Rantle

By Eric Anschutz, July 30, 2008

As I sit before my computer to write yet another column, two articles are thrust upon me by “Yahoo News.” The first article says “For Obama, patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” The second tells us “For McCain, patriotism is putting the country first, before all else.” Though I prefer Obama’s distinction between our country and its government, there really is very little difference between Obama’s and McCain’s views on the subject of patriotism. Both articles go on to provide extended dissertations on what patriotism means to these two candidates.

I guess this kind of philosophizing about patriotism might serve a purpose of some kind, but the problem is that it is not meant to enlighten us. Instead, from the McCain side it is meant to cast aspersions upon Obama’s patriotism. Obama, in turn, feels obliged to defend himself by reporting such pious irrelevancies as that his mother read to him from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and that his grandfather served at Normandy during the Second World War. As if it really mattered. Can’t we just assume that these two presidential candidates are both equally patriotic, and get on with discussion of issues that really matter to the country?

Yet, the McCain forces suggest again and again that Obama is somehow unpatriotic. We are told that Obama does not always wear a flag-pin in his lapel, that he lived in and attended grammar school in Indonesia for some of his childhood years, that his middle name is Hussein, and that his African father was a Muslim. Indeed, despite continuing avowal by Obama of his Christianity, many cling to the false notion that he is a closet Muslim. Some of this meaningless and oft-repeated misinformation is having an effect on less-thoughtful voters. I saw a focus group discussion on Cspan in which pollster Peter Hart was told by some members of the group that Obama “is not a real American.” The web is rife with “swift-boating” emails hinting or even asserting that Obama is a tool of Muslim terrorists. Left unsaid in all of this (at least in “polite” circles) is the undercurrent of racism.

Another recent imbroglio results from General Wesley Clark’s assertion that McCain’s military service does not automatically qualify him to be Commander in Chief. In an interview with General Clark on “Face the Nation,” Moderator Bob Schieffer, suggested that Obama lacked foreign policy credentials because he hadn’t had McCain’s POW experiences, nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. To which Clark responded, quite rightly, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”.

Readers of these columns will not be surprised to know that I share General Clark’s views on these matters. We know from their respective records, that Obama is in every way better qualified than McCain in every important aspect of foreign policy, on the issue of keeping our country safe, and on the restoration of America to moral leadership and reassertion of our leadership role in the world community. McCain has repeatedly taken wrongheaded and uninformed positions on questions of Iraq policy, is to this day not well-versed on the subtleties of Mid-East politics and religions and cultures, and is uninformed in both the facts and the nuance of non-proliferation policy. Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated his mastery of these subjects both by calling it a “dumb war” five months prior to our ill-fated invasion of Iraq and since then on the critical issue of ending the war promptly and with honor. He is also well-versed on non-proliferation issues as they apply to Iran and North Korea and Syria. Where McCain is relentlessly hawkish and ready for extended war in Iraq, and for new wars in Iran and Syria and North Korea, Obama has shown willingness, indeed determination, to use diplomacy and negotiation to resolve these and other international problems.

Though this slimy litany of innuendos about Obama’s lack of patriotism, about his supposed lack of steely resolve to defend America from its enemies, and about his alleged lack of expertise in matters of national security is deeply disturbing, there is to me something even more fundamental here. Once again, we are being diverted by the trivia of such matters as lapel flag-pins from a discussion of important matters. Our deteriorating infrastructure is not rebuilt by discussion of which candidate is more patriotic, nor do such discussions improve our inner-city schools or provide health care to the 60 million uninsured or deal with our $9 trillion national debt or restore fairness to tax policies that so unfairly coddle the wealthy. Nor do these inane discussions of patriotism end our wars or move us toward sensible energy and environmental policies, or toward resolution of the worrisome threat of terrorism. These are the issues that merit our attention in the months between now and November.

By Eric Anschutz

On April 6, 1971, following more than two decades of ice-cold relations between the US and China, the sun of rapprochement brought warmth to a tense world. It resulted from a surprise all-expenses-paid invitation from China’s ping-pong players to the American ping-pong team, whose members were in Japan for the 31st World Table Tennis Championship. The invitation was quickly accepted, and on April 10, nine American players, four officials and two spouses crossed the bridge from Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland, ushering in what came to be known as The Era of Ping-Pong Diplomacy. Time magazine called it “The ping heard round the world.”

Ten journalists were invited, along with the players, to cover the event, thereby ending the information blockade in place since 1949. For six days, the American public, eager for any insight into China, received a continuing stream of news that included not only daily reports in newspapers and on television about the exhibition ping-pong matches, but also tours of the Great Wall, chats with Chinese workers and students, and a performance of the Canton Ballet. Chinas Premier Chou En-lai received the Americans at a banquet, spoke of “a new chapter in the relations of the American and Chinese people,” and extended an invitation for more American journalists to visit China. On the same day, the US reciprocated by announcing plans to remove a 20-year embargo on trade with China.

Soon thereafter, a Chinese table tennis team visited the United States. It just so happens that one of the places the Chinese team visited was a high school in Bethesda, Maryland, the town in which we then lived. Coincidentally, our son, Eric, then three years old, was enrolled in the nursery school, housed in a corner of the high school; young Eric, along with the other nursery school kids, met with the Chinese team members, and each kid was given an enameled pin (we still have it!) to commemorate the visit! While all this was going on, Kissinger was making his secret visit to China, and on July 15th, it was announced that President Nixon would visit China the following year.

And now, on August 14, 2007, the sun of rapprochement seems to have broken through the clouds of hostility once again. It came in the form of an invitation to the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, from the North Korean Ministry of Culture, to perform in Pyongyang. Once again, a simple meeting of the people of two long-estranged nations, seems to have provided an opening that both sides can build on to bring about a new era of détente. The Philharmonic, on February 26, 2008, performed in Pyongyang’s Grand Theater. The most stirring moment in the Philharmonic concert came with the opening notes of “Arirang,” a beloved Korean folk song. One account tells us that with the opening notes “a murmur rippled through the audience .The piccolo played a long, plaintive melody. Cymbals crashed, harp runs flew up, violins soared. And tears began forming in the eyes of the staid audience… all of them wearing pins with the likeness of Kim Il-sung, the nation’s founder.”

The Philharmonic’s performance, and much of the weeklong visit that followed, was televised in North Korea and worldwide. Though the Bush White House harrumphed that it was merely “a concert, not a diplomatic coup,” we can hope otherwise. Indeed, just a few weeks after the concert, the North Koreans took further steps toward dismantling their nuclear weapons program, and the US removed North Korea from the list of terrorist states. And there are increasing signs that North Korea (a closed and failed communist economy) may be opening that country to trade, perhaps to follow the successful model of China.

Why not try the same with Iran? Sending the Philharmonic to play music in Teheran is certainly a better idea than sending blockbuster missiles to destroy uranium enrichment facilities. A thaw in our relations with Iran would do far more to lower the price of gasoline than drilling in Alaska or off-shore Florida and California. Yet, as I write, we read daily reports of overt support by the CIA of opposition groups in Iran in our unrelenting (and counterproductive) efforts to bring about regime change. We read, too, reports that Israel is conducting military exercises to prepare itself for military action against Iran. The consequences of both actions is to raise hostility, give Iran even greater reason to pursue nuclear weapons development, increase nationalism in Iran, and raise its determination to not cave in to demands from the west.

There is no guarantee that Beethoven and Mozart would resolve tensions, but cultural exchanges such as music and ping-pong cost virtually nothing, and they might bring about openings that help resolve differences. Threats of bombs and unending covert operations have not helped; actual bombing would be certain to bring us into a third Mid East war, and to increase greatly the threat of terrorism worldwide and particularly against us in our homeland.

McCain can be expected to continue Bush’s failed Iran policies of never-ending threats and sanctions, and possible military action. Obama promises to try diplomacy, possibly to begin with cultural exchanges: ping-pong or music or baseball or student exchanges or whatever might be appropriate. Which of the two candidates is more likely to avoid war? Which of the two will you vote for?

By Eric Anschutz, July 2, 2008

Eight years of Bush 43’s maladministration of the economy, tax policy, the environment, science policy, energy policy, infrastructure, education and foreign policy, coupled with the unmitigated disaster of New Orleans and the $3 trillion debacle in Iraq, have placed our country in dire straits. The next president will face endless challenges putting our derailed country back onto the tracks. All of this will cost very large amounts of money, and the next administration will need to find these large sums at a time when we need to stop the hemorrhaging of our national wealth and bring the nation’s budget back into balance.

Bush has not only devastated our economy and our world standing, he has done it all while borrowing vast amounts every year from China and Japan and Saudi Arabia, thereby adding some $4 trillion to the national debt, which now stands at a total of $9 trillion. So, the next President will need to find massive sums to rebuild the country while finding more massive sums to begin paying down the debt, and all this needs to be done during a time when the economy is in recession.

We can be sure of one thing: rebuilding America would not happen if John McCain became president. The “maverick” McCain of 2000 is not on the ballot in 2008, having been displaced by a pandering right-winger who has morphed into a second George W. Bush. McCain proposes to continue Bush policies in every important respect. But listen to this, if the fawning national press has its way, McCain could very well be our next president. In the past week, The New York Times has described John McCain as “a Vietnam hero and national security pro.” The Associated Press has referred in glowing terms to McCain’s “Vietnam War-hero biography.” And Newsweek tells us that McCain is a “war hero who is fun to be around.” MSNBC’s Brian Williams, Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews gush repeatedly over McCain’s national security credentials, as does the entire staff at Fox News.

Right: McCain is a war hero, and his courageous and dignified actions as a prisoner for seven long years at the Hanoi Hilton deserve our respect. But this man is not a “national security pro.” During his Navy career, McCain was a pilot, commanding a squadron of Navy aircraft. His work as a Navy pilot was difficult, often challenging, dangerous, demanding and an important component of our military, but it had nothing to do with setting or directly executing national security policy. McCain graduated at the bottom of his class at Annapolis. He was not an Admiral, he was not a member of the Joint Chief of Staff, and he was not a member of the National Security Council. While Senator McCain does serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Obama serves on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, of which McCain is not a member.

McCain has no greater claim to national security expertise than Obama. Indeed, his oft-demonstrated inability to distinguish between Shia and Sunni, his inability to remember that Iran is a Shiite country (as is Iraq), and that Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization, his lack of deep understanding of Iran’s role in Iraq, or of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, or of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and of the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, suggest that he has far less claim to national security expertise than does Obama, who does understand all of this. More importantly, the Democratic candidate is ready to try diplomacy and negotiation, and to use force only as a very last resort. McCain is a relentless hawk, another George Bush. Not only does he propose to stay in Iraq, he fulminates endlessly about Iran, Syria and North Korea. Does our country want four or eight years more of Bush/Cheney failed national security policy and worldwide disdain?

Consider too McCain’s failure to understand economic policy, a failure to which he confessed twice in unguarded moments. In reaching out to the Republican base, he has adopted the Republican mantra: lowering taxes, he asserts, is the answer to all economic problems. Indeed, he proposes an additional $300 billion in tax cuts, on top of the Bush cuts that McCain wants to make permanent. McCain and others who advocate ever-lower taxes fail to tell us how we can pay for rebuilding our war-devastated military, not to mention how to pay for matters of real national security, such as education, infrastructure, health care, research on alternative fuels, veterans care, and a balanced federal budget – to name just a few. To those of you who are even thinking about supporting McCain, please reconsider if you want America to recover from the eight long years of Bush’s tragically mistaken policies, fiscal irresponsibility and endless war.