God Bless America - Why tiresome speech ending won't die out

In a week of celebration in America, President Obama has seemingly placed extra emphasis on the inevitable, and inevitably infuriating, phrase he uses to end his political speeches: God Bless America. For those of us who have grown up hearing these words close many a presidential address, it is worth remembering that it has not always been this way.

 

The popularisation of the trite little phrase dates back to Irving Berlin’s 1918 song of the same name, which might conceivably have replaced “The Star Spangled Banner” as the country’s national anthem were it not for southern conservative opposition to Berlin’s Jewish identity. However, the expression did not pass a president’s lips until 1973 when the repulsive President Nixon uttered the words amidst the collapsing scenery of his administration at the time of the Watergate scandal. Having failed to catch on straight away (neither Gerald Ford nor the ultra-religious Jimmy Carter used the phrase), God Bless America was resurrected by Ronal Regan in 1980 and has remained as the speech ending of choice for American presidents ever since.  According to David Domke and Kevin Koe’s book, The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America, Regan and George Bush used the phrase in 90% of their political speeches, whilst Clinton and George W Bush followed suit 89% and 84% of the time respectively.  Yet there is something about the current president – perhaps the fact that the words are so often preceded by seemingly thoughtful prose – that makes the tact on cliché such an irritating closing sentence.

James Fallows has argued that God Bless America is the political equivalent of ‘Have a nice day’ - an irksome, though harmless expression that has ended many a transaction across the country. Yet there is surely something more mindless, not to say ironic, about declaring God Bless America, particularly when it is used in the wake of an event that has so clearly not gone well for the U.S. (As the novelist John Updike remarked following the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, ‘God might have withdrawn His blessing from America’). Nowhere was this truer than on September 14, 2001 when George W. Bush, standing on the still burning rubble of the collapsed towers, ended his short, though rousing speech, with the words God Bless America. Few in the crowd that day seemed to catch the irony of that. After all, had not the 18 hijackers been thoroughly convinced that God was blessing their work? If one truly believes that God takes an interest in these kind of things, then surely the destruction around the President that day would have suggested that the hijackers had a far greater chance of being right!

Yet, in God fearing America, the expression is unlikely to die out anytime soon. As a way of assuring the press and public that the speaker is a person of ‘faith’, no better phrase has yet been invented. It is also an incredibly easy and reliable way for speech writers to wrap up a day’s work, safe in the knowledge that they have a closing line ready to launch the audience into chants and applause. Perhaps someday an American president will have the courage to drop the tired cliché and finish on something poignant or profound. But until that day, God will no doubt go on blessing America.

by Matt Jones

Made in America: why the US should protect its own

America’s status as the world’s superpower was established in no small part from the strength and talent of our men and women in uniform. However, this cannot simply be attributed to exceptional training; we would be amiss if we failed to recognize the American companies who develop and build the equipment that our men and women use every day to ensure our national security. American ingenuity has kept us at the forefront of military technology that helps keep our soldiers safe. It is not only key to our military strength, but also to the strength of our economy.

Unfortunately, a troubling trend has made it way into the industry. In the name of a “free market” and “fair competition,” foreign companies have begun winning defense contracts at the peril of American companies. The competition is by no means “fair,” and all that is “free” is the free-ride foreign companies are getting when they receive subsidies from their governments. Because foreign companies receive money from the government, they are able to offer artificially low prices when they bid for contracts against American companies, who do not receive government aid.

We are seeing this played out right now, as Kansas-based Hawker Beechcraft competes for an Air Force contract against the Brazilian company Embrear. Embraer publically acknowledges that it receives assistance from the Brazilian government. And this is not an isolated incident – just a few weeks ago Boeing was awarded a similar contract over EADS, it’s European counterpart, but only after a controversial prolonged fight where Boeing had to overcome EADS’ unfair advantage due to government subsidies.

As our country continues to struggle to bounce back from recession, we need to ask ourselves: Should our defense spending be used to protect 1,400 American jobs, or should we allow a foreign company to produce planes in Brazil, ship the parts to the U.S., assemble them in Florida, and stamp them  “Made in America?”

Congress and the Pentagon need to know that Americans are not okay with outsourcing our military manufacturing or our national security.  The idea of supporting a company whose government has provided no assistance or support to the U.S. in fighting terrorism around the globe? The answer seems pretty clear. Support keeping America strong, and tell Washington to stop outsourcing our jobs and security.

Guest Blog by Emily McGann

Reid and Obama struggle to keep Boehner down

Over 800,000 American federal employees have gone to work this morning, not knowing whether they will be expected to come in on Monday. Congressmen from both sides of the political divide worked through the night last night in an attempt to foster agreement over a the $3.5trillion federal budget. They remain half a percentage point apart. In other words about $5bn. With the budget in the balance, funding for a number of federal programs will effectively be frozen until agreement is reached.

As if the hundreds of thousands without wages and canceled tourist activities don’t sound bad enough, organisers of the National Cherry Blossom Festival have announced the annual gala parade would be canceled should lawmakers fail to reach agreement. But seriously, the failure of lawmakers to reach agreement through compromise reflects badly on the system, threatens domestic political fallout and may damage the international prestige of the United States. Come on guys you’re the world’s only superpower. What happens if you shutdown?

The polarized politics of recent years is finally coming to a head as (Republican) House Speaker Boehner, and (Democrat) Senate Majority Leader Reid continue to struggle over specific ‘riders’, including funding cuts to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and environmental red-tape. At present  both sides seem to be spending more time blaming each other than actively pursuing agreement. Hesitant to blink first, they have argued that any concessions given up over the budget may set a dangerous precedent for future negotiations, which are expected to become increasingly testing. With the government only hours away from shutting down, it's time for lawmakers to step up to the plate and pass this test of political will.


by David Fairhurst

Originally posted by The Henry Jackson Society http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/thescoop.asp?pageid=106&poid=1166

The Dragon in the Backyard

China’s economic rise ought not to be Washington’s only concern in regard to the Asian giant as Beijing’s intrusion into the Western hemisphere is a clear strategic threat to the US’ geopolitical interests...

Visit Cartagena on Colombia's Northern coast and you will see an unmistakable history of transatlantic imperial history unravel before your eyes.  From the rows of picturesque colonial houses with their wooden banister balconies, blossoming hanging baskets and vibrantly painted exteriors through to the crumbling fortress of San Felipe de Barajas complete with the brass cannons peeking over its historical walls, the stamp of Spain's empire is intoxicating. But as the stonework of San Felipe de Barajas fades with time, somewhere down the Atlantic coastline, the hard steel of a new empire is being laid. 

Plans for a 'dry Panama canal' were unveiled yesterday which propose to link the Pacific port of Buenaventura to Colombia’s Atlantic coast by rail.  If the deals brokered last year by Beijing with Venezuela's state oil company PdVSA and its dealings with Brazil’s Petrobas weren't enough to convince, these latest negotiations with the Santos administration in Colombia ought to paint a clearer picture; China's scramble for Latin America is well and truly on.

The Sino-Colombian relationship has been growing for some time.  Trade between the pair has leapt from $10 million to $5 billion in 30 years and Colombia’s geostrategic position as South America’s shortest northern route from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast is a clear pull for Beijing.  The 491 mile, $4.7 billion railway line is therefore not such a surprising venture between the resource-crazy Chinese and the Santos administration which has focused on an economic agenda since replacing the defence-centric Uribe.  But where does the US stand amongst all this?

On the plus side, it would appear that this proposed deal will be a further step toward the ongoing renovation of Latin America’s continental infrastructure and will therefore be beneficial for the neoliberal agenda in the Western Hemisphere.  It is likely that the move will also prompt the US to finally ratify the free-trade agreement with Colombia which has been on the table for some four years.  But amongst these economic outlooks, it is difficult to see beyond the strategic significance of a dragon in the backyard. 

