The Laughable Revolution

By Douglas Kohn

America, like many other nations, tends to view Latin American politics as a matter of trends. Of these various social and political trends lately, the one that makes the most headlines is the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ of Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela, and the seemingly endless rants of a blowhard elected dictator whose position is becoming ever more untenable.

As the most recent poll by the Latinobarometro points out, the Latin American public is significantly further to the left on economic and political issues than Americans would like them to be. In poll after poll, the people of Latin American nations consistently favor big government doing many of their services.

The so called Revolution of Chavez has expanded its following to include the states of Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba. For all of Chavez’ blustering, this is relatively little to show for his efforts and his active foreign policy that has come at the expense of the long term economic and social health of his own Venezuela.

The other story of Latin America has been the notable progress of pragmatic, center left governments throughout the region, having permeated much further than Bolivarianism. In Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and others, fiscal restraint and government deregulation has been the real trend, in spite of the left wing preferences of the population. Rising economic growth, decreasing inequality and an overall increase in the quality of life in so many Latin American nations have ensured that these governments are reelected and prudent policies continued.

Chavez received his first setback a few years ago in a plebiscite that would have greatly expanded his powers and ability to preserve his socio-economic policies. His rants of racism in the United States have had the rug pulled out from under them in the election of America’s first black president.

Chavez then made the mistake of trying to tangle, possibly militarily with Colombia, the most Pro-American country in South America. With American backing, the democratically elected right wing government of Colombia has brought order to a country usually known for its lack of it. Through a combination of military buildup and amnesty programs, Uribe has nearly eliminated Colombia’s largest rebel group, the FARC. Chavez tried to support this group through back channels and gave them some protection, in spite of their heinous acts of hostage taking and other forms of brutality. This was a major diplomatic loss for him. Colombia, in conducting daring raids into Ecuador and its own territory, has won the respect of many in the region. America’s Colombia policy may be counted as one of the only foreign policy success stories of Bush Administration.

Venezuela, after these setbacks, is increasingly looking for allies and support. It is now reaching out to Russia, Iran and other regimes united only in their hostility to the United States. Venezuela is stepping up armed cooperation with these nations as well, hosting Russian naval units. These developments, however, are probably not nearly as dangerous as some in the media have been portraying.

The best evidence of this is Chavez’ most recent difficulty that the opposition party has gained ground in municipal elections in Venezuela. Chavez, essentially an elected dictator, is now a cornered animal. With the decrease in the price of oil, his policies now seem increasingly wrongheaded and imprudent. The ultimate test of Venezuela’s electoral system is about to come, the world will watch and see if Chavez lashes out like a caged animal as his power decreases, or if he peacefully concedes the failure of his false revolution.

The Case Against Universal Healthcare

By Douglas Kohn
Kohn@Fordham.edu

To implement a ‘universal health care’ plan in America would be one of the greater follies of our government. There are many reasons to be against it, but there is one glaring one. We already have it. America has had universal health care for many years. It may not be like Britain’s National Health Service but it is on just as great a scale relative to our population. The simple fact is, anyone within the geographical boundaries of the United States of America, even a tourist, can go into a hospital emergency room where by American law, the hospital is obligated to treat them even if they are unable to pay. Even if an individual has so much as a head cold, they can go to a hospital where they will receive treatment, and if they are unable to pay their bill, there are no consequences.

This goes beyond the Medicare and Medicaid programs that target the poor and the elderly respectively. The bottom line is, there is no one who is denied health services in the United States when they go for treatment. This is despite what Michael Moore may have us believe. The 47 million uninsured or under insured in America still have access to all the health care they could possibly need. For this reason alone, a ‘universal health care’ law would be simply redundant.

The other reason that ‘universal health care’ would be folly is America’s great tradition of scientific research is far beyond that of other nations. According to Economist Magazine’s World in Figures 2007, America spends 2.59% of its GDP on R&D (research and development). As a percentage it ranks 7th among all nations listed. However, as a hard number, no nation comes even remotely close to what America spends.

This number includes the very hefty amount of money spent by drug companies on R&D. Yes, this drives up the cost of many drugs in America (where 1/7 of GDP is spent on health care), but it pushes the bounds of the medically feasible. This is a service to America and to mankind that no one in their right mind can doubt the great achievements that result from American research. The bottom line here is that if new costs are imposed on insurance companies and hospitals engaged in activities such as clinical trials, this country will look more and more like Europe, where relative to their economic power very little R&D is done. The only sizeable country that rivals America in scientific achievement is Japan. The others on the list are very small countries all with populations of under 10 million and GDPs comparably small.

