Smart President doesn’t necessarily = Smart Party Leadership

This week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi carefully weighed in on the town hall meetings happening all over the country by comparing the town hall meeting participants to Nazi’s. She also penned a piece in USA Today with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, in which she deems town hall participants “un-American.” Suddenly, in Pelosi’s America, expressing one’s constitutional right to speech is tantamount to hating the president because he’s black and hating the U.S. altogether. This is particularly ironic since only a few years ago, Speaker Pelosi regarded people speaking out against Bush and his policies as "patriots". Apparently, the line between "patriot" and "betray-us" is razor thin. These are just the latest in a whole series of arrogant verbal missteps that the president might say should have been “calibrated differently”. If there were still any doubts that Pelosi is the epitomy of everything moderate Americans dislike and fear about far-left liberals, this latest doozy is sure to leave no doubt. She is to the Democrats, what George Bush was to the Republicans-a visual and visceral reminder of everything Americans dislike about politicians. Her "steller" performance as speaker has even earned her the dubious honor of obtaining a lower approval rating than the unpopular former president. That's quite an accomplishment indeed!
Getting rid of Pelosi would be a step in the right direction for Democrats, but her actions stem from a larger psychological problem within the leadership. Something always seems to happen to the Democratic leadership when they become the majority. It's almost as if they collectively develop a severe case of “Not-it-all-ism”, which coincides with a skyward curvature of their noses. It seems that once they have the power, a sense of self-righteous elitism come over them. They start to believe that they know better than anyone else what’s best for this country. Government, run by them, seems to be their solution to every problem in existence and anyone who disagrees with them are backwards hicks. Now some are backwards hicks, but the vast majority is independents who put the Democrats back in power only to now have them govern with contempt towards the values and beliefs of said independents. Even beyond the halls of congress, liberal talking heads are on T.V. claiming that these people are dumb, racist, right-wing hate-mongers who are doing the bidding of the Republican Party. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter, and Fox News contributor Bob Beckel claimed this week that these town hall meetings are being “organized” by the Republican Party, and big health care. Bill Maher claims in piece titled “Smart President Doesn’t Equal Smart Country” that the recent debates at town hall meetings proves his assertion that this is fundamentally a “stupid country” and that congress members listening to their constituents is an “urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything.” Jeez, Bill. Where’s the love?
Democratically controlled congresses have reeked of elitism in the past, but would often benefit from having a president from the South, whether it was a Democrat or a Republican. Democratic congressional elitism was somewhat neutralized, at least on the surface when they had a Democratic President from the South, such as LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. It was hard to claim the Democratic Party was a bunch of elitists when their chief spokesperson is a peanut farmer from Georgia, or former governor of a state like Arkansas. I’m guessing the “ah, shucks” and “I reckons” probably helped create a "common-man" touch as well. The intermingling of the two provided a good balance for the Democrat’s image; they can be your drinking buddy, but also do you taxes as well. Ironically, having a Republican President from the South, like George W. Bush, likely helped elitism look like a good alternative to a guy you want to have a beer with, but would never trust with your lawnmower, much less the entire country.
But not since Kennedy, has there been a non-Southern accented Democrat in the White House, at the same time as a Democratic majority in the congress. Without a balance this could spell trouble for Obama and his agenda. Trusting congress to write to write a health care reform proposal that would be viewed favorably by the American people was Obama’s first mistake in this process. Allowing Pelosi and others to characterize dissent as phony, racist, and un-American, will likely spell the end of health care reform, and possibly doom any major subsequent policy initiatives by this president. Obama, or any politician for that matter simply doesn't have the political capital to compensate for an unpopular, unproductive, and out-of-touch congress. It's almost as if congress is trying to take him down with them, and so far, Obama has appeared more than willing to be a passenger on that ride.
So the moral of the story is, and with all due respect to Maher, just because your party has a smart president, doesn’t mean your party is necessarily smart. Heck, just because you’re a smart president, doesn't always mean your policies are always smart either. I reckon Obama might wanna get comfortable with saying "Ah, shucks."