China’s push into the Western hemisphere is ultimately a push into the US’ traditional sphere of influence.  Since the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine, the US has been particularly sensitive to outside influence in the Americas as exemplified by the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  It is unlikely that this stance will soften now.  China’s economic rise is the subject of some serious column inches in Washington and worldwide, particularly now that some estimates project China’s GDP to catch up with the US’ by 2025.  Add to this meteoric economic resurgence China’s human rights record and its ideological appeal to the Leftist-Latin-League headed by political performer, Hugo Chávez, and you have a problem. 

Whether or not we are willing to acknowledge it and whether or not China is even consciously aware of it, Beijing is on a path to empire.  As many historians have pointed out, empires exist because great powers calculate that they can obtain better access to resources through control as opposed to the open market.  Surely it’s about time we open our eyes and recognise what the Dragon is up to?


by Dane Vallejo

This blog was originally published by The Henry Jackson Society, 15/02/11, at http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/thescoop.asp?pageid=106&poid=1094 

Lincoln's contradictions - 150 years on

Next month will see the 150^th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s ascension to power, which means that, as America prepares itself for numerous parades and events, we will once again be treated to the myth of ‘honest Abe’ as the flawless emancipator of the slaves and saviour of the nation . It is therefore an appropriate time to reflect upon Lincoln’s numerous contradictions and flaws – so often papered over by American hagiographers and the education system – that bring Lincoln to life as a great historical figure rather than a fictitious behemoth.    

The first criticisms often directed at Lincoln relate to his responsibility for the Civil War. The argument goes something like this: At the time of the Mexican War in 1848 Lincoln stated that “any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.” Yet, when the Confederate states decided to do just this in February 1861 under the leadership of Jefferson Davis, Lincoln was staunchly opposed to their behaviour and launched a brutal civil war that cost the lives of some 650,000 Americans. Moreover, in conducting the war Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the first time in American history, arrested and imprisoned people merely for sympathising with the Southern cause and greatly expanded the size of the federal government.

These criticisms are dealt with fairly effectively however by Lincoln’s defenders. Since the Confederates were not willing to negotiate on any position, and particularly not over the extension of slavery to the new territories, then unless you believe – as some critics of American empire do – that the U.S. would have been better off had it split into two separate states in 1861, it is difficult to argue against Lincoln’s stance. Though Lincoln’s statement in 1848 contradicts his later position, his argument of 1861 that since he was legitimately elected and had broken no constitutional provision, supporting the Southerner’s decision to secede was effectively supporting the principle of allowing any group to leave the nation if it merely didn’t like the result of an election, is rather persuasive. Furthermore, though his suspension of civil rights during the war was undoubtedly too drastic, it must be remembered that the nation was in a desperate state of war in which its very survival was at stake.

The second and most often repeated criticism of Lincoln relate to his position towards slavery. Though he was staunchly opposed to the expansion of slavery to the new territories, Lincoln was certainly not an abolitionist and infamously declared to newspaper editor Horace Greely in August 1862 that if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave he would. Moreover, in his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln declared himself to be against intermarriage and opposed to political and social equality between the races, while on more than one occasion he expressed his desire to colonise blacks away from the U.S. This has led some critics to declare that had Lincoln had his way, there would have been no Martin Luther King or Barack Obama since America would be a purely white society.

These criticisms are harder to shake off. Since there were numerous people in the 1850s and 1860s who explicitly attacked slavery and called for its immediate and complete abolition, it will not do to simply assert that Lincoln was a product of his time. Instead, Lincoln’s defenders argue that his statements need to be understood from the point of view of a pragmatic politician and, in fact, demonstrate Lincoln’s great skill. Certainly, the vast majority of the white population were racist in their views towards blacks and if Lincoln wanted to be elected he had to attain popular support, even if this meant appealing to people’s prejudices. Moreover, his insistence on preserving the Union rather than freeing the slaves reflected the fact that he could persuade men in the north to fight for the former cause, but not the latter. Though his statements on the colonisation of slaves make for uncomfortable reading, it must be remembered that Lincoln was also the author of the Emancipation Proclamation and, ultimately, it is impossible to refute the assertion that it was because of Lincoln that slavery finally came to an end.

Like the other great emancipator of the 19^th century, Charles Darwin (who was coincidentally born on the exact same day of 12 February, 1809), Lincoln’s reputation is secure. Yet, it would be nice to see Lincoln celebrated at the upcoming anniversary as the great, yet flawed, figure that he was, rather than mythologized as the faultless hero of American history. Here’s hoping.   

by Matt Jones

Defence on the cheap?

Recent developments in Congress show that it is not only the UK cutting defence spending.  Is the US now condemned to defeat against a rising China?  Don’t be so hasty...

The Pentagon looks set to take a hit on its budget of up to $23 billion; a scary thought for those of us who depend on the US as a security blanket, right?  Maybe, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves just yet.  I’m almost sick of hearing the phrase myself, but in ‘these times of austerity’ cuts are necessary, across the board. 

Defence is an area in which cuts typically tend to make one wince.  After all, the clue is in the name: defence.  And so it is important to make clear from the off-set that these cuts are not a good thing.  In an ideal world, defence would increase year upon year so as to figuratively, and perhaps appropriately in this instance, literally blow the competition out of the water.  But there are ways of out-manoeuvring economic hardship.  In this instance, the Pentagon ought to take heed of one of its own concepts: the OODA loop.

By Observing, Orienting, Deciding and Acting, the Pentagon will be able to maintain the US Forces’ ability to stay ahead of the game, that is, maintain a position in which it will be able to overcome potential threats.  Let’s look at the bigger picture here; after all, that is what strategy is really all about.  What is on the horizon?  Full blown conventional war with China?  Perhaps dismissing that contingency out of hand would be naive, but it would appear more likely that irregular wars will retain the spotlight and continue to unfold in the steady rhythm which they have adhered to since The Berlin Wall was pulled down.

Even if we do consider war with China to be the most likely contingency, Beijing continues to languish behind Washington in terms of defence spending.  In real terms, the US is only actually returning to levels of spending seen around 2004, not 1904.  In terms of per capita spending, the new Pentagon budget will mean a figure of around $1,713.  China’s per capita spending is around $61.  Finally, while the US is stretching it’s military with a budget of $526 billion this year, China will surely be burning money for fun with a budget of around $80 billion, no?

Ok, so that is perhaps a little facetious.  After all, we need to look at longer term trends; we need to consider China’s future intentions; and the US needs to stay as far ahead as is possible.  But providing Congress isn’t planning to cut defence annually for the next two decades then a slight dip does not warrant an epidemic of panic.

Leslie Gelb commented in Foreign Affairs in November that GDP now matters more than force in defence.  In truth, he is stretching it there, a bit.  But there is an interesting point at hand.  What is the point of the military in the end?  Primarily to protect the nation that it serves.  I would suggest it’s worth having a nation worthy of saving in the first place and that starts at home.  This isn’t a return to isolationism; it’s not an end to expeditionary capabilities.  It’s pragmatism.  The US will continue to dominate the military sphere and what damage is done through these cuts can be remedied through tighter cooperation with allies and a concentration of force through instruments like NATO.  There will be a day when Pentagon defence spending rises again.  But to see that day, the US needs to stop the economic rot at home first and cuts are the first step on the road to recovery.

by Dane Vallejo

This blog was originally published by The Henry Jackson Society, 28/01/11, accessed at
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/thescoop.asp?pageid=106&poid=1070

Harvard’s Finest? The Ferguson-Kissinger Connection

If Niall Ferguson is to produce a first rate biography of Henry Kissinger, he will need to present more convincing arguments than the ones on display at the LSE...

Last week Harvard historian Professor Niall Ferguson was back at the London School of Economics, in his year-long capacity as Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs, to deliver the third part in his lecture series on the Cold War. The topic of the most recent instalment was ‘the grand strategy of detente’, which as Ferguson made clear straight away, meant focusing on the architect of said strategy, Henry Kissinger. In addition to their mutual link to Harvard University, Ferguson is also Kissinger’s official biographer, having been given access to the former secretary of state’s papers, as well as to the man himself, to write a ‘warts and all’ (Ferguson’s phrase) account of Kissinger’s career.

 After an initial throat clearing in which he declared that since he had scarcely written a word of the book yet, his conclusions would be only tentative ones, he set straight out to attack those who have criticised Kissinger, and in particular, Christopher Hitchens. Making light of the fact that Hitchens’ book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, started life as an article ‘in that renowned scholarly publication, Vanity Fair’ (actually it was Harpers), he went on to criticise the author for using an insufficient number of primary source documents in his footnotes. Considering the fact that Ferguson himself has been highly criticised by historians for failing to use any footnotes at all in his most popular books, accusations of being unscholarly seem a little hypocritical.

Following this, he again peddled the argument (first put forward in an article in the Sunday Times in May 2008) that criticism of Kissinger may have something to do with the fact that he is Jewish. Aside from the fact that his two most famous critics, Hitchens and Seymour Hersh, are themselves of Jewish ancestry, this disgusting accusation seems to suggest that there can be no political or moral reasons to dislike the man.

The point Ferguson is trying to make with this slur is that Kissinger has been unjustly singled out for special criticism, since similar policies to his own were adopted by all foreign policy makers during the Cold War. He sarcastically posed the question, why has no one written ‘The Trial of John Foster Dulles’, who as Secretary of State during the 1950s oversaw the calamitous American policy towards Guatemala? The answer to this question, to put it in a similar format, is the same reason why no one would think to deliver a lecture on ‘The Grand Strategy of Madeline Albright’. The fact is that Henry Kissinger had a hold upon American foreign policy that no other secretary of state could be argued to have possessed. When biographers write of Kissinger as virtually a second president when it came to foreign affairs, this is not hubris, and for much of the 1970s it was almost impossible to think of a foreign policy decision that had not been instigated by Kissinger. In fact, one of the most lamentable things about Kissinger is his willingness to boast about the amount of power he has when it suits him, yet insist that events were outside of his control when it does not, as in the cases of Cyprus and East Timor, to take just two examples.

Of the charges made against Kissinger by his critics, Ferguson dealt directly with only one in his hour long lecture, namely Kissinger’s involvement in the Vietnam debacle. With the help of a chart, Ferguson pointed to the ‘extraordinarily rapid decrease of American casualties in the Vietnam war after Richard Nixon became president, to the point that by the time he was re-elected, American casualties in Vietnam had essentially ended’. What the professor omitted is that the terms that the war ended on in 1973 were essentially the same as those being negotiated back in  1968 at the Paris peace talks, which the Nixon campaign (with Kissinger’s help) managed to undercut by insisting to the South Vietnamese that they could offer them a better deal should they abandon the negotiations. Moreover, Ferguson failed to make any reference to the number of Vietnamese who were killed after 1969, thus ignoring the important question, ‘is it morally acceptable to use whatever tactics one likes to achieve fewer American casualties?’ What if those tactics included (as they did) the illegal bombing of the independent state of Cambodia, which in addition to killing an unknowable number of Cambodians,  created the conditions necessary for the murderous Khmer Rouge to attain power?  

In attempting to demonstrate the incredibly difficult world situation that Kissinger faced, and thus the need for his grand strategy of detente, Ferguson asserted that the 1970s were the most violent of all the Cold War decades. Here he is in danger of confusing cause and effect. Is it not more accurate to point out that much of the violence in that decade was the product of actions that Kissinger supported – Bangladesh being only the most salient example – precisely because he was following a strategy that required him to worry only about the actions of the superpowers? This is something Ferguson tentatively admitted during the question period when he stated that ‘the superpowers probably made it [violence] slightly worse, maybe a lot worse in some cases’.