There are other factors that make medical care much more expensive relative to other developed nations but the primary reason for high cost health care in America is R&D. This is widely noted by leaders of pharmaceutical companies.

The last reason to oppose ‘universal health care’ is that there is no reason to impose greater costs on the American taxpayer for those who can afford their own health insurance and medical care. The existing bureaucracy has become so complex that many people who can afford it simply opt out of the existing system and pay medical costs out of pocket. We have programs for the poor and elderly, we have emergency rooms that take literally anyone and also impose great costs on the taxpayer. Why, if someone can afford to pay for their own health insurance, should the tax payer take up the burden? At the very least we may look at the logic on car insurance, where laws prohibit owning an uninsured vehicle.

The last reason that ‘universal health care’ is a bad idea in America is that when the government runs an economic entity in this country it usually is handled terribly. The late great economist Milton Friedman eloquently put it; ‘if the US Government ran the Sahara Desert, in five years, it would be out of sand.’ Look at every single government run program. Social security is going to be bankrupt in the near future, welfare was a disaster, Medicaid and Medicare are becoming ever more cost prohibitive. Even our great military is such a disaster, that $2.5 trillion of its budget went missing. Nearly every time the government steps in to run something in America, it runs over budget or is unsustainable in the long term. One can only imagine with the massive bailouts of the idiot bankers of Wall Street, how badly underestimated the overall costs will be.

Conservative Solution to Poverty

By Phil Fraietta
Fraietta@Fordham.edu

Throughout my lifetime, I have often times found that those of the left and even in the center tend to take the position that conservatives are not interested in helping the poor. While I still believe this a complete falsity, I must say that over the past decade it has become clear to me why many people feel this way. We, as right-wingers, need to stop using the populist rhetoric of “job creation,” and instead need to offer clear but conservative solutions to poverty. Conservative reforms to education would certainly be a good place to start. One such reform that I believe should become a staple of the conservative movement is school choice.

School choice may in fact be the Civil Rights issue of our day. The late great economist Milton Friedman first proposed the idea in the 1960’s. Unfortunately, the “conservative” No Child Left Behind Act failed to include school choice because the far-left, in particular Senator Ted Kennedy, fought against it.

The idea of school choice is simple in principle but genius in application. School choice simply refers to allowing parents to use tax vouchers in order to opt out of sending their children to public school and instead sending them to a private school of their choice. Right now, the tax system forces parents who choose to use private schools for their children, to still pay public school taxes. In my opinion, this is simply wrong. Why should one pay for a service they do not use? Why not allow one to use that same tax money to send their child to a private school?

School choice would not only better the public schooling system by forcing it into even stiffer competition with the private school system, it would serve as a pathway to the American Dream for many impoverished Americans. Take conditions such as those on Fordham Road right outside this campus for example. A family living in conditions like these is forced to send their children to run-down public schools with poor quality teachers and almost no path to advancement. Under school choice, this same family would be able to use a tax voucher and send their child to Fordham Prep. Clearly a student at Fordham Prep has a greater chance to succeed than a student using the Bronx Public School system. Not coincidentally, 73% of Hispanic Americans and 82% of African-Americans (both of which suffer higher poverty rates) support school choice according to the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance.

In fact, most people of all demographics support school choice (63% according to The Center for Education Reform) and see it as a great way to help the poor. So then why is it that school choice has still not be installed? The far-left opposes it.

They argue that school choice is unconstitutional in that it violates “separation of church and state” by sending tax dollars to religious schools. But those of us who are actually familiar with the Constitution know that “separation of church and state” does not appear and that all the Constitution does is prohibit the State from establishing a national religion. The far-left is also under extreme pressure from the teacher’s union to oppose school choice. Clearly, if public schools were forced into stiff competition with private schools, sub-par teachers would have a difficult time keeping their jobs. But, I for one, would rather see our children being educated by the best teachers we have to offer, rather than making sure sub-par teachers still have work.

School choice is an issue we as conservatives can all support. It is vital for us to push for school choice as the number one means to help the poor. The American Dream is beautiful, but the government monopoly over education has started to break it. School choice is a conservative way to reform education and make the American Dream attainable for everyone once again.

Bush vs Obama in the Media

By Rachel Ring
Ring@Fordham.edu

Although I’m still concerned about the outcome of the election and would’ve preferred anyone over Obama (by anyone I mean, Hillary, Kerry, even Ted Kennedy), I refuse to treat him or even think of him in the same disrespectful, disparaging light as the liberal media and even fellow Republicans painted our current president, George W. Bush.

His treatment from the media was absolutely unpatriotic, deplorable, and downright scary. Obama should be weary of the media building him up to take him down, as the media has done to Bush post 9/11, our hero who led us out of the dark confusing days into a strong global war on terror that has produced results. Even the war in Iraq, since the surge, has been going well, but you would never hear that from the media. It’s certainly no longer reported that Fallujah has been given back to the Iraqis for control and that US marines have withdrawn their posts there, or that suicide bombings have gone down dramatically. Of course that wouldn’t be reported, because that would have been positive news about Iraq and consequently, about Bush’s competence and decision making.

Furthermore, I’m intrigued as to how Michael Moore is going to create another piece of misinformed propaganda about Bush. He intends to do just that on the economic crisis, yet he must be conveniently blocking out some very important years in history. 1966, 1977, and 1995 are three glaring years that again, Americans won’t hear about because it would make Bush seem less like an incompetent president.

1966 started the Lyndon Johnson “Great Society” program, which increased entitlement programs (read: welfare, read: higher taxes) nationwide. 1977 was the year Jimmy Carter plummeted the country into a recession due to his bad foreign policy agenda, which lead to the gas crisis. 1995, under the beloved Clinton administration (again, I’m baffled as to why he is so revered considering he was impeached), showed us a Democratic president signing into law the deregulation of banks. (And who could forget that Clinton had Osama bin Laden in his sights and let him go?!) Most recently, in the past two years, the public has seen a Democratic Congress sit by as the sub prime mortgage crisis raged out of control. Their motivation behind that: move slow, pin the crisis squarely on Bush, and guarantee a Democratic President-elect.

Besides all of those essential facts, I still refuse to revert to the kindergarten like behavior of the Democrats and “rogue” Republicans have done the past 6 years. Not only was their behavior distasteful, it was downright embarrassing internationally. What must enemies think of a country who can’t stand behind their president, with at least a bit of basic respect? It was unpatriotic, not in the sense that a person in America can’t disagree with the government, but there are ways to disagree with a President and compromise than instead, tear him apart personally to demonize him to gain public support and get their way. That’s the exact opposite route I hope Republicans take in dealing with Obama, to if nothing else, demonstrate that there is a fundamental difference in the way Republicans view authority than Democrats have recently, and that difference needs to be noticed so that damage control can be done in the way Bush was treated (an apology would be nice too).

What Liberals Won't Tell You

By Douglas Kohn
Kohn@Fordham.edu

Anyone who hears a left wing intellectual or writer speak of Barack Obama would notice they never speak to the strength of America. I am hoping that Barack Obama’s presidency does not end in disaster, but that is another question. On other issues, Barack Obama, by his very identity is having an impact on America and the World.

The reaction globally to Barack Obama’s electoral victory is astounding. Historically speaking, only Kennedy has engendered that reaction. But this shows the enduring strength of America in the hearts and minds of people around the world. The Liberals do not mention this; they prefer to say that it is only because of Barack Obama’s personality and charisma that the rest of the world is reacting this way. But Bill Clinton was no less charismatic than Obama and the world did not welcome him in the same way.

To the rest of the world, rightly or wrongly the election of Barack Obama is the embodiment of what America has meant to them. A nation that unlike any other is able to redress historical wrongs. America is still the shining city on a hill. It is still the canary in the coal mine of civilization. And the rest of the world still sees it as the last, best hope. Hopefully, Obama governs well and keeps it that way.

What the liberals do not say, is that America, not Barack Obama, is what has captured the fascination of the world.

History returns, but is America still exceptional?

By Douglas Kohn
Kohn@Fordham.edu

Ever since the founding of the nation, people have touted the everlasting idea of American exceptionalism. Even though every country is unique in its own way, Americans liked to see their place as exceptionally exceptional, especially when compared with other capitalist, democratic nations.

