CPAC-tastic and Obama Foreign Policy

The GOP recently had a conference to bitch and complain about how uneducated and irrational bigots and bible-thumpers are having their opinions marginalized. I couldn't quite stomach watching the entire thing as it was one angry white man after another coming to the podium to rant about guns and power and using one's inalienable rights for nothing but lowbrow fighting and the bullying of others in our society and the world at large. As I listened it struck me that these people just don't have any idea about what is going on in America. They don't understand its history, they misunderstand the forefather's intentions, they are virtually incapable of high-minded debate and discourse. In fact, if they were students in a college classroom I believe it is likely they would be asked to leave for disrupting class to rant about unfounded opinions and unresearched ideas.

So where does this stuff come from? It's absolutely baffling to me because they are so steadfast in their wrongness. I have to give it to them, if there was a prize for unfounded confidence and asserting oneself based on how much money one has accumulated rather than how many experiences one has had or how capable one is at articulating reality once broken down into its tangible parts, they win, hands down. What democrats and progressives do not have going for them is that it is nearly impossible to explain complicated realities in thirty second sound bites to a nation of people who have no idea how their government even works. On the contrary it is extremely easy to wage character assassinations, make fun of intelligent people, and conjure a sense of pride in one's country in thirty seconds. I believe this is where it starts and frankly why conservatives have been so successful at creating a leaning right nation over the last thirty years that values nationalistic pride, religious culture, and creating a dominating economic/ militaristic presence in the world--because it is easier to package and sell. Just as it is easier for a large bully to march out onto the playground with a big stick and go into circles of children minding their own business and enjoying themselves and take their money, it is also easier for Americans to remain ignorant of what is happening in the rest of the industrialized world and continue to intimidate everyone into doing what we want. Rather than showing them we are smarter, more innovative, respectful of our brightest minds and latest studies, and capable of leading by example, we have created a much less sophisticated, but none-the-less effective game that rises out of a philosophy of, "He who has the most guns runs the show." The new president of the NRA actually said at the CPAC convention that, "Our forefathers understood this principle." Rubbish. Our forefathers were brilliant secular men who believed in fairness and balance of power and high-minded logical debate and diplomacy. They were frankly disgusted by war and violence. In fact most of our constitution was written under the premise that when given the opportunity to not be under the thumb of the wealthy and oppressed by religious institutions, Americans would use their freedoms to rise up against these fat cats and rework their government to protect "the people." Instead we have devolved into a mass of unhealthy, uneducated citizens who are not even sure what our rights entail, and what rights we do understand we use mainly to get out of having to challenge ourselves or engage in confrontation with our oppressors.

I believe this is why we have become so concerned with Islamic radicalism: It is not far from what some in our country (mainly those speaking at the CPAC convention) believe philosophically about how America should be run. They believe we can get our way by bullying and intimidating and making our presence known militarily in the world. So do terrorists. The difference is they don't have the trading power that we do or the tools to create the nice shiny facade that America presents to the world. They have oil that we need or we (The industrialized nations of the world) would do what we should do with these countries: monitor their weapons programs, extend an olive branch to engage them in a peaceful exchange of ideas, trade, tourism, etc. and leave them alone.

In the past I have always, without exception, been against America expanding its borders to include other nations, but in recent years I have had to ask myself what the outcome would be if, as a group, the industrialized nations of the world split up some of the Middle Eastern nations that have become such a problem for the world and more or less offered them the opportunity at living in a more democratic and civilized society. I almost can't believe I am writing this and already I can hear the opposition being that this would be absolutely immoral and to suggest that they are uncivilized just because they aren't like us is insensitive. However, they have nothing in many of these places. Afghanistan in particular is the fourth poorest nation in the world. The people there are largely illiterate even with their own language. Meaning we are trying to teach sophisticated means of governance to a nation without the education necessary to understand how peace and diplomacy and education could possibly help keep them safe and get food in their stomachs tomorrow. The place is a wild west situation where the cowboy with the biggest posse and the largest guns gets control, which of course leaves it open as a training ground for any terrorist group that needs a home. So my question is, Why not offer Iraq and Afghanistan statehood in the United States? Why not go in and say, "We have bigger guns than all of these guys and we will happily protect you and help you build a prosperous nation, and in exchange you will pay taxes as a United States citizen, be required to follow all federal regulations, elect officials to sit in our congress, and maintain the same freedoms that states have in our country. They can always say, "No," but I feel this would be a good way to obviate the terrorists' interests while helping the civilians that just want to get on with their day-to-day lives. I actually feel this way about a lot of nations in the world today. We're letting our corporations go in and take over anyway with absolutely no oversight, why not extend the offer of statehood, receive more tax revenue, set higher expectations for these nations that are still functioning in agrarian societies and continue to allow them the freedom of electing state officials that could throw their ideas into the American melting pot. Everyone wins. Plus we and the people of these nations regain control of the corporate giants who are essentially running the world unfettered by a democratically elected government.

I would love to hear from people on this because I think it could work, but I'm sure there are things I am missing. I realize that cultural takeover would be one of the biggest counter-arguments and the potential uprisings, but wouldn't this still be better than military occupations and building a damn fence across our borders? Obama's foreign policy has been less than impressive to me thus far; in fact seems to be a continuation of the Bush policies in large part. I believe this is probably a nod to the right that he is trying to be bi-partisan (though I have no idea why he feels the need to please people who didn't elect him and whose ideas those of us who did vote for him would like to marginalize as much as possible), but to me it seems like a brilliant man is getting wrapped up in a stagnant ideology of how we do things here in America. I fear his creativity is going to diminish year by year as he tries to please conservatives who are reluctant to change. My feeling: people will understand when they see how much better progressive ideas work (if they are even paying enough attention to notice something changed), much in the same way that one learns to trust professors upon seeing how much smarter they are than students. One cannot teach people who think they know everything or feel empowered by their "personal freedoms" to not listen to those who have data on what is going on. Obama and his cabinet are more educated than 99% of the world population. In fact those smarter than Obama's cabinet are most likely teaching in our universities. Thus, I believe that the citizens would be best suited to give the president some slack and let him show us what he knows. Instead he is walking the line trying not to upset conservatives by showing them how much smarter he is than they are. Makes no sense to me, but then, democracy is not a very efficient way to run a country. It's sloppy and expensive and unruly because a person who is educated has only one vote and one voice like everyone else. This to me says that we should be trying to educate more people so the voices are more informed and discussion is possible, but apparently as long as they're self-reliant financially they can yell their little heads off. Anyway, that's my piece.