-
WAR OF IDEAS
Has the U.S. Reached Peak Car?
-
KILLER APPS
Cyberspies Are Using PRISM for Spearphishing
-
PASSPORT
Remembering Michael Hastings
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 2:27 PM
Share
Are you tired of the 2012 presidential election? Bored by the endless series of gossipy articles and blogs dissecting every bump and turn in the road to the White House? Me too. I know that a professional political scientist is supposed to find this sort of thing fascinating, but by the time November rolls around, I'm more likely to be in the "just shoot me" phase.
The problem, of course, is that the United States has the unappealing combination of a relatively short presidential term and an unusually long election process. We elect the president every four years (unlike France, where the term used to be seven and is now five), and we now devote a year to the primary process. It's actually more like two years, if you count the exploratory phase of campaigning and fundraising. So in a sense the U.S. spends at least a quarter of each presidential term actively discussing and debating who the next president will be. (It's even worse for members of the House of Representatives, who have to start running for re-election even before they've unpacked their offices).
Other countries are not nearly so foolish. Parliamentary systems like Great Britain specify that general elections have to be held on regular intervals (i.e., every five years or so) though snap elections aren't unusual. But I can't think of any country that spends a year or more actually running the campaign. In Canada, for example, the Elections Act mandates that the minimum length of a campaign be 36 days, and the longest campaign ever recorded (in 1926), was only seventy-four days. In Australia, elections generally last about two months. Apart from the United States, the longest election period I could find in a brief search was Germany, at about 114 days for unscheduled elections. Needless to say, this period is still far shorter than the U.S. norm.
Our stupefyingly long election process is good for political journalists, I guess, and one could argue that it helps us weed out candidates who are obviously unqualified (not a proposition I'd be eager to defend, by the way). But overall, it seems to me that the combination of a short presidential term and a long electoral campaign creates all sorts of potential difficulties, including a number of foreign policy problems. To wit:
First, it is invariably a distraction, with oodles of ink and media time being consumed by mostly trivial discussions of who's up, who's down, who's just made a gaffe, etc., instead of having a serious discussion of real policy issues. (And if you've been watched any of the GOP debates, you'll have noticed that "serious discussion" wasn't in abundance in those events).
Second, the campaign invariably consumes a lot of the incumbent president's time, which is probably the single scarcest commodity in politics. President Obama and his inner circle already have too much to do, but he'll spend a good chunk of the next eight months raising money and giving speeches that are less about fixing the nation's problems than about trying to get re-elected. I don't blame him for that; I just wish he only had to it for a few weeks. And of course some issues (e.g., trade policy) have to go on the back burner during an election year, for all the obvious reasons.
Third, the longer the election campaign is, the more it costs to run and greater the influence moneyed interests will have. And that means both incumbents and rivals will have to pander to special interest groups, including groups with foreign policy agendas. That's normal in a democracy, but surely it would be better if politicians didn't have to do this for a full year. Among other things, pandering to special interest groups encourages politicians to say lots of silly things about different issues, in effect polluting public discourse in ways that can have lasting effects.
Fourth, a long electoral cycle also lengthens the period in which foreign actors can try to use our internal preoccupations to advance their own ends. In some cases (e.g., Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent visit), the election campaign provides foreign governments with an opportunity to press the president to shift his policies in the way some foreign leader might want. In other cases, foreign adversaries may conclude they can take advantage of a distracted America to shift the status quo in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, knowing that the last thing an incumbent president really wants is a major crisis on the eve of an election. This doesn't happen all that often, perhaps, but the longer the election campaign is underway, the greater the chance for outside forces to try to exploit it.
Finally, when you consider that a new administration has to make some three thousand appointments (some of them requiring Senate confirmation), and that this transition process itself takes months if not years, then the actual period when the United States can conduct a fully-staffed, energetic and more-or-less coherent foreign policy is no more than a year or two in each administration. One could even argue that this has larger systemic consequences, because it means that the world's most powerful country spends at least as much time picking its leaders and getting their advisors appointed as it does allowing those leaders to actually govern. Among other things, this situation makes it harder to implement and sustain policies that might take a long time to bear fruit.
This system might have worked well in the 19th century, when the United States was largely isolated from the other great powers, but it's hardly an ideal position for the self-designated "leader of the free world." Sad to say, I don't have a ready remedy for this problem. If I had a magic wand, I'd have a national primary election day and I'd institute various measures to raise voter turnout and prevent both parties from being so easily captured by narrow extremists. But I don't have such a wand (you can all heave a sigh of relief) and I don't know how you could conjure up the necessary support for this kind of far-reaching change. The bottom line is that this self-inflicted wound will persist for the rest of my lifetime (and beyond) and the problems alluded to above are going to get worse instead of better over time.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The United States celebrates free speech more intensely every four years during a presidential campaign. Different candidates can all express their views on issues of foreign policy to distinguish themselves from their opponents. Give the candidates greater amounts of free media to introduce themselves to the general public and the need for massive injections of money into a campaign from private sources is reduced.
I'd like to see the campaign donation be opt-out and include an evaluative norm... i.e. 85% of Americans think it's important to limit special interests' influence on elections... or some more artfully crafted version.
The Resultant Transparency Is Cleansing, Beneficial
For example, Bibi's transparent, crude attempt to draw our USA into another military disaster revealed many past, present & potential future bad/sad behaviours of Israel. Obama smoothly handled Bibi & his American supporters (e.g., AIPAC, Kristol, Krauthammer, McCain et al) by clearly explaining simple realities that are easily understood once communicated. The result is a HUGE, growing schism within the American, Foreign & even Israel communities regarding past, existing & future bad/sad American behaviours.
Guttenberg Press, Telegraph, Phone, Satellites, TV, Internet, etc are key positive change technologies delivering increased transparency. Transparency of the realities works well in the long run because, imho, we would all mostly agree on most everything if we all had the same information & knew the same truths ...
Obama 2012!
We'd still have different perspectives. Parallax can really matter.
"...Give the candidates greater amounts of free media to introduce themselves to the general public and the need for massive injections of money into a campaign from private sources is reduced."
As if "free" media could provide more or better elections than what money currently buys. Nothing would change, with the exception such crack pot schemes could make matters much worse.
The process is inane, unfair and often obscures the very issues that are most important. However, the President of the United States is the most important job in the world and a rigorous vetting process is crucial. The year and a half campaign season allows for a broad debate of ideas and avoids any uncovers the candidates' flaws and weaknesses. In a country where the executive is nationally elected it also forces candidates to respond more directly to regional concerns than they do while in power. I think its a beautiful thing, but don't begrudge your point in the least.
Barak Obama was a cypher then, and remains one. Bush too remains a mystery. In fact, every President going a long way back has utterly flipped on what they promised campaigning. From WW promising he's keep us out of WW1 to FDR promising the same for WW2. Others have done this drill and I will spare the list for now.
This is the vetting process that ok'd the younger Bush, i would really question its effectiveness in that regard. There is certainly no proof that US presidents are more qualified or more successful than leaders of other democratic states, the value of a "vetting process" that takes up something like half the term of any sitting president, no matter how effective it is, is doubtful.
... election cycles screw up the national foreign opolicies -- or try to. The sainted JFK became president by lying about the successful Eisenhower program of keepingh USSR ambitions in check by an overpowering weight of missiles. Kennedy, lying, saidthe dominant power was the USSR, and played successfully on the fears of the voters that year.
Similar examples are easy to find.
Dr. Walt,
I propose the following, not as remedies to a long election cycle, but as mitigating factors to the fact that a dearth of time is spent actually developing policy.
1. The Tyranny of the Status Quo - big sweeping policies aren't likely to radically change on the FP front even given big changes in the Administration. The bureaucracy has a keen interest in "doing things the way we have always done it" or more PC "Do you understand the underlying basis for our policy being this way?" because everyone else since Hoover tried the alternative and they all failed.
2. FP is largely crisis response. The long term election cycle and approval process do nothing to avoid international crises which will inevitably dramatically shift US FP positions and policies.
For these reasons our biggest complaint in the election cycle should remain the political advertisements over a lack of real policy pursuits.
The reason our political process is what it is, is that money drives EVERYTHING! Foreign policy included unfortunately.
A quick note, the Australian elections have a minimum campaign period 33 days, however it's rare for a campaign to last more than 5 weeks. The 2007 election was considered abnormal as it was for 6 weeks (however there were political reasons why then Prime Minister John Howard opted for a longer campaign) as 6 weeks of electioneering is more than most Australians can bear.
I have heard various excuses proffered for America's ridiculously long election campaigns, David Frum suggested that parliamentary and presidential systems are different in this regard, however this is disproved as other large countries such as France can run a presidential election in a few months rather than a few years.
A suggested solution would be the DNC and RNC agreeing not to have any presidential debates until the start of the election year, and compressing the primary season into 4 Super Tuesdays of around 12 states each in April, May, June and July, then you could have the conventions in August then a sprint to the finish in November. This would cut the whole process down from 18 months to 8, which should be more than enough time for any country.
The American electoral process has been crooked. and crooked for a long time. The length of the current process has developed mainly to wrest the nominations out of the hands of crooks in what used to be described as "smoke-filled rooms". Crooks. Photos exist -- they were published in the press at the time -- of Richard Nixon being greeted in Milwaukee by a Republican committee chaired by a local Mafia boss. Harry S Truman's career was ushered forward by Tom Prendergast, Democratic boss of Kansas City, MO in a corrupt time; and a jailbird.
Why the campaign period between party adoptions of their candidates and election day, is probably historical: the continental US is an enormous space, and travel in the railrod era and earlier allowed candidates to visit few parts of it in a short time. In today's radio/TV/internet era, there's no reason for the candidates to have much more than one month to address the nation electronically and face-to-face.
Politics are still not simon-pure. A Los Angeles Times story from 2001, still available on the web, established that presidential votes cost a jug of beer in Texas. In another state, there were little reason to believe that any presidential vote was honest. Read it and weep. or, perhaps, laught. The online heading: A 'Modern' Democracy That Can't Count Votes
What you are saying is right to some extent. A term of 4 years is less and with these fund raising and stuff, the actual term of a US president is just under 3 years. This will prevent a president from taking some strong action on various fronts, however a longer term has its own disadvantages, especially when the elected president is not worthy enough, then the people has to wait for one more year to get rid of him (though this hasn't happened often).
It's weird that you compare the US unfavorably to France, where their long elected cycles have led to mass corruption (is there a modern leader of France who hasn't been thoroughly corrupt?).
It's also odd how leftist like yourself always seem to want more power when their guy is in the White House but go apopletic when the other side starts to exhibit traces of an 'imperial presidency'.
He isn't specifically saying we should have longer terms, just less campaigning. His point is that the incumbent has to spend most of his term campaigning.
The system we have has the President so neutered, so compromised there's no hope. We are solely reliant on him displaying some integrity and to forcefully represent our interest. However, to be on the ballot, he's promised just the opposite, pandered and lied to his donors in back rooms. He must stand up against all of his advisers, and chart his own course, as the sole representative of the American people. The system is so corrupt, it's questionable whether an man of integrity could get nominated; if one were nominated, he'd never win an election. We prefers lies and bullsh!t over honest realities, compromises and real engagement and discussion of difficult issues. It's why ministers don't discuss the Trinity much in Church, and certainly not in the way they debate it in earnest in seminaries. Everything is a show. Everything is packaged, and marketed to the lowest common denominator. I'm not sure we're smart enough to elect a president who'd deliver real improvement. I wish we had Ron Paul debating Ralph Nader, but what we have is much more akin to professional wrestling.
Was tired of the endless coverage six months ago You can turn on MSNBC and from 5 -10 it is Chris, Ed, Rachel, Lawrence, Martin Bashir at 3 too spinning the same Republican candidates comments over and over again. So boring and cheap for MSNBC they do not have to do any real reporting. Pathetic really. Now dylan Ratigan goes off of this easy path and actually does some real reporting on critical issues.
Have always thought that Presidents should be in office for 6 years. Give them a chance to make headway. The sickening amounts of money, time, endless repetition of the same information. None of this makes for a more well informed electorate or moving ahead beneficial legislation for the American public. And as Walt points out sure not beneficial for US foreign policy. Israel and the I lobby sure working this go to war with Iran agenda in this election process. Not new for them but sure could be more costly this time around
There are two things driving the length of American Elections.
1) The desire of the states, particurly small states, to gain a political advantage, vis a vis each other by moving their primaries forward in the election cycle. i.e. Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, etc.
2) The professional for profit political press, who's worst examples on TV are represented by FOX and MSNBC. Where they had political commentators on election night after Obama's acceptance speech trying to predict who would run against him in 2012.
Stephen, I'm glad you can discern when a campaign begins and ends. As a Canadian America-watcher, I observe that the US is always in campaign mode. No sooner is one federal election over, and candidates are establishing committees to research the viability of running in the next one.
American politicians need these long campaigns. How else are they gonna raise the required money? However, I think this current experience with SuperPacs has really turned off a substantial majority of American voters. I suspect--I hope--this will eventually force a new debate over campaign finance reform.
This won't happen tomorrow, of course, unless Obama wins a landslide, Dems take back the House, and there are enough Dems in the House and Senate who resent having to pander to special interests in order to mount a campaign. Those are a lot of ifs. I guess I shouldn't be so hopeful.
Things are not perfect in Canada. An America lover, Harper starts running attack ads as soon as anybody thinks out loud about running for the leadership of an opposition party. But because the taxpayer finances campaigns, they are not able to run for more than 6 weeks or so--plenty long enough to get turned off all of them.
Attack ads may work, but Jack Layton never ran any. And our most politically astute province--Quebec--made Jack's New Democrats the official opposition--a first in Canadian history.
Foreign Policy corrupt since US Government & Politics Corrupt
The US foreign policy is a bunch of crap. See the following reasons listed below.
I'm fed up with the corrupt, ignorant politicians; candidates; billionaire dictators and their families, corporations and puppet millionaires.
I'm 70 and trying my best to understand the problems. But I'm politically ignorant with a dysfunctional memory. Any errors submit corrections.
1. Main Solution
America needs a President and a Congress with the wisdom, courage and honesty to lead America and the world out of the Dark Ages of lies, deceit, deregulations, illegal wars, and corrupt ignorant rule by a couple dozen billionaires and their families, corporations and millionaire puppets, many in Congress. Use to call them gangsters.
“On Feb. 13, seven writers who described themselves as “concerned citizens, activists and financial professionals” filed a 325-page comment letter to financial regulators, outlining their concerns about loopholes in the “Let’s Try to Avoid the Next Financial Crisis” proposal known as the Volcker rule.”
I believe that there’s a chance for real recovery and honest government if the group that prepared the “325-page comment letter” takes the initiative to make their “next action” and that of the Occupy movements to be selecting a third party presidential candidate(s) that will have the wisdom, courage and honesty to lead America and the world out of the Dark Ages of Corrupt Governments. Such a candidate must represent and relate to over 99% of Americans. Otherwise, more of the same crap and bull.
The seven writers include: Caitlin Kline, Kaye Scholer, Kamlesh Tewary, George Bailey, Alexis Goldstein.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/occupy-the-sec-writes-new-volcker-rule-script-commentary-by-susan-antilla.html
2. The Israel Palestine Conflict must be resolved ASAP to stop the growth of terrorists.
"The reason that supporters and rank-and-file practitioners of anti-U.S. terrorism cite most frequently for their hatred of the United States is U.S. condoning of Israeli occupation of Palestinian-inhabited land and of other Israeli actions that involve the killing or subjugation of Muslims."
http://warincontext.org/2012/03/21/why-netanyahu-must-think-the-killing-of-jewish-children-in-france-is-a-good-thing/
3. The financial systems of America and the world must all cooperate and restructure with honesty, wisdom and integrity or else the world economies will continue to worsen and fail. Control by corrupt billionaires must end.
The US and world financial crises were the result of corrupt, bad and/or ignorant decisions made by the financial and banking systems in the US and around the world. Got a bunch of greedy gangsters controlling money: paper and electronic, often make believe money.
In America the Federal Reserve, a privately owned corporation owned by 10 US and foreign banks loans billions of dollars to the US government at 6% interest which keeps America in debt, but the secret owners and share holders of the Fed rich. Both President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy wanted to nationalize the Fed, but they were assassinated.
Appears that the world financial crises is due extremely bad and ignorant decisions by the so called experts of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. To control inflation and ensure some level of stability, both the Fed and the ECB have used the raising or lowering of interest rates for influencing financial markets. The ECB has failed for over a decade and the Fed for many decades. Currently, they appear to be stressing and enacting austerity measures massive budget cuts to bring the debts under control.
One possible solution is to nationalize the Fed and some of the banking systems, if not all. And replace the so called experts with real honest experts, not with millionaires and their puppets.
Watch "The Secret of Oz", and award winning documentary on the history of money and more about the Federal Reserve.
http://www.documentarywire.com/the-secret-of-oz Written and directed by Ben Still.
Beloit International Film Festival 2010 Best documentary(BIFF)
Yosemite Film Festival 2010 Silver Sierra Award for Excellence in
Filmmaking
Accolade Competition 2010 Award of Merit La Jolla, California
Nevada Film Festival 2010 Silver Screen Award
Nathan's Economic Edge, 2009 Excellent review at a world top
economics blog.
British premier Oct. 1, 2010 At prestigious Bromsgrove
conference
4. The US government and elections are corrupt, controlled and fixed by money. Take the money out of politics, special interests and lobbying.
5. The Military-Industrial-Complex(MIC) is alive, growing exponentially and must be reined in. America can no longer afford to be The Imperial Master of the World.
Over 1,000 US foreign military bases costing 1 trillion dollars annually. Beef up the UN.
In Afghanistan: "450 Bases and It’s Not Over Yet"
"The Pentagon’s Afghan Basing Plans for Prisons, Drones, and Black Ops, By Nick Turse" http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175501/
6. Phase out, vote out the corrupt GOP and the democratic parties.
"How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich"
"The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
7. Taxation without representation.
Romney like most, if not all of the candidates cannot relate nor represent the 99% of Americans. Millionaires and billionaires should be barred from politics since they only represent and relate to the rich. Money has nothing to do with wisdom and honesty.
8. The millionaires, billionaires and corporations MUST help Americans recover from the financial crises that they help create through corruption, greed or/and ignorance.
New Total Taxes (federal, state, luxury, etc)
Millionaires, billionaires: 40% to 80%
Corporations: 35% to 55%
From 1945 to 1986, America experienced its greatest real growth in history with the highest taxes on corporations, the rich (over $20,000 in 1945)and on millionaires and billionaires.
Right after WWII, “1945: 94% tax on income over $200,000 – absolutely astounding. It stayed over 90% until 1964 when it was lowered to 77% and had been consistently falling until …”
Again: I'm 70 and trying my best to understand the problems. But I'm politically ignorant with a dysfunctional memory. Any errors, "reply" corrections.
To an outsider, the problem appears less the length of the campaigns, which appear somewhat like national sporting events with all their potential for cheating, bribery and spectator exuberance, rather the simple fact that democracy, while a near perfect system for domestic life, is fatally unsuited to foreign policy. This has been true since the emergence of democracy, there has never been such a thing as coherent foreign policy emanating from a meaningful democracy. I am not, of course, suggesting that the absence of democracy ensures coherent foreign policy, only that coherent foreign policy cannot bear too much democracy; it’s simply the wrong tool for the game, which is why countries like Russia and China only reluctantly permit even the appearance of it, while others like the rulers of the US and the UK are increasingly obliged to dilute their democracies and their citizens freedoms in order to stay in the game. Unfortunately, as they do this their citizens get progressively nudged back to pre-democracy status where they start to agitate for it all over again.
Although one can consider the US socio-political system in isolation, once you get to foreign policy it merges at a different perspective into a more global picture. Globalisation is arguably the most significant development ever in human evolution and whatever direction is takes, it is becoming abundantly clear that the operation of global systems must involve the loss of some personal, community and national autonomy. This is particularly true in foreign affairs where US involvement, for example, of the untidy situation in Syria is simply not helping anyone. On the one side we see the US and it’s European pack (and Israel) plus a couple of Middle Eastern autocrats arming rebel groups in order to overthrow the regime, while on the other we have Russia and others desperately seeking a negotiated solution. This creates an untidy situation since it lifts the resolution from a domestic to a global level, something we simply cannot afford until there is a real global institution respected by all nations at their cost. Meanwhile it seems to me essential that the US modify it’s confrontational attitude to world problems and aim for consensus with others. But, how can this be when the US leader is elected by persons with almost exclusively domestic horizons? It may be that the US public is beginning to question the role of powerful interest groups in the election of their leader and legislature but any such questioning is not arising because of the issues themselves, for instance the predicament of those unfortunates in Palestine, but from economic resentment at grotesque subsidies, and distress for their national amour propre. Equally, quite ruthless and aggressive foreign activities become justified by highly selective applications of peculiarly US domestic sentimentality; compare the US position on Syria where the US is supporting the rebels, imaginatively broadcasting their side of the story, and Bahrain where the US supports the oppression of a movement motivated by precisely the same aspirations, while remaining all but silent on the atrocities employed to subdue it.
At another level, consider the disruption caused the world by the confrontational attitude the US is adopting to Iran. Spain, where I reside, imports almost all its oil from Iran, and the rising prices (which will go through the roof in July when the EU ban comes into force) are impeding development in a nation already bruised by the austerities demanded by financial panjandrums . The Spanish Foreign Minister was quoted the other day saying that Spain was being sacrificed for the sake of European unity (in support of USraeli foreign policy). How many US citizens whose elected leaders are responsible for this have any idea how far the miseries from their foreign policy extend?
The issue is perhaps less the length of US political campaigning than the oil and water admixture of domestic and foreign policy.
"...This system might have worked well in the 19th century, when the United States was largely isolated from the other great powers, but it's hardly an ideal position for the self-designated "leader of the free world..."
Apparently, no one has noticed that Walt provided the answer to the question. Today's electoral system is a product of the 'party system' of politics and power that is hopelessly anachronistic, in an ever greater systemic anachronism of republican governance.
As Walt points out that form, or forms of US governance & politics (1st, 2nd and 3rd party systems) for 19th century America worked marvelously well until the turn of the 20th century. We live in what American political scientists call the '5th party system' of the republic, or to be honest what the French would label the 5th Republic. And its undoubtedly the least representative of the citizenry and more corrupt than any of the previous 4 versions.
The current party system and its republican norm is likely run its course and in its death knell. Its beyond saving. But the great question of the hour is what kind of system will it give way to? A '6th party system' of politics and power? Systemic collapse, stasis & continental disintegration? A return to republican revolutionary first principles and liberty? Or is the end state empire?
I think the most harmful effect of the long campaign season is the constant, imperative pressure from the public which views and judges their every action in view of their presidential bid. Consequently, the candidates weight the different possibilities based on not merit, but by popularity for the election.
For example, look at the current issues. Should the Obama team conclude that the solution to the Iranian program could be an extensive diplomatic engagement, the whole idea would be discarded, because all the hawkish GOP candidates would have a field day on the "softness" of Obama. All this for more than a year...
as if to prove the point Obama's hot mike comment
about flexibility.
Effects on international issues
Dear Walt,
very interesting post. Maybe you can further comment on which particular international issues are most affected by US elections. I'm sure the Middle East peace process is one of them.
Solitaire is not how you should be playing the game of politics. It takes so much more of a team effort in order to be able to pull of an election.
American politicians need these long campaigns. How else are they gonna raise the required money? However, I think this current experience with SuperPacs has really turned off a substantial majority of American voters. I suspect--I hope--this will eventually force a new debate over campaign finance reform.
This won't happen tomorrow, of course, unless Obama wins a landslide, Dems take back the House, and there are enough Dems in the House and Senate who resent having to pander to special interests in order to mount a campaign. Those are a lot of ifs. I guess I shouldn't be so hopeful.
Things are not perfect in Canada. An America lover, Harper starts running attack ads as soon as anybody thinks out loud about running for the leadership of an opposition party. But because the taxpayer finances campaigns, they are not able to run for more than 6 weeks or so--plenty long enough to get turned off all of them.
Attack ads may work, but Jack Layton never ran any. And our most politically astute province--Quebec--made Jack's New Democrats the official opposition--a first in Canadian history.
America needs a President and a Congress with the wisdom, courage and honesty to lead America and the world out of the Dark Ages of lies, deceit, deregulations, