Dark Matter Politics a blog discussing the unseen forces influencing culture and politics in the Americas.

Obama's Thoughest Policy Challenges

1. Pakistan
Pakistan, is a country with an unstable government and nuclear weapons, in the middle of the struggle between Western radicals and Muslim radicals. The growing influence of radical groups in the north of Pakistan has lead the US to deploy military strikes across the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Continued strikes by the US military will exacerbate and destabilise the Asif Ali Zardari government which seeks domestic support. Obama will demand more cooperation from Pakistan, however, support will continue to be ambivalent given Pakistan's desire to maintain a sphere of influence around Kashmir. While the US recent rapprochement with India helps to balance US interests in the region, the Zardari administration shows little promise of consistent military and political support.    

2. The Senate
What is worrying about the United States democratically elected Senate is that it is not very democratic. Each member of the House of Representatives represents roughly the same number of voters.  In the Senate, by contrast every state gets two seats., regardless of influence or population. So Wyoming with 500,000 citizens enjoys exactly the same clout as California. No wonder the Senate spends so much money on pointless projects. Furthermore, senators have the power to kill a bill - it takes 60 votes out of 100 to end a filibuster, so 41 senators can block anything. In fact, 11% of the population could theoretically thwart the will of the other 89%. This is the kind of in balance that kept legislation such as the Jim Crow laws alive. Obama's team will have to rely heavily on bi-partisan agreements to push his agenda forward; something that might prove difficult given the upcoming Senate elections in November 2010.  

3.  Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid
Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid- will drive deficits and so debt up sharply. Publicly held debt will climb from 41% of GDP last year to 54% last year next year. Obama's ability to invest in the programs he believes important for America will be limited by a raising deficit. In 2007, $432 billion was spent on Medicare accounting for more than 3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). 

The way to address Medicare's shortfall is to fix the private health-care system, as Barack Obama has pledged to do. If health-care costs are contained, so that they only grow due to the ageing of the population, and otherwise move in line with per capita income, then Medicare will be an affordable programme. The problem is not the ageing of the population, the problem is a broken health-care system.

Barack Obama: The power of reinvention

With wars under way in Iraq and Afghanistan, an engulfing economic downturn, a catastrophic foreign policy and the largest federal deficit in history, the United States has elected Barack Obama. Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election is not a reaffirmation of the American dream; but the validation of the United States ability to reinvent itself. Both Obama and McCain represented this power of reinvention. Obama has simply been the most suited leader for this specific period in history.

While Obama is an agent of hope, John McCain can become an agent of reconciliation. Hope will not create jobs, fix a broken health system or mend a failed foreign policy. Hope will however, bring people together to act, gather, legislate and engage for a common goal and purpose. E.J Dionne Jr. from the Washington Post encapsulates this sense of reinvention in a few simple words - "Yesterday, America chose to practice what it has long preached to the rest of the world."

On the policy side we hope the Democrats majority in both chambers leads to the fulfilment of an ambitious Obama policy platform including: 1) an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and a greater focus on the war in Afghanistan, 2) tax cuts for Americans who make less than $200,000 a year and higher taxed for those making above $250,000 a year, 3) revamping of the health care system, 4) a conciliatory and open foreign policy. We will be keeping a close eye on Obama's new online community space change.gov. 

Obama's first test will be his appointments to key positions including Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State. Obama must translate this electoral win into a successful governing startegy. Obama is the best man for the job.

What if Iraq was the United States in 1964?

While sitting at a park bench in New Orleans I engaged in conversation with a Vietnam veteran who sat quietly feeding pigeons. His views on the U.S involvement in Iraq and the Civil Rights movement where clear from the start of our conversation. For the past ten years he had been teaching at a local elementary school, using what he called "historical parody" to explain events that are difficult to rationalize (such as the war in Iraq)...

February 1, 1964, at the height of segregation in the United States, the British send a military force taking control of the south of the United States deploying forces across Alabama, Tennessee Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida.

Following repeated warnings voiced in the United Nations and through media outlets, the British rally the support of Spain to create a "coalition of the willing" to oust the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was seen as directly responsible for not fully supporting legislation to implement a Civil Rights Act, in strict violation of the Magna Carta.

The British draft an extensive dossier which highlights the abuses to large portions of the African American population including state sponsored lynching, unlawful imprisonment and execution. The dossier adds the actions of the United States government violate the principle of habeas corpus, the legal action by means of which detainees (in this case African Americans) can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The British dossier presented Mississippi as an example of the dire situation. In 1960, 42% of the population was black but only 2% were registered to vote. Lynching, executions and jailing was still employed as a method of terrorizing the local black population. The last section of the dossier included testimony from the families of Denise McNair (11), Addie Mae Collins (14), Carole Robertson (14) and Cynthia Wesley (14) who died at the Sixteen Street Baptist Church on the 15th September,1963. An additional twenty-three other people were also hurt as a result of the bomb placed by Robert Chambliss, a member of the Ku Klux Klan following the end of Sunday school classes at the church.

While President Lyndon B. Johnson was a strong ally of the British and the Civil Right Movement before taking office after the assassination of President Kennedy, British intelligence revealed of his intention to increase US involvement in Vietnam and veto the Civil Rights legislation.

The British where emphatic the action, dubbed as "Operation Jim Crow" was also taken as a pre-emptive action against the continued spread of the Ku Klux Klan, a group that threatened through the use of force, the freedom and principles of equal rights in the region. Spain reluctantly joined the British, in spite of domestic protests, in the fear their lack of involvement would leave them outside of the new political order. The British placed tremendous pressure on the Spanish as government officials recognised Spain would be an effective partner given its historical ties in the south of the United States; dating back to the colonial days when Spain occupied parts of Louisiana (Spain purchased Louisiana from the French in 1763). Furthermore, and behind closed doors, the British feared the spread of the Ku Klux Klan across the Caribbean and the Gulf Coast, compromising their fragile sphere of influence in the region and the vast oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico.

Following a rapid invasion of the Southern states, which saw small number of British and Spanish causalities, officials called for an amnesty and following pressure from other members of NATO and the United Nations, defined a timeline for the withdrawal of forces. However, the invasion of the south triggered an internal battle between the Christian Coalition of America and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The 1.2 million members of the Christian Collation and close to 5 million members of the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints began an armed struggle for control of the Southern states, given the reluctance of the federal government to commit further military resources as these where stretched given the large troop deployments in Vietnam.

While the military operation of the British and Spanish was a resounding success, they failed to realize the underlying historical tension between both groups - rooted on very different biblical interpretation of the Sonship of Christ. More concerning, the African American population, the British and Spainish where meant to liberate, became increasingly militant, frustrated by lack of progress in establishing a democratic system in the region.

civil rights act iraq war segregation jim crow President Johnson Ku Klux Klan

America's Victory Culture replaced by Triumphalism

Winners and losers. Success and failure. Victory and defeat. As the United States strived to define its identity and sovereignty, it adopted a “victory culture”, typical of emerging powers throughout history. Unfortunately this “victory culture” essential to American history and politics, has evolved into a dangerous culture of triumphalism.

The ”victory culture" of American politics is rooted deeply into its history. The founders of the present day United States of America sought not only independence from the British, but victory against the British. This victory was not fully completed until extensive negotiations led to the signing of the Treaty of Paris in September 3, 1783; which served not only as a formal acceptance of independence but more importantly the delineation of boundaries that would allow for American western expansion. A result of western expansion was the “Indian Wars”; a period of American history in which the “victory culture” began to take shape.

The “victory culture” began to take shape during this period given: 1) the new national government, having achieved national independence strived for sovereignty (through geographic expansion); which in turn, 2) defined a struggle not only against the colonial powers but more importantly, nature and the local indigenous populations in the West.

The “culture of victory” was cemented during and after the Spanish American War and the Mexican American War. During these two conflicts, the United States defined an expansionist policy known by the catch phrase of “Manifest Destiny” - the belief that the United States had a divinely inspired mission to expand, spreading its form of democracy and freedom. Advocates of “Manifest Destiny” believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and inevitable ("destiny").

The “closing of the American frontier” in 1980 defined the end of an era and the start of a new historical period; in which the victory culture would begin morphing into a dangerous culture of triumphalism.

The rise of communism and the Soviet Union, defined a new struggle for the United States – driven by ideological control as opposed to geographic gain. The road to victory was to be achieved through military, economic and political influence – as Teddy Roosevelt famous stated "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Vietnam was a prime example of how the “culture of victory” consumed and influenced military and political decisions. Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore in the film Apocalypse Now provides a glimpse of this thinking when he states - “Napalm in the morning smells like victory".

The capitulation of communism defined a “New World Order” in which the United States found itself as the only legitimate superpower, its military and political might unmatched. The tragic events of 9/11, while providing the United States with an opportunity for introspection, cemented a “doctrine of triumphalism” under the Geroge W. Bush administration. When Republican Howard Dean, recently questioned the administrations’ “plans for victory” on Iraq he was blasted for sending the troops and people the wrong message. Surely the conditions and definition of victory should be defined by the people of Iraq (who are the recipients of this victory) and not the United States?

The most significant impact of the United States “doctrine of triumphalism” is an impaired ability to judge the value or morality of its own actions. It is a serious case of Dark Matter Politics when triumphalism blinds and keeps political leaders from adjusting their policies and learning from past mistakes.

Immigration in America is Big Business

Immigration is once again centrepiece of the American media and mainstream consciousness. Immigration is truly global trend, in which the United States plays an important role; its policies impacting individuals far beyond it's borders.

Around 175 million people currently reside in a country other than where they were born - the number of migrants in the world has more than doubled since 1975, according to findings from International Migration 2002, issued by the United Nations Population Division. What the United Nations study confirms is that immigration is fuelled by economic and freedom gaps among populations of the world. Case in point, almost one of every 10 people living in developed regions is a migrant; in contrast, nearly one of every 70 persons in developing countries is a migrant. A direct impact of migration is the growth of remittances from migrant workers. According to the World Bank remittances from migrant workers in 2004 were estimated at USD $182 billion globally. The United States (USD $28.5 billion), Saudi Arabia (USD $15.1 billion) and Germany (USD $8.2 billion) are the top three host remittance nations. In 2003, Mexico received nearly $13.3 billion in workers’ remittances, an amount equivalent to about 140 percent of foreign direct investment and 71 percent of oil exports. For certain countries remittances account for a substantial proportion of gross domestic product - including Tonga (31%), Moldova (27.1%), Lesotho (25.8%), Haiti (24.8%), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (22.5%). Without a doubt, migration serves a powerful force for the redistribution of wealth throughout different regions of the world, helping curve poverty.

When examining the subject of immigration in the United States it is important to make the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between the legislation and management of immigration - the last has proved challenging for several US presidents including the Clinton and Bush administrations. Lastly it is important to remember illegal immigration is big, big business.

The overhaul of immigration legislation in the United States occurred in early 2003, with the end of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) which served as the main body for the management and enforcement of immigration since 1933. The INS had become inefficient and fragment well before the tragic events of 9/11. The latest attempt to overhaul immigration legislation comes in the form of H.R. 4437 (Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005). H.R. 4437 was approved by the House of Representatives in December 16th, 2005 (by a vote of 239 to 182) along clear party lines - 92% of Republicans supporting the bill and 82% of Democrats opposing H.R. 4437. Adding to the immigration legislative agenda, on March 27, 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee passed bill S 3193 which modifies certain elements of H.R. 4437 incorporating a "guest worker program". The "guest worker program" which is greatly favoured by George W. Bush could potentially open the possibility of full amnesty as well as permanent residence for over 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States. The program would provide 400,000 three year temporary work visas; with employers required to pay a fee and attest that the positions for which it is hiring meet a long list of requirements.

The adoption of new immigration legislation is long overdue. The key question and challenge is if this new legislation can be applied in an equitable manner, balancing the needs of citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. A close review of H.R. 4437 and S 3193 raises questions on two policies - border control and legal enforcement.

On border control H.R. 4437 calls for the various measures including: 1) the building of 700 mile security wall between Mexico and the United States, 2) an increase in Border Patrol Agents to 2,000 per year. Interestingly enough the call for the construction of a security wall in the United States, was swiftly pursued by several other nations including Saudi Arabia. Last month Saudi Arabia opened bids for the construction of 900km (560mile) desert border with Iraq. Saudi Arabia is mainly concerned with the radicalisation of the Shai minority which is concentrated in the oil-producing eastern region of Iraq. Evidently, the Saudi government like that of Israel believes the militarization of its borders will not further contribute to the radicalization of certain ethnic groups....The cost of building the 700 mile security fence would carry a staggering cost of at a cost of at least $2.2 billion as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this year. Supporters of the project (when examining the issue from a pure cost perspective) argue that $134.5 billion have been spent so far in the occupation of Iraq - making the investment in national security an easy one to justify.

On legal enforcement H.R. 4437 calls for transforming into a felony with jail terms what until now has been a civil violation for unauthorised presence in the United States subject to fines and deportation. The problem with the current version of the bill is that it makes little or no distinction between illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. For example, individuals fleeing persecution and victims of human trafficking entering the United States will face prosecution, limiting their re-entry and receiving relief or protection once their claims for asylum have been verified. It is imperative the needs of genuine asylum seekers and those fleeing prosecution are taken in consideration by a country that was not only founded by those escaping religious prosecution, but by a country that strives to uphold the beliefs of freedom and prosperity for all.

Furthermore, H.R. 4437 does not go far enough at penalising those who actively employ illegal immigrants (creating a vacuum between individual and institutional enforcement). Last year Walmart (which reported sales of $288.19 billion in 2005) agreed to pay $11 million to settle federal allegations it used illegal immigrants to clean its stores mainly through subcontracting companies. Why where Walmart executives and other members of large companies, supporting illegal immigrants for profit, not subject to individual legal prosecution beyond a simple financial settlement? Interestingly enough, the bill imposes penalties upon any person assisting others through a Church or a social service organization (up to five years in prison and seizure of assets). Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, released a statement in response to this policy contained within H.R. 4437 - "It is staggering for the federal government to stifle our spiritual and pastoral outreach to the poor, and to impose penalties for doing what our faith demands of us". Unfortunately the issue has been already politicised from both ends - Los Angeles is the largest US diocese with five million Catholics mostly from Mexican and Latin descent, providing the Church with a strong political base and funding from the Vatican.

Illegal immigration and the enforcement of an equitable immigration law is clouted by the fact illegal immigration is big, big business. In May 2004 the House International Relations Committee narrowly approved a resolution requiring that any amnesty deal for Mexican "illegal aliens" in the United States be linked to an opening of Mexico's state-controlled oil company Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex has been a state company in Mexico since 1933). Mexico is currently the largest importer of crude oil into the United States, providing 1.774 million barrels per day based on data released by the Energy Information Administration. Given energy supply is regarded as a matter of national security by the US government, we can expect US officials to continue pressuring and bargaining with Mexico to reach an "amnesty for oil" agreement.

Not widely publicized in the fact that each year, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an "earnings suspense file" -- an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. The vast majority of these numbers are attributable to undocumented workers who will never claim their benefits (supporting source: Standard & Poors Econ 101 on Illegal Immigrants). Those funds could be redirected to state governments to fill in gaps for the education of citizens and migrants.

Banking institutions continue to profit greatly from illegal immigration. For example, Wells Fargo opened more than 400,000 new accounts for Mexican immigrants, using the Matricula Consular card, averaging 22,000 new accounts per month, featuring several high fee services such as remittance services. Money transfer giants such as Western Union continue to benefit from the flow of remittance payments, charging commissions of between 5% to 10% for the sending money. For Q4 2005, Western Union reported a 14% increase in money transfer revenue totalling over USD $1 billion for the quarter, and an increase in operating profit of 23% to USD $351 million (achieving a staggering margin of 35%).  Host nations such as Mexico do also profit from illegal immigration in the United States from remittance contributions entering their economy.

It is clear the United States requires an equitable immigration policy that not considers not only the impact on its own borders and people, but on the rest of the world. It is to easy to answer and posture the debate of illegal immigration with crime. It is like trying to solve the drug problem by not addressing the human element of addiction. No nation, including the United States can solve the problem of illegal immigration of its own, it requires multiple partners - however this would mean a collaborative approach from US and international legislators. Preventing illegal immigration may prove difficult for any administration, however each administration should strive to have an open debate and put special interests aside - unfortunately this last matter of Dark Matter Politics is what might prove impossible.

Much is at stake, as the social adventure of the United States is no longer about conquering nature or establishing ideological supremacy, but finding an equitable way of managing migratory people.

immigration, H.R. 4437, united nations, world bank, Saudi Arabia, remittances, poverty, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Border Protection, guest worker program, Walmart, illegal aliens, Dark Matter

George W. Bush talks Blogs

This past Wednesday, President George W. Bush, blaming the media for lopsided coverage of the ongoing struggle in Iraq, brought up the blogosphere as an alternative to the mainstream. At a recent speech, President George W. Bush stated:

“One of the things that we have to value is that that we do have a media… there’s blogs, there’s Internet, there’s all kinds of way to communicate which is literally changing the way people get their information and so if you’re concerned I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that got internet sites and just keep the word moving."

