Four Articles I wrote in the School Newspaper
Writing by abuhatem on Friday, 14 of March , 2008 at 5:10 am
These are four of my past articles this year.
Presidents don’t manage economy
At a recent campaign rally, Hillary Clinton stated the oft-repeated claim that America needed a president who could “manage the economy†and that she was the most experienced in that regard because of the eight years of prosperity during the economic boom of her husband’s administration.
Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also made the claim on MSNBC that “Democrats know how to manage the economy†and that due to the recessions of the 1980s, 1991 and 2001 (which happened under Republican administrations), “Republicans just cannot manage the economy.†Republican politicians repeat similar claims about Democrats as well.
To state that one can “manage the economy†is a laughable farce and one of the greatest examples of logical fallacy. In a market economy such as ours, which is based upon private ownership and free enterprise, the economy cannot be “managed†by the government.
The state may regulate the economy, meaning imparting legal restrictions, and control taxation but unless we are discussing the public administration of bureaucracy, it is absurd to believe this is even close to what is meant by “management.â€
The President of the United States is not the Soviet Commissar. The assumption that central planning would result in prosperity was the underlying core tenet of socialism.
One may perhaps state that the word “management†is a harmless error in semantics, yet our perceptions of meanings often alter our expectations. An excellent example of this is Hillary Clinton’s claim that with her election, the economy will return to the boom of the 1990s. This claim is tainted by a very reductionist world view.
Instead of seeing economic phenomena in a holistic sense, people who believe this observe the prosperity during one era and the economic hardship in another, and they assume that there exists a casual relationship based upon only one variable: the presidency.
This is a gross oversimplification of phenomena; there are many other variables involved in the very complex organic world of economics. What if there were no computer developments, no Internet technology and no Microsoft in the 1990s? What if 9/11 came a few years earlier?
To add to this type of logic, would Hillary Clinton also need a Republican Congress – such as in the days of her husband – to replicate his economic successes?
Attributing prosperity to the economic “management†of one branch of the American government limited in its Constitutional power to intervene economically and ignoring the analysis of a plethora of other complexities and variables is very faulty science and simply inaccurate.
It also ignores the hard work of the American people. Philosopher of science Karl Popper said that paradigms such as this are intrinsically immoral in their rejection of evidence that falsifies the theories they purport.
In other words, it is dishonest for Hillary Clinton to claim that if we elect her, we will return to the economic prosperity of the 1990s.
Debates not focused on future
While the war in Iraq continues to be a central part of the debate in this year’s presidential election, the debates have lacked any intelligent discourse about broader and more important foreign policy questions, such as America’s role in the world.
Our “shining city on the hill” has emerged for the past 17 years as the world’s sole superpower and the greatest power in the history of the world. Globalization and free-trade among states radically alters the world we live in, and for the first time in history, international institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and European Union are chipping away at previous notions of state sovereignty. Democratic regimes and free markets are spreading throughout the world at an unprecedented pace.
“We’re at a moment when the international system is in a period of change like we haven’t seen for several hundred years,” said former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on PBS’s Charlie Rose. International political economist Richard Roscerance echoed this sentiment recently in the Boston Herald, stating that this small window may be the only hope of firmly establishing new structures in the international system based on peaceful change.
Instead of reducing the discourse to Iraq and the War on Terror, it is essential that an open and intelligent debate should take place concerning America’s role in the world during this crucial presidential election, especially in this post-9/11 and post-Cold War world.
The essence of a democratic society and rational governance is discussion and discourse. Aside from a few candidates, such discussion is seriously lacking. It is naive to believe that the compassionate, faithful and principled essence of America means our foreign policy will be infallibly altruistic.
American Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr warned decades ago that arrogant blind patriotism, especially the belief of our nation doing God’s will in foreign affairs, may lead to immense injustice. Niebuhr stated that in foreign affairs, the United States should act knowing that the notion of exceptionalism from moral responsibility and divine justice was extremely dangerous.
As an American Muslim, I find that Niebuhr’s notions apply not only to Christianity but are universal in their wisdom. The belief that our actions always reflect respectfulness of others’ rights and dignity leads to a sense of arrogance, irresponsibility and even worse the belief that we will always do God’s will.
Such illusions of exceptionalism to moral responsibility led to the evils of Hitler and Al-Qaeda. Thus, it is extremely crucial that our nation not fall into the same mistake by not thinking deep and hard about the consequences of our actions in the world and not understanding America’s role in the 21st century world.
