Volume V, Issue XII by JHU Politik

Volume V, Issue XII

November 15, 2010

JHU POLITIK INDIA GAINS U.S. SUPPORT

ISSUE XII, 11/15/10

FOR SECURITY COUNCIL BID

Also in this Week’s Edition:

INTERNATIONAL PERSIA, PALESTINE, AND THE NEW WORLD

By Jordan Kalms, ‘14

-Page 2

NATIONAL THE PRESIDENT AND HIS FUTURE

By Alex Clearfield, ‘14 -Page 4 QE2: NO, NOT THE BOAT

By Ari Schaffer, ‘14 -Page 5

OPINION FOLLOW THE MONEY President Barack Obama with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his visit last week.

by Anna Kochut, ‘13 Contributing Writer

ver the past few years, India has made obtaining a permanent seat of the United Nations Security Council a major foreign policy goal. This desire was met by mixed reviews on the international stage. Although for some time the United States had not taken a definitive stand, during his recent trip to India President Obama came forward to endorse India’s venture. Unsurprisingly, this stance sparked a sharp warning from Pakistan, India’s perennial rival and an ostensible American ally. Concerns have also arisen in China over the deepening of a relationship between the United States and a nation suspicious of the rise of China’s power and influence – and seen by many as a potential counterweight to Chi-

By Dan Hochman ‘11 -Page 6

nese influence in Asia. This recent move comes amidst a time that reflects the interest of the world to change the structure of the United Nations. The organization, while presiding over world order in the 21st century, reflects the power dynamics of an archaic time. Many believe that the Security Council should expand to include emerging powers. There have been efforts in the past to include countries such as Japan and Brazil. However, these have been soundly refused, as the current members of the Security Council do not wish to lose their positions of power – particularly if their rivals would be brought into the body. The American support of India reflects the overall strengthening of

JOHNS HOPKINS’s Only WeeklyPublished Political Magazine

relations between the two nations. The relationship between the United States and India is complex at best, but at the same time merits “almost special” status. This fact is very interesting in that it establishes the desire to counter the growing strength of China and to instill a greater sense of balance in the Near and Far East by increasing the amount of American influence. Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal, Director of the Center for Land Warfare Studies, observed that the United States could have a “stabilizing influence on Asia.” He is only one of many with similar views. (Continued on Page 2) www.JHUPOLITIK.com

Volume V, Issue XII

November 15, 2010

The POLITIK EDITOR-In-Chief

Editor-in-Chief

Joshua Ayal

Harry Black

Sam Lichtenstein

Staff Writers

Executive Editors

Rohit Dasgupta Eric Feinberg Becca Fishbein Conor Foley Cary Glynn Benjamin Goldberg Paul Grossinger Dan Hochman Daniel Roettger

Managing Editor

Will Denton Morgan Hitzig

Matt Varvaro PRODUCTION MANAGERS

Casey Navin Neil O’Donnell Faculty Advisor

Steven R. David JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those solely of the author. Please sign up for our e-mail list on our website, www.JHUPOLITIK.com

INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from Page 1) Another interesting move that highlights the growing relationship between India and the U.S. was India’s strong support for the Fed’s plan to inject $600 billion into the American economy in order to further aid the recovery process. This move has been met by much disapproval from other powerful countries, namely Germany, Brazil and China. The main problem that these countries have with the American plan is that this would result in the devaluation of the American dollar, which would likely boost American exports at the expense of those from other countries. However, India holds that any effort to strengthen the American economy should be met with happiness by the rest of the world. The fact that America and India are supporting one another on contentious issues like Security Council reform and risky economic moves supports the notion that the two countries are serious about their growing partnership. It will be interesting to see how this new friendship develops over the coming years, as India has a particular attachment to its autonomy, while the United States is more accustomed to taking the upper hand in alliances. Overall, this growing relationship marks a shift in the international balance of power. It appears that the United States is focusing on cultivating relationships with nations that share its values rather than with more powerful countries that may be at odds with its interests

