The United States: Master of the House

In my English class, we have been reading the book Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. Set in the Congo in the 1960’s, the novel discusses the intense political climate in that country from an American point of view. The book covers a fairly large span of time, but a key plot point is the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Orleanna is the character, in my opinion, that has the most interesting take on the situation, specifically the CIA’s role in the assassination plot. Obviously no one can be certain of exactly what the CIA did or did not do, but it’s fairly clear that, at the very least, they knew, and approved, of the plans to kill Lumumba. Orleanna, on page 320, says, “President Eisenhower was right then sending his orders to take over the Congo. Imagine that. His household was the world, and he’d finished making up his mind about things”.

Since the end of World War II, it seems that the United States has seen the world as its “household”. This means that we, as a nation, have a right, and a responsibility, to intervene in world affairs as we see fit. This is a very important narrative to understand, as it has shaped U.S. foreign policy for upwards of 50 years. The scenario in the Congo is a prime example of the consequences of this worldview. From America’s tacit support of the Lumumba assassination, to our varied meddling in Latin America, to the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to the Iran-Contra scandal, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs. This track record is well documented elsewhere, so I won’t go into too much depth here. Suffice to say that most of the time the U.S. has acted to advance its own interests, with little respect or regard for other nations.

Recently, I was reading an interesting blogging debate, so to speak, regarding the legality and ethicality of CIA assassinations of suspected terrorists. Basically, we as a country claim the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere, at any time, if we have reason to believe that they are a terrorist, or are somehow helping terrorists. This is just another example of America applying the “household” principle to our foreign policy. If any other country sent predator drones or soldiers into the United States to assassinate someone it had deemed a threat to its national security, we would consider that country to be drastically overstepping its boundaries. Somehow, when it comes to the rest of the world, this situation is analogous to pursuing a rodent into your neighbor’s living room, uninvited. When America is the aggressor, however, it is all of a sudden similar to chasing the rodent from one area of your own house to another. In my opinion, Orleanna’s perspective is valuable (she is an American caught in the middle of a situation where American intervention had some tragic consequences) and the “household” narrative that she points out sheds a lot of light on U.S. foreign policy both then and now.

Rambling Musings on the Midterm Elections

Recently, in my English class, a key subject of discussion has been the role that narratives and/or myths play in our lives, and how these stories affect the world around us. I’ll be slightly tweaking the subject of my blog to address this subject a little more in the future, starting with this post. From now on, this blog will primarily address narratives that shape noteworthy events in the news. It’s only a slight change, but hopefully it will improve the overall quality of my blog. If not, I sincerely apologize to you, my legions of followers.

Anyway, this week I would like to talk about politics, specifically the midterm Congressional elections. An emerging narrative is largely shaping these elections, and it is one characterized by a mistrust and dislike of candidates who embody the “political establishment”. It’s not difficult to see where all this anger comes from; the economy is in bad shape, the U.S. is mired in two seemingly unwinnable wars, Obama’s healthcare plan has not been well-received, and many other problems abound. This frustration has, in many cases, been channeled through the Tea Party, and its upstart candidates. There have been many examples of this narrative playing out during these elections, and no example has been in the news more than Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell.

O’Donnell was a complete unknown before the primaries for the open Senate seat in Delaware, having run for office twice before in relative anonymity. She played off voter frustration to defeat career politician Mike Castle, formerly the governor of Delaware and a member of the House of Representatives, in the Republican primaries. As she now steps into the spotlight preceding the general election, a lot of her views have become increasingly known around the country. I won’t waste time going through her position on each issue, but suffice to say that many of her beliefs could be described as “ill-informed”, like her refusal to acknowledge evolution and climate change, and her statement that being gay is an “identity disorder”. Most importantly, though, O’Donnell seems blatantly unqualified to serve in Congress, having never been in an important decision-making position before.

This last aspect of her candidacy addresses the root of the problem with the narrative. Somehow, paradoxically, lack of experience is now a positive thing in many voters’ eyes. O’Donnell’s latest campaign ad has been widely lampooned for its opening line, addressing a clip of her admitting that she “dabbled in witchcraft” as a teenager. To me, this is a non-issue (but funny nonetheless). What is much scarier is what she says seconds later: “I’m you”. That’s terrific, but the problem is that I’m woefully unqualified to be a member of the Senate. I have no expertise in important matters like the economy and military strategy. There’s no way that I would vote for myself in a Senate election. Nor would I vote for the vast majority of Americans, who simply are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to effectively run the country. I don’t want our elected officials to be me; I want them to be better than me. Increasingly, though, it seems as if I am in the minority on this issue. Many Americans vote for candidates like O’Donnell precisely because of their ignorance and inexperience, and spurn relatively moderate, reasonable candidates like Castle. Suddenly, being an “outsider” is more important in American politics, particularly the Tea Party movement, than being intelligent, qualified, or honest. Fortunately, it appears as if Christine O’Donnell will lose her Senate race. Even if she won, one person probably wouldn’t be able to single-handedly impact policy. However, it isn’t her that makes me apprehensive. Rather it is the narrative of mistrust and fear that has enabled her, and other similar candidates, to even come close to being elected. This is a narrative that is affecting our world in a very negative way, in my opinion, and it is one that needs to change sometime soon.

How will history judge Obama's record?

Recently, I read an interesting blog post by Stephen Walt. In it, Walt argues that the public perception of Barack Obama’s first two years in office is a little too harsh. Walt emphasizes the numerous “non-events” that Obama has averted, whereas others (and even Walt himself, by his own admission) have often focused on Obama’s lack of progress or failure to enact significant legislation. I agreed with much of what Walt said, and think that Obama has largely been blamed for circumstances outside of his control. Between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the faltering economy, and America’s greatly diminished reputation and influence abroad, Obama inherited a very difficult situation from the previous administration. Many people, in critiquing Obama’s failure to deliver on his campaign promises, haven’t considered the tough hand he was dealt coming into the presidency.

This argument only goes so far, though. All presidents have to deal with issues left behind by their predecessor; a president’s legacy is largely defined by how he adapts to and deals with these problems. Still, Obama faces a much tougher task than most presidents in recent memory. To compound matters, many members of Congress (Republicans, for example) are clearly unwilling to compromise to solve the difficulties we presently face. Obama’s certainly got a lot on his plate, but how does it stack up with what other presidents have had to deal with? Here’s my opinion:

1. When Abraham Lincoln ascended to the presidency, he inherited a nation torn apart. Even before the 1860 election, the secession movement was already well under way, and he was so hated by so many that he traveled to his inauguration in disguise to avoid assassination attempts. By the time Lincoln took office, the Civil War had begun. Lincoln took command of the Union army and steered the nation through its darkest hour, wielding his presidential power to win the war and bring the Union back together.

2. In 1932, Herbert Hoover’s failed economic policies had, in part, led to the biggest financial crash in American history. Making matters worse, Adolf Hitler had just been elected chancellor of Germany, and fascism appeared to be a major threat to world peace. Into this unsteady and troublesome political climate stepped Franklin D. Roosevelt, who immediately enacted legislation to try to combat the Great Depression. It took some time, but FDR eventually was able to turn the economy around. He also guided the U.S. through World War I, and handled relations with Stalin, no easy task. By the time FDR died, the U.S. had all but won WWII and the Great Depression was officially over.

3. Lyndon Baines Johnson, Vice President under John F. Kennedy, was forced to take over as president following Kennedy’s assassination. JFK had steadily increased U.S. involvement in Vietnam, doing everything short of deploying troops to try to support the South Vietnamese government and undermine Ho Chi Minh’s communist North Vietnam. Domestically, race riots flared up, and the Civil Rights movement was in full swing. When LBJ assumed the presidency, he enacted legislation to extend greater equality to African Americans, and also tried to implement a “war on poverty”. Speaking of war, he greatly escalated America’s involvement in Vietnam, sending troops in and eventually becoming embroiled in the Vietnam War.

I would assert that the issues Obama faces currently rank fourth on my list of presidents’ inherited problems. For their masterful handling of their difficult situations, Lincoln and Roosevelt are widely considered to be among greatest presidents of all time. Johnson’s record is more nuanced; his domestic policy in dealing with the Civil Rights issue is widely considered a success, but his foreign policy, namely the Vietnam War, is viewed as a disaster. Like these three great men, President Obama faces some seemingly overwhelming challenges, many of which can’t be completely attributed to his administration. However, he has to deal effectively with these obstacles in order to be a great president. If Obama succeeds, like Lincoln and FDR, he could go down in history as one of the best presidents ever. If he doesn’t, like LBJ, he’d better get ready to pack his bags in 2012.