Until the day of his speech yesterday, Bush seemed contemptuous of all media - acknowledging no long ago that he didn't watch the news, follow polls or read newspapers.

Obviously Bush and his communication team have failed to do their homework. A quick scan of the blogosphere by Dark Matter Politics indicates the “public sentiment” for this administration and decision to invade Iraq is not a positive or even neutral. When searching Google’s Blog Search the first ten results associated with the term “George W. Bush” provide harsh criticism of his policies, mainly focused on his foreign policy. The same situation occurs when searching under the term “Iraq war”.

When searching the blog indexes for Feedster.com a major blog index site, the search “George W. Bush” results in a large majority of highly critical blogs and sites. Interestingly enough, the top sponsored listing (a listing that is paid for - usually on a cost per click basis - placed on the top of the results pages page) is for the donation site of the Republican National Committee. 

The Bush administration and its supporters have created Blogsforbush.com, a collection of blogs that discuss and support the policies and actions of the president. Dark Matter Politics supports the development of blogs covering all points of view and perspectives; however it is increasingly concerned by the increased reliance of the Bush administration on the “support the troops” slogan. It is obviously an easy way for the administration to strip down the discussion on the Iraq War and try to control the public discourse. Support for the well being of the troops stationed in Iraq (which is a very strong sentiment in the United States and Britain even after three years since the invasion and occupation of Iraq) does not equate to support of the invasion. Support for the troops stationed in Iraq is not solely based on their direct actions during the invasion but among many reasons: 1) their safe return to their respective homes and families and 2) their adherence to basic principles of engagement outlined by the Geneva Convention.

The best way for a country to support its troops is to send them into conflict only when necessary and when provided with full majority moral, material and strategic support by their fellow citizens and the larger global community. Under those conditions, the large number of troops sent and still stationed in Iraq is a serious case of Dark Matter Politics.

An anonymous blog by a young woman in war-torn Iraq has been for the first time shortlisted for the prestigious BBC Four's Samuel Johnson Prize for non-fiction. The blog can be found at http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/.

If the Bush administration is serious about the blogosphere and its real measurement of the positive public sentiment for the invasion, it should start an open blog allowing the troops stationed in Iraq to provide their perspective... 

The Bush Doctrine

When identifying the single most significant force defining the George W. Bush administration (in addition to the events of 9/11) many perspectives and opinions surface. One of the most significant forces has been the dramatic shift in foreign policy – the replacement of a traditional policy of containment and deterrence with a doctrine of preemptive action. The impact of this new doctrine has been dramatic; not only on the way the United States relates to the rest of the world community but the fundamental principles and beliefs guiding the country. Internal policies such as the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security are not direct results of this new policy but a reflection of a new kind of approach, based on a “duty to prevent” and a “right of self-defence”. This notion of duty needs to be examined carefully. 

Recently, George W. Bush declared at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves - safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life."

This statement embodies noble core values and beliefs, if not universal, applicable to aspirations of many peoples of the world. The question must be raised - can a doctrine of preemptive action co-exist and support these values and beliefs? We invite you to provide your perspective on this question.

These ideals are not new to the politics of the United States - one could argue President Bush pespective is greatly influenced by what is known as "Wilsonian Idealism" (a great definition and overview of Wilson's administration are provided by Wikipedia). President Woodrow Wilson advocated for the pursuit of democracy and human rights conceptualized within the context of self-determination for the colonized peoples. The idea of universal morality was central for Wilson. In his view, the realization of individual freedom, limited government, and legitimacy of power held the key to both international peace and the emancipation of humanity from injustice. It was within this philosophical context that he advocated for the need to make the world safe for democracy. This, he argued, would promote America's long term political and economic interests.

We must not forget, values and beliefs such as freedom, safety and a better life are best when supported and shared by a society and individuals. When these value and beliefs become institutionalised and turned into doctrines, the main players are no longer individuals but government institutions. These government institutions, while having their citizens interests at hand, can in many instances compromise the application of these core values and beliefs.

In short the “indoctrination of values” by any administration or government is dangerous, and represents a key element in the world of Dark Matter Politics. 

Wilsonian Idealism, george w. bush, bush doctrine, bush-administration