– such as China. It should come at no surprise that all the Asian nations President Obama chose to visit during his recent trip had one thing in common: democracy. The American interest in building a stronger relationship with India highlights the fact that India is, as President Obama said in his speech last week, “not simply emerging… India has emerged.” International relations analysts should keep a close eye on this area, as it could have a profound impact on the way Asia, and the rest of the world, realigns over the next decade. s

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

Volume V, Issue XII

November 15, 2010

INTERNATIONAL REPORT Persia, Palestine, and the New World by Jordan Kalms, ‘14 Contributing Writer For the past 62 years, the United States has shared a notably cordial relationship with the State of Israel. These two countries share more than just an ideological solidarity, and for many years have exchanged everything from intelligence reports to cutting-edge military technology. Indeed, it has become a tacit requirement for American presidents to pledge their support for Israel while campaigning. With the advent of the War on Terror, this tradition was made even more relevant, as George W. Bush famously proclaimed that the U.S “will stand up for our friends in the world. And one of the most important friends is the State of Israel. My administration will be steadfast in support Israel against terrorism and violence, and in seeking the peace for which all Israelis pray.” This “steadfast” friendship, however, has come under some strain in the recent months. At first, President Obama took his conventional, paternalistic stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the issue of Israeli national security. The president claimed to understand both the Arab and Israeli sides on the major issues, such as terrorism on the Israeli border and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but offered little initiative to help the peace process. In an attempt to deal with the issues of peace in the Middle East sensitively, President Obama tritely noted that “Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s.” Yet the neutral tone of the Obama administration did not last long, and in a speech in Cairo, President Obama stated that the U.S government does not recognize the legitimacy of Israeli settlements in Palestine. Many conservatives criticized Obama’s hard stance on the issue of Israeli security. Following the events of the Flotilla crisis earlier this year, in which Israeli soldiers raided a flotilla of ships entering the Gaza Strip and shot a number of violent activists, the president gave an interview with Larry King, in which he stated, “you've got loss of life that was unnecessary. So we are calling for an effective investigation of everything that happened”. Again, many Israelis and Americans found Obama to be unsupportive of Israeli actions and unsympathetic to the security risk posed by terrorists in the Gaza Strip. With American-Israeli relations under an unusual strain, the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and ambi-

tions has been the cause of even more tension. For Israel, the issue is clear: Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated unequivocally that Israel should be wiped off the map (while also denying the Holocaust), and thus it remains an unquestionable security imperative for Israel not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States, however, does not share the same threat of annihilation, and is still willing to go the diplomatic route, remaining in the realm of U.N. Resolutions and threats of trade sanctions. The issue of Iran has undoubtedly furthered the rift between the U.S. and Israel. Whereas Israel sees an impending showdown of life and death, Americans are less willing to enter into yet another war. The Obama administration has a list of incentives to avoid military action against Iran, which include the problem that, according to Newsweek, “American efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which border Iran, would come under threat.” The article goes on to state the reasons that the president is likely attempting to avoid an Israeli strike on Iran, saying that “there would be no way that any U.S. administration, after so many decades pledging undying support for Israel, could make a convincing claim in Muslim eyes that it was not complicit in the attack.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a notoriously tough diplomat and former Special Forces commander, has been seeking a firm American commitment to the prevention of Iranian nuclear proliferation. However, Netanyahu seems to have come up against a wall and, like many diplomats and citizens alike, he cannot confidently discern the Obama administration’s stance regarding Iran. In fact, rather than commit himself to one specific approach to Iran, it seems President Obama has instead decided to hedge his bets, leaving his policy split between an insistence on diplomacy on the one hand and on the other vague aphorisms reminiscent of the Bush administration, which seem to signal that a more hawkish view is not out of the question. In a September New York Times article titled “Obama’s Tack on Iran is Hard to Read”, John Vinocur commented on the uncertainty that is emanating from the Obama administration’s stance on Iran. Specifically, Mr. Vinocur writes, “ If this is a new ‘American Moment’, the administration’s approach to Iran appears to be providing its friends with at least as much uncertainty as motivation and resolve.” One of these friends is undoubtedly Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is experiencing some difficulty getting on the same page as the American president regarding the ever-looming threat of a nuclear Iran. s

