearjearker to grab the nation’s wallets.  It is important to note that criticizing America’s aid to Haiti is not political:  President Obama is not acting out of self-serving reasons, there is no great conspiracy, and God/Allah/Shiva had nothing to do with the earthquake.  This is simply the understandably reasonable plea for the allocation of funds, effort, political will, and, most of all, attention to issues at home before issues abroad.

The United States will not be able to prop up nations or people, when such disasters occur in the future, if it does not continue to exist as it has over the last century.  Comparative prosperity notwithstanding, America is a nation in significant trouble that can simply not afford to invest resources, of any kind, in arenas that will never reciprocate or even result in mutually beneficial arrangements.  Had the last two decades proceeded differently – with respect to deregulation, federal spending, and generally addressing domestic issues -  such assistance would not be so crucial an issue.

History, however, is as it is, and America is not the world’s savior – it’s time to spread the message.

From Kyle Brady…..

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From Kyle Brady…

With all the recent talk of democracy, peace, and individuals’ freedoms in response to the “Yemen situation”, it’s sometimes difficult to take American politicians at face-value, or even seriously – there may have been an attempted terrorist attack within United States’ territory, but the political infighting, deceit, lies, and general democratic failure continue without abatement.  How can the values and ideals of democracy be promoted throughout the world as the solution to unwelcome regimes when it has proven itself so inept during the course of recent history?

Unbridled racism, childlike behavior within Congress, finger-pointing, a year-long debacle to better citizens’ health – these are only the issues that come quickest to mind when pondering the state of American politics within the last year, and there are many more on the list of embarrassments, difficulties, and outright failures.  At a time when Americans needed their government the most, in the midst of the Great Recession, billions were handed out to the very financial institutions that are at the heart of the economic collapse, only to have these funds repaid so that outrageous compensation can be given as rewards to the employees that failed to do their job.  Even more worrisome, Congress does not wish to spend exorbitant sums on the health and stability of the people they represent, but are willing to finance corporations, line their own pockets, and bicker over unintelligent legislative minutiae that is ultimately of no consequence. 

Does this sound like a government that works?  Would a nation that is struggling to stay on its feet look to the United States as a shining example of a beautiful democracy that is their single light in the darkness?  Even with a highly capable, charismatic, and intelligent President, it would seem that the principles on which a democratic republic were founded - intelligence, integrity, freedom, and rationality – can no longer be expected to apply.

In the case of almost all legislation since President Obama’s Inauguration, the House of Representatives has successfully proposed, debated, and voted on legislation many times over, while the Senate becomes mired in neverending debate in all but a few, rare cases – the simple reason for this is that the House has different procedural regulations than the Senate, wherein the Senate follows a higher level of decorum and allows endless speeches.  More importantly, these procedural differences are exacerbated by the most rancorous and vitriolic partisanship, not to mention systemic corruption, that the nation has seen since its birth.

Perhaps before America decides to preach the values of democracy or push for the ideals of peace, the United States should first address these issues at home.  Whether the answer lies in reforming some of the rules of Congress, the entire political system, or simply forcing out those representatives that refuse to abide by principles of intelligence and rationality, it would seem that America needs to quickly solve its own political and domestic problems, lest the entire system become a parody of democracy – only then can failed states and hopeful peoples look to the American example of democracy in action.

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Despite what many warhawks and the intellectually challenged, both citizens and within government, are saying at the moment, the United States will not be going to war in Yemen because of the new relevance of its terrorist organizations.  While it’s true that Yemen houses a branch of Al-Qaeda that was behind the attempted underpantsbomber attack on Christmas, America, and its allies, simply cannot, and will not, have a full-scale military engagement with every large terrorist organization that makes itself relevant to national security, nor can the nation in need be provided financing and/or weapons for their own survival.

The reasons for entering Afghanistan were more legitimate than those for Yemen, but the operation was botched as the focus was shifted to Iraq – liberating a people from a dictator is a grand idea; however, the Iraqi mess has distracted the United States from the original goal.  Modern terrorism, by definition, exists as a series of cells that vary in size and geographic distribution, making traditional war impossible and large-scale assaults difficult.  If the guiding idea behind Afghanistan and future engagements is to address terrorism before a devastating attack can be executed or, perhaps more intelligently, to prevent the organization from flourishing in the first place, a better strategy is required.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq – the list of nation-states that are home to terrorist organizations and their training camps is a long one that does not stop where the mainstream loses the ability to recognize names.  How is a country supposed to battle terrorism in a large number of locations worldwide, even if it is the largest and greatest military strength?  The logistics, and cost, of such actions far outweigh whatever benefit may be achieved – it is for this very reason that the military, most especially its leaders, should draw inspiration from operations more common during the Cold War than during Vietnam.

The current military process in Afghanistan, and formerly in Iraq, is to allow small units of ground forces to move freely and pseudo-independently, with air support called in as needed.  Why can this strategy not be taken to the obvious next step?  Rather than move a significant number of resources to support such large operations, consideration should be given to a more covert and swift attack methodology that would use wholly independent ops units to achieve goals such as the assassination or capture of terrorist leaders.  This sort of activity has been the cornerstone of much of America’s strength in the last few decades and still continues today – it needs only be expanded.

Since the rogue groups that wish harm to the Western World do not announce their intentions prior to their actions or “play fair”, there is no need for counterterrorist operations to follow the normal rules or procedures of warfare.  Such operations would not target nations, but rather cells or groups within nations and therefore do not pose any threat to sovereign rule – operations could be planned, conducted, and recouped in a matter of days by a few small units of highly trained and specialized individuals, without the targets ever being aware of a Western military presence.  The nation that was host to such operations would be briefed afterwards.

This does admittedly sound like something out of Jason Bourne, but Hollywood is often based on fact – there would be no James Bond lone wolf carrying out such missions, but, in any case, this scenario is far from fiction.  In fact, there is no reason why such a strategy should not be carried out, as the military, financial, geopolitical, and national security benefits would be far greater than current multi-tier deployment.  Striking fear into the hearts of organizations that claim this as their singular goal would go a long way to appease those consciences that do not appreciate the West’s overwhelming presence in certain modern arenas.

Other than a loss of income to the military industrial complex, there is no reason not to deploy smarter military engagements of terrorist cells to benefit citizens and nations worldwide – President Obama and the rest of the Western World’s leaders with vested interests should choose brains over brawn in the ever-more-worrisome terrorist situation.

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

The following is a list of ten wishes for American politics in the coming year (2010), in no particular sorting order. 

1.  Real Healthcare Reform w/ Public Option

The process of attempting to pass healthcare reform in America has taken a full year, and isn’t even complete yet – this needs to be completed in the early weeks of the new year, with a public option included.  Since this isn’t healthcare reform, but instead health insurance reform, any measures that do less than fully regulate the industry, provide cost containment, and include a government-sponsored alternative is unacceptably weak.

2.  Reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act

The Glass-Steagall Act separated investment institutions from savings banks in 1933 in order to better control the financial industry, and was repealed in 1999.  This deregulation of financial institutions paved the way for the Great Recession of late – the only way to curb the behaviors of highly corrupt and self-interested “fatcats” is through regulation, and a reinstatement of this wonderfully foresighted piece of legislation would be a suitable start.

3.  Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine

In 1949, the FCC instituted a policy that governed media’s balance between opinion and facts, as well as biases; however, in 1987 it was repealed.  Since its demise, FOX “News” and Rush Limbaugh have taken advantage of their ability to present opinions and/or lies as fact to the general public, much to the detriment of the nation.  This degradation continues steadily with News Corp. exerting influence on their publications to present information only in certain lights, usually with a highly pro-business, anti-Obama, anti-people slant.  With a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, the behaviors of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and their ilk would not only be illegal but land them in a world of trouble with consequences for their abhorrent behavior.

4.  Less Partisanship, Grandstanding, and Generic Opposition

2009 was “The Year of ‘No’”, thanks to Congressional Republicans and the sheep-in-wolf’s-clothing known as Blue Dog Democrats – this default opposition to any progressive, liberal, or intelligent ideas resulted in gridlock and extreme partisanship where the two sides were so divided that compromise, at any level, was all but impossible.  Shouting during a President’s speech, vitriolic name-calling, and grandstanding for self-interested purposes were all seen throughout the year and must not continue in 2010.  It’s highly unlikely that such a corrupt and two-faced group of people, known as Congressional Republicans, can make such a turn around so quickly, but it would be welcomed with open arms.

5.  A Return to Intelligence

The election of President Obama was meant to return intelligence to its rightful place within politics and government, but it’s taken the better part of a year to achieve this goal.  Within the last few months of the year, the EPA has taken a stance, for the better, on climate change policy, the FCC is investigating the regulation of ISP’s, science is once again valued over generic halftruths – all wonderful in and of themselves.  But the larger picture of intelligence within government is taking significantly longer to reappear, and it’s hard to believe change is happening behind the scenes when Congressmen are shouting at each other on national television over minute points – this trickles down to the people, resulting in teabaggers, Sarah Palin, climate change deniers, and Creationists.

6.  Anti-Trust Prosecution

Promises have been made by the Obama Administration that Anti-Trust Law will be treated more respectfully than the previous Administration chose to, but the only results thus far have been initial investigations into Intel.  If anti-trust immunity for insurance providers were removed, they would be ripe for prosecution, but until that happens there are far more candidates than could be addressed before the end of President Obama’s first Term of Office.  Comcast, AT&T, and oil companies could be the start of a long list of companies and industries that come under fire for illegal actions in the realms of competition and collusion.

7.  Legitimate News Coverage

American news media has been in a slow decline for at least a decade, and the Great Recession has only hastened the process – more entertainment topics, irrelevant issues, and pseudo-politicians are now covered than actual news, let alone politics.  CNN, FOX “News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and the rest of the networks, not to mention print publications, choose to exchange discussing real issues and their details for the latest celebrity gossip, 20-minute arguments over some embarrassing topic, and the highly questionable opinions of people formerly in the political arena.  This lack of news and political coverage has lead to a decline in American understanding of the nation’s issues, as well as the world at large, and contributed to the rise of partisanship and irrational screaming.  If some of the news outlets return, once again, to doing their jobs rather than seeking advertising money, the nation will be better off for it.

8.  Climate Change Legislation

Since the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen was such an unmitigated disaster, thanks in large part to both America’s inaction and China’s grandstanding, the United States needs to do its part before the world decides the greatest nation in the world is now irrelevant.  Rather than arguing over what has long been scientific fact, Congress must pass nationwide restrictions on emissions levels for all relevant gases, without loopholes, and forcefully emphasize the use of green, or at least partially green, energy over current favorites such as coal.  Nuclear power is not the perfect long-term solution, but if the federal government chooses to immediately reinvigorate the near-dead industry, it will serve as an effective and efficient intermediary until the nation can become a fully environmentally friendly energy economy.

9.  Collapse of the GOP By Their Own Hands

There are many in America that believe the GOP has been committing ritualistic suicide over the last year and a half, due to their abhorrent behavior, and the off-year election in a small, highly conservative, New York District proved exactly what many had predicted:  the teabagger sect of the Republican Party passes arbitrary judgment on those within the party, and often finds individuals to be “not conservative enough”.  The result in NY was that the conservative vote was split between a Republican candidate and a Conservative candidate, with the Democrat winning – this same behavior is likely to be seen in the midterm elections, essentially removing the GOP from power and allowing a more rational and viable conservative party to rise from the ashes.

10.  Handling Rogue Countries

North Korea and Iran have been problematic for years, but 2009 was one of the most politically challenging with these two rogue countries, as Iran had fake Presidential elections that resulted in government assassinations of protestors (among other provocative behaviors and incidents), and North Korea inched ever-closer to actually launching an attack on a nearby Asian nation.  Sanctions by both the UN and the United States for these two countries have failed, and a more drastic approach needs to be taken that does not involve American soldiers “on the ground”.  Whether this action is in the form of strategic drone strikes within these countries, a corralling of their neighbors into an anti-state coalition, or some other method, Iran and North Korea must be dealt with, effectively, before the end of 2010, lest the problems continue and become something entirely more dramatic and deadly than the last decade has seen.

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.