This notion was further reinforced by an essay written on the 100th anniversary of the publication of the Communist Manifesto called ‘On Marxism and American Exceptionalism.’ It was written by two American communists. Former Neoconservative Francis Fukuyama declared an end to history after the Cold War, and Samuel Huntington declared the Clash of Civilizations. The new world we are entering is looking increasingly like the latter.

Now, after the Cold War has ended, the world is on the precipice of the return of the 19th Century. America will no longer be one of two poles during the superpower years of the Cold War or the only pole during the hyperpower years of the end of the 20th Century and the Beginning of the 21st Century. The world is going to have many poles, with America being of the foremost of several great powers, with political power increasingly distributed by population, rather than technological or economic dominance.

The primary powers in this new world will be America, China, India, Brazil and possibly some form of European political entity. I am intentionally leaving Russia out of this equation as I believe that country to be in real decline, even if they will be able to cause trouble in many ways in the future. The new world we are living in will look increasingly like the map of Europe in the late 19th Century, with many great and powerful nations uneasily trying to maintain a precarious balance of power.

Every single time in history that has had the doctrine of a balance of power has led to war. This was most appropriately played out in Europe after the 30 Years War, after the War of the Spanish Succession, again after the Napoleonic Wars, after the Rise of Germany, and lastly after World War I. In his famous Sinews of Peace speech at Westminster College, Winston Churchill declared that after the Second World War the doctrine of a balance of power was unsound and in a new age ‘We cannot afford to offer temptations to a trial of strength.’ This may have been the world that was taking shape in the days of the ideological conflict between the Free World and Communism, but it is no longer the world we live in.

Somehow, a new balance is going to have to be put in place, and this is why America’s much longed for isolationism may not come to pass. It is a desirable place to be, where you do not have to depend on the rest of the world for sustenance, but the world is much smaller and America will have to find some place in it to preserve its interests and keep any possible competition for geopolitical power as peaceful as possible.

The End of Empire

By Douglas Kohn
Kohn@Fordham.edu

America’s posture since the rise of Bill Clinton increasingly looks like we are trying to forge an Empire. The NeoConservatives, who took their inspiration from earlier American liberal ideas were the main intellectual force behind this. The movement culminated in the invasion of Iraq. Such was the imperial hubris that several essays came out in direct defense of it, such as ‘The Case for Empire.’ It seems that as America is humbled militarily and economically, this new empire will have to be the first thing to go.

Contrary to popular belief, the ideas of the NeoConservatives have a long history in America going back to the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of using America’s future potential power to build ‘an empire of liberty.’ The NeoCons further believed they drew inspiration by twisting many of the ideals of Winston Churchill.

America has at least a small military presence in nearly130 nations, though most of these are not combat ready troops. Our largest permanent bases remain in their post war locations, with Japan, Germany and South Korea having the most.

Much of this is unnecessary. Why do we have bases in South Korea still? Yes, North Korea is a problem but South Korea has nearly twice the population of the North and are armed with the most sophisticated American weaponry money can buy. Their army has over half a million men, and though it is smaller than the North’s, it has much more sophisticated weaponry and tactics. America maintains a force of 37,000 men in Korea, a fact greatly despised by a local population that has come to greatly despise the country that saved them from Communism. Our 37,000 men would not be able to help the South Korean army in any significant way if the North were to invade. South Korea is more than able to take care of itself in the event of a war, which is very unlikely.

The Bush Administration recently set up the African Command for the Pentagon. Under his administration engagement with the nations of Africa has deepened on every level. Funding to fight AIDS has increased to a historically high level. This is not a problematic policy; AIDS is a truly global problem that has the ability to spread by exponential levels when more people contract it. It is something that could very well reach America’s shores quite easily. However, there is a new semi imperial scramble for Africa going on. China has engaged with Africa on record levels as well, mostly on an economic sphere. America has only two recognizable interests in Africa, increasing African oil production to keep prices low and contributing to fighting AIDS.

Our constant intervention here is unnecessary. It was not necessary to intervene in Somalia when an Islamist regime was formed. Yes, it would have been a radical Islamic regime and we have worked with many of these before, but it would not have been in a serious position to cause major problems around the world. Somalia is not a powerful country and would not have had access to nuclear weapons. The spread of Christianity in Sub Saharan Africa will serve as its own check on the spread of Islam and its militants. We do not need significant numbers of troops to trounce around Africa, our election of a Kenyan president will give us much sway over the hearts and minds of the continent.