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

Volume V, Issue XII

November 15, 2010

NATIONAL REPORT The President and His Future by Alex Clearfield, ‘14 Contributing Writer

(Pete Souza/ whitehouse.gov)

Barack Obama entered the White House with a large majority in the House of Representatives and a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The Democrats seemed to be in prime position to accomplish their major goals in short order. Two years later, President Obama faces a Republicancontrolled House and a much smaller majority in the Senate. The future Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), does not seem willing to pass liberal legislation, and he has a large majority to back him. At the same time, Senate bills will need to have the support of seven Republicans to end inevitable filibusters. In short, President Obama is facing something he hoped never to see. He entered office on a pledge of action. In order to fulfill that promise over the last two years of his term, he will need to work with the Republican Party. The key person in this upcoming legislative tango is Boehner. As Speaker of the House, he will be the philosophical tone-setter, as well as the key advocator, of his party’s opinions. Current Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as most Speakers do when their party holds the White House, tended to agree with Obama. Boehner will attack the president’s policies with full force, and will try to have legislation tailored to his party’s wants and needs. The best parallel is the relationship between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Voted in by a Republican landslide in 1994, former Speaker Gingrich and the 104th

Congress went to work quickly on many pieces of conservative legislation. Upholding the “Contract With America,” they, indeed, got those pieces of legislation to Clinton’s desk. However, we are now in a much more partisan era. Gingrich, although also fiery in nature, never turned into a firebrand in the chambers the same way Boehner did after the health care reform bill was passed. Gingrich and Clinton, after many arguments, the 1995 government shutdown, and the impeachment proceedings, were still able to find tenuous peace. There is no indication that Boehner and Obama can or will do so. There are many issues coming to the fore as leadership transfers from one party to another. One key issue on the table is entitlement reform. Reforming programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security has been a popular issue among Republicans and deficithaters for years out of fear that the programs will become insolvent in the near future. Democrats, who in general support entitlement programs, could anger some of their core constituencies in making cuts to these programs. With Boehner and Obama on opposite sides of this issue, the debate will likely produce an even deeper rift between the parties. Another major issue facing the upcoming Congress is the completion of many free trade agreements, including one between the U.S. and South Korea. The trade agreement has not been worked on since 2007, and for Obama to accomplish his goal of doubling American exports by 2015, he will need every pact he can get. This will likely be one of the few issues Obama and the Republicans will agree on, since Republicans would be more likely to vote for the agreement than will Democrats. There has recently been progress on the agreement, and it is quite possible that it will be signed before the year is out. However, the failure of President Obama to conclude negotiations with his South Korean counterpart during his recent trip to Asia did not signal a positive step. However, the most frightening issue for the White House will be the Republicans’ control of the House’s investigative and oversight apparatus. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the current ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is poised to become the chairman when the new Congress is seated on January 3. Issa has said that he wants “seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks” and it is commonly agreed upon that he will run a very aggressive oversight operation. Issa is a staunch conservative, and he and (Continued on Page 5)

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

Volume V, Issue XII

November 15, 2010

NATIONAL REPORT (Continued from Page 4) Boehner are primary leaders of the Congressional Republicans. Naturally, Issa will be very active sending subpoenas and directing his five subcommittees in investigating and overseeing many facets of government. Presidents do not generally like oversight, especially when their party does not control the House. This battle will help set the Republicans’ tone for the 112th Congress and will likely help to hold up major legislation from being debated on the floor. The current levels of partisanship in Washington may be insurmountable. Over the past two years, Congress has been like a much higher-minded version of Jersey Shore: splitting into factions, arguing, and being allaround unpleasant. The Republicans introducing a bill the next day to repeal the bill marred even the most important moment of the 111th Congress: the passing of health care reform. President Obama entered the White House with a(AP) reputation of reaching across the aisle, but Republicans have succeeded in greatly reducing his effectiveness. With Boehner soon to be running the show in the House, and with a much smaller majority in the Senate, the president is in a bind. He does not have the numbers to pass the legislation he wants, and he has an opposition party that wants to embarrass him at every turn. If partisanship is not to your liking, you might as well turn your head now. s

QE2: No, Not the Boat by Ari Schaffer, ‘14 It is large, imposing, and very expensive – but unfortunately, it is not a luxury cruise liner. The Federal Reserve Bank’s latest attempt to spur the now sluggish economic recovery has been termed by many as “QE2,” or quantitative easing: round 2. This move by the Fed, although not a departure from other spending policies enacted since the onset of the financial crisis, is what some have described a last ditch effort, a “Hail Mary” pass, to put the economy on the right track. This drastic move by the Federal Reserve was prompted by disappointing economic growth in the third quarter of this year. Following a 1.7% growth rate

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who proposed a new round of treasury purchases this month. (Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg News)

in the second quarter, the Fed hoped to see GDP growth trending toward a healthy five percent, which would have signaled a robust recovery. However, the Bureau of Economic Analysis put its first estimates for third quarter growth at just two percent. Although a revised estimate based on more complete data will be released at the end of November, the lackluster increase in GDP growth presents a challenge to an economy still struggling to get back on its feet. In addition, inflation rates below the norm of two percent have reduced the desirability of American exports and raised the value of the dollar, thereby making goods more expensive and reducing incentive for consumers to spend. To ease up spending and induce economic growth, the Federal Reserve has tried almost every trick in the book. So far, its main tool of monetary policy, lowering the interest rate, has had little effect. At the moment, the federal funds rate stands near zero, yet this decrease has spurred no significant increase in consumer investment. As a result, the Federal Reserve, under the leadership of Ben Bernanke, has turned to one of its only other major means of impacting the economy: quantitative easing. To briefly recap, quantitative easing occurs is when the Federal Reserve prints large amounts of money to buy treasury bonds – in this case a planned $600 billion. Buying large amounts of treasury bonds, usually considered safer by investors, will lower the interest rate and hopefully induce investors to put their money into more (Continued on Page 6)

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

Volume V, Issue XII

November 15, 2010

NATIONAL REPORT / OPINION (Continued from Page 5) risky investments in other places, which have higher yields. This move will bring more flow into the economy, as money from the private investors starts moving back into markets and to the private sector at large. The increased spur in investment spending will hopefully set off a cycle of business investment and production, which will put the economy on a better track. One of the key components of this quantitative easing, raising inflation, has about as much support as it has opponents. Ben Bernanke and the nine other members of the Federal Reserve Board who voted with him believe that it is important to increase inflation and, what is more, they have the mechanisms in place to slow inflation should the economy pick up and inflation rise too much. In their eyes, the potential risks of an inflation explosion are minimal in comparison to the benefits of pushing inflation to the two percent rate considered normal and, by some, necessary. The concern about a rise in inflation is strong, as well. Thomas Hoenig, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, was the only member of the Federal Reserve Board to oppose the increase in quantitative easing, decrying the new policy as making a “bargain with the devil.” Despite being alone in this sentiment, he is joined by some prominent economists, who share his concerns about an inflation explosion. Among them are Peter Schiff, the early predictor of the housing crisis and Allan H. Meltzer, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon and disciple of economic giant Milton Friedman. Meltzer responded to those who thought Friedman would have supported quantitative easing by saying that Friedman would have avoided it altogether. The risks are just too great, Meltzer says. Although it is no luxury cruise, the second round of quantitative easing could provide the economy with the boost it needs. Despite protests and claims that the risks are too great, Bernanke and his supporters are convinced that this quantitative easing will put the economy back on track. For Bernanke and his supporters, drastic times call for drastic measures and the Fed is simply answering that call. s

Follow the Money by Dan Hochman, ‘11 Staff Writer President Lincoln once asked a nation in turmoil to think boldly – to cast aside “the dogmas of the quiet past” and to “rise with the occasion” because he understood that this was the only way that we were going to rescue our country. These trying times call for analogous bold thinking, but our ability to do so has been in precipitous decline. Dollars and cents continue to sap the will of our elected officials to confront our problems with a sense of urgency each day. We must focus on money if we wish to reform our politics. Holding government accountable now means more than holding elections every few years; it must also mean a relentless effort to reign in the sources of financial influence in our political system. The absence of monetary reward for any type of political behavior was supposed to be a redeeming quality of democratic government; it was supposed to be what separated it from every thieving regime of the past, and the occasional greed and licentiousness of private enterprise. The accumulation of political power in democratic government seemed to resemble enough of a “profit motive.” Pluralism and federalism, Madison and Hamilton said, would characterize the arena in which “ambition [would be made to] counteract ambition.” The survivability of the republic is threatened each and every day that we continue to let money influence political ambition. Campaign finance stands out as the first problem that must be addressed. It is now horrendously expensive to run almost any type of political campaign and the things that elected officials are willing to do to make sure that campaign coffers are adequately replenished for each cycle are disturbing. The status quo originates from a century-long propensity toward treating corporations as if they were individuals. Somehow, there is this understanding in the courts that corporations must retain many of the same constitutional rights as individuals even though the Constitution makes no such mention of a corporation’s rights. After the Watergate scandal, Congress enacted the first stringent standards that restricted the amount of money that corporations could spend on campaigns and elected officials. In 1976, the courts began chipping away at the Congressional limitations by placing confines on (Continued on Page 7)

www.JHUPOLITIK.com

Volume V, Issue XII

November 15, 2010

OPINION (Continued from Page 6) how these political contributions could be restricted. By the 1990s, corporations had begun using “soft money” or unlimited contributions to the party apparatuses as methods of influencing elections. When the McCainFeingold Act set limits on soft money in 2002, companies began finding ways to exploit loopholes in that bill (mostly through donations to Political Action Committees) and conservative groups began approaching the courts with constitutional challenges. In January 2010, the Supreme Court handed special interest groups a huge victory in the 5-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. The Court found that corporations deserve further protection of their alleged rights to free speech, ruling that unlimited independent expenditures of funds on behalf of, or against particular candidates, are acceptable as long as these expenditures are not coordinated with a campaign. The resulting tidal wave of special interest money that flooded this year’s midterm elections was unprecedented. Corporations, unions and other entities spent more than $500 million to influence this year’s midterm elections, according to McClatchy Newspapers; that is 66% more than in 2006. More often than not, the recipients of corporate cash that run these media campaigns are not required to disclose the sources of their funds. When a company can anonymously write a $10 million check to influence a Congressional election one way or another, the temptation among lawmakers is to take less risky, less controversial positions – positions that are undoubtedly “inadequate to the stormy present,” as Lincoln would say. Cases-in-point regarding legislative risk include the diluted cap and trade legislation that barely passed the House, the weakened financial regulatory reform, and a healthcare bill that, while importan, tmight have been bolder and in the spirit of legislation that this country used to be able to pass had corporate special interests been tamed. Moderate Democrats who voted against these semi-progressive pieces of legislation with the hope that it would save them from the onslaught of special interest attack ads lost brutally in the toxic environment created by corporate America’s $500 million stimulus to our national media market. How is a politician supposed to think independently and to make decisions in the best interest of the country when large corporations and unions can decide the fate of her job and public image with each vote that she takes, and each word she utters? How can she do her job to the best of her abilities when such a large amount of time must be devoted to fundraising?

When lawmakers rise and fall based on misleading advertising narratives and not on the substantive achievements or failures of their tenures in office, the soul of our body politic writhes in pain. When Wall Street influences government to such a degree that banks can continue operating with tax-payer funded bailouts, rewritten accounting rules and an even bigger moral hazard, the average American can be nothing but angry and frustrated as to why nothing is being done for him. The angrier that people become, the more our public policy develops a proclivity for irrationality. This irrationality does not help big business in the long run. When are we going to wake up and dam the flow of money? s

Loyal Readers, For those of you who have a particular interest in reviewing the role of money in politics, we highly recommend that you visit the website Open Secrets at: http://www.opensecrets.org/ Open Secrets allows users to track the influence of money in political campaigns through a variety of different mediums. It is a creation of the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks the effects of money on elections and public policy. Sincerely, The Editors-in-Chief