Bill and Kim's Excellent Adventure

Former President William Jefferson Clinton, once viewed as a "loose-cannon" among some in the Obama camp, is emerging as a potentially powerful diplomatic tool in the President Obama's arsenal. "Bubba Diplomacy" has yielded the successful release of two journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were captured and tried by the brutal North Korean regime. The question that remains is what their release means for the U.S.-North Korean situation?
First off, I have no doubts that Ling and Lee intentionally crossed into North Korea. I've seen the special that Laura's sister Lisa did for National Geographic Explorer called "Inside North Korea", and there was some serious cross-border action happening there. Luckily, no one got caught that time. Despite the precarious diplomatic situation Ling and Lee's arrest put the U.S. in, I say kudos to them for at least attempting to expose the atrocities being committed every day by Kim Jong Il. In fact, even their arrest, trial, and sentence, highlights to the world Pyongyang's corrupt legal system. It also demonstrates the failure of the U.N. and indeed the U.S., through 2 administrations, to formulate the right policy and/or strategy towards North Korea. What do I mean by this? A policy is narrow, specific, and what we publicly tell the world we're doing. Strategy is more complex, more broad, and not so public. It may involve indirect factors to influence a desired outcome. For example, the policy rationale for the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980's was to defend against an ICBM attack from Soviet Russia. The strategic rationale was to spend the Soviets into oblivion on a project we knew would they couldn't afford, in the hopes it would lead to the defeat of Soviet Communism. In that scenario, strategy turned out to be more important than policy. The policy of trying to buy NK off through a strategy of appeasement as we did in the 1990's under Bill Clinton didn't work. Six-party talks with a strategy of isolation like we did in the 2000's under George W. Bush didn't work. So far, Obama's policy appears to be a combination of the two administrations-give them money if they behave, more sanctions and isolation if they don't. However, his strategy does give me hope.
Which leads us to Bill Clinton's meeting with Kim. According to Ling and Lee's families, North Korean officials told them that they would be willing to release the two journalists, if a high level official from the U.S. were to visit Pyongyang, and meet with Kim. President Clinton's name was specifically cited. So it appears that Clinton had very little to do with the release, other than being willing to go, which he does deserve ample praise for. Understandably, this does raise some serious questions. Did Kim really release Ling and Lee in exchange for a photo op with Bill Clinton, or did he get something else from the Obama administration in return? Does this change negotiations over North Korea's nuclear program? Did the Obama administration ask Clinton to go? Does a photo op with a former U.S. President legitimize and strengthen Kim? The latter question is likely the only one that can be answered at this time. Some, such as former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, argue that this is tantamount to negotiating with terrorists, and that this action breathes new life into a dying regime. Those in the administration argue that Clinton acted alone and not as an agent of the President, or the U.S. Government, and therefore doesn't change anything with the U.S.-North Korean situation. As with most things, neither side has it quite right. Does this action reward bad behavior? On a limited scale, yes. Does this increase the likelihood of a similar scenario and demand by Kim, or even A-Jad in Iran? Potentially. These two are just crazy and power hungry enough to try it. On the other hand, I don't believe Clinton or Obama's patience is unlimited, and think the gesture by Clinton is probably a one-time deal. More importantly, Obama's strategy of smart restraint could potentially give us greater credibility in clamping down on NK. Just as our efforts to reach out to Iran, and our relative silence in the aftermath of their rigged presidential election, buys us credibility with our allies, not with the regime. As we've already seen, Obama's friendly gestures towards dictators such as Castro, Chavez, Il, and A-Jad, have had little impact on changing the actions and attitudes of these dictators. What has changed, is the world's view of the United States in credibly dealing with these regimes. When we extend and olive branch and are met with resistance, people at least see that the U.S. made an attempt; that we tried to put the past aside. This has empowered other governments to no longer feel wary about siding with the U.S. in these confrontations, and has indeed even empowered the people living under these regimes to take action, as we've already seen in the recent Iran and Lebanese elections. It's hard for the people who have been indoctrinated by these brutal governments to believe the anti-U.S. propaganda when we are actually being the nice guys, when we show restraint in the face of arrogance and evil. The people begin to realize that the reality doesn't jive with the propaganda. Questions start to be asked and dictators start to fall.
Policy is one thing, but Obama's strategy may prove to be a much more powerful and effective tool at ending tyranny in our time.