Finally, Ferguson turned to the most recent Kissinger controversy, namely the tape of him declaring to Nixon in March 1973, following a plea from Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to push Moscow to allow the emigration of Soviet Jewry, that:

The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.

Having made reference to the event at the start of the lecture and merely stated that if we heard all the telephone conversations of other statesmen we would get a pretty nasty image of them too (not exactly a good defence), Ferguson returned to the subject towards the end of his lecture to assure us that contrary to how Kissinger’s statement may appear, it in fact shows how moral the man is. ‘Imagine’, Ferguson declares ‘what it means to say something like that when you personally, as a Jew, have seen a Nazi concentration camp liberated’. The professor went on to proclaim Kissinger to be ‘somebody who grapples endlessly with the fundamental moral problem of choice, of priorities, which is at the heart of any meaningful foreign policy’. Now come on. It is one thing to defend Kissinger on the basis that the anarchical nature of the international realm requires morals to be superseded by state interests, but to suggest that the man ‘grapples endlessly’ with moral issues is not borne out by the facts. Like any egomaniac, Kissinger has refused to accept that he made any mistakes in his time in office or to show any sympathy for the fate of small countries, which, when one considers the calamitous effects of many of his policies, is a rather disturbing sign.

Ferguson in undoubtedly a talented historian with a rare ability to make you challenge commonly held views. But if he is to produce a first rate biography of Kissinger, he will need to present more convincing arguments than the ones on display at the LSE.   

By Matt Jones

A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action

Fighting Islamism head on in a war of words for the malevolent force that it is is all well and good, but to make strides in the struggle, the transatlantic community should also look to the virtue of international development...

Identity politics are a major aspect of the transatlantic community’s ongoing struggle with terrorism.  Ideology, religion and ethnicity all play a pivotal role in generating the friction that has on too many occasions reached an emotional intensity that has lead to repulsive and indefensible acts of terrorism.  Yet, in managing the problem, there is another angle to be explored; the role of development.

Hillary Clinton’s surprise visit to Yemen, the first by a Secretary of State in 20 years, highlighted this stream of consciousness.  "It's not enough to have military-to-military relations [only]," said Clinton.  Instead, she discussed with her audience in Sanaa the need to recalculate US aid to Yemen so as to emphasise social and economic reform. 

Terrorism will likely always occur; as will theft, as will rape, as will murder.  These are sad facts of the human condition.  Look no further than Arizona this week to see that extreme events can occur at the flex of a fanatical lone wolf’s trigger finger.  And so beating terrorism is really about managing the threat.  It is about reducing both the severity and occurrence of terrorist acts and inhibiting the ability of larger coordinated networks to act.

Half the battle is reducing numbers.  There are so called ‘pious’ (read poisonous) clerics who will always incite other fanatics to act.  Here is where we ought to employ the virtue of law enforcement; the reactionary element of a cohesive counterterrorism campaign.  But alongside that, we must focus on development so as to help stop some of those otherwise un-radicalised from becoming so.

Bankrolling Sanaa is not only beneficial for the purpose of allowing Yemen’s government to deal with the Shia Houthi rebels in its north, the secessionist movement in its south and its critical battle with al Qaeda.  No, it can also be beneficial for the purpose of improving infrastructure, enhancing opportunities for economic prosperity and increasing the quality of education for Yemen’s citizens thereby removing a state of being which has driven many to extremism out of frustration.  Of course, it is of equal importance to ensure that the money is spent well and free of corruption, but providing this, the sentiment is clear; more of the same please, Secretary Clinton.

by Dane Vallejo

This blog was originally published by The Henry Jackson Society, 12/01/11, accessed at http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/thescoop.asp?pageid=106&poid=1046