It is unfortunate that such a crucial debate is absent from the discourse of this presidential election.
Economic problems ignored
Presidential candidates love to promise many federal programs for voters. Long-shot Presidential candidate Ron Paul, often dismissed as “loony†and “eccentric†months ago, warned of these false promises and proclaimed that the economic ills associated with inflation would soon cause a major recession in the U.S. economy.
Monetary policy, Paul claimed, was the major cause of U.S. economic problems. Now that a recession seems imminent to many analysts, it appears as if we should have heeded his words. Following news of an impending recession, TV pundits such as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, CNBC’s Jim Cramer and columnist David Brooks on PBS have all echoed the inflation mantra in their talking points.
When asked what the greatest cause of our current economist rut is, global economist David Malpass said, “We are printing too much money,†on PBS’s “Charlie Rose†program.
On a recent ABC News debate preceding the New Hampshire primary, Paul made the case that the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy has been inflating the money supply by “printing more money†and enabling unchecked government spending.
Fellow Republican Fred Thompson laughed and ridiculed Paul with a decisional joke about printing money. Thompson also stated on Thursday, Jan. 14, during a campaign rally that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake was “boring†and that he would much rather watch a “Law and Order†rerun.
Ignoring a major cause of our economic ills is dangerous for a presidential candidate. A candidate blatantly ignorant about monetary policy is not suited to run our country.
The problem, however, extends further than Thompson. Before promising to offer such goodies as “universal health care†or sub-prime mortgage bailouts, voters should remember that deficit government spending is primarily dependent upon inflationary policies.
Bernake himself has hinted at the current fed’s inflationary policy by stating, consequent to his confirmation in 2006, that some inflation is good because it lessens the government deficit. Government funds come from taxing, borrowing, or inflating the currency, and in the end, our government’s inflationary policy only hurts the poor which it claims to be helping.
Another policy— the increase of the federal minimum wage— may sound nice to voters, but prices have risen across the board since its enactment, punishing the poorest consumers regressively. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the majority of minimum wage owners are the young or students.
Eighteenth century philosopher Freidrich Bastiat warned of the “broken window fallacy,†which refers to ignorance of the unintended consequences of economic actions.
Before we call for more government spending and entitlements, voters must realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Voters, wherever they fall on the political spectrum, must understand the effects that their policies have on the economy.
Iraqis struggle for existence
While American optimism about Iraq policy is growing, perhaps due to General David Petraeus’ and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s reports to Congress this week, the reality on the ground is just as grim as ever.
While General Petraeus told Congress that President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq was finally beginning to work, the Associated Press reported that August was the single greatest month of civilian bloodshed in Iraq this year. The U.S. military reported that 100 Iraqi civilians were slain in Baghdad in August, but the Iraqi Interior Ministry found three times that many were killed in the Baghdad area alone. Only two weeks ago, the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr began skirmishes with members of his own sect on a Shiite holy day. Civil strife and tensions in Iraq remain great obstacles to stability.
The greatest example of success in Iraq, which the Petraeus report highlighted, was the success of the transformation of the al-Anbar province – previously the most dangerous area in Iraq – into a safe and secure area due to deals made with tribal elders.
While this success gives a hopeful model for the rest of the country, one must make note, as Petraeus himself noted, that it did not come about due to the surge. This success is actually due to political deals. The Iraqi tribal leaders involved in the deals and pacifying al-Anbar said the same in recent weeks on the Arabic TV channel Al-Jazeera.
Furthermore, Syria’s rejection of Iraqi refugees earlier this week due to lack of resources has effectively stranded hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fleeing the country in a war zone and may increase tensions.
On top of all of this, the Iraqi government has been crippled by boycotts of various political parties. They have been unable to pass an oil law for the country after negotiating for almost a year.
A recent BBC/ABC News poll found that 70 percent of Iraqis believed that the surge was not working. A poll earlier this year by USA Today found that the majority of Iraqis say that their lives are not going well and that they have lost hope for the future. Even worse, The New York Times recently reported that the Iraqi Christian population is now almost inexistent due to ethnic cleansing. This population had existed for thousands of years, even throughout Islamic rule.
Although the Petraeus report spoke of some successes of the surge, the fact remains that its successes have been few and far between. Iraq today remains a dangerous and unstable country and the war continues to destroy the lives of millions of Iraqis.
Category: Uncategorized
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
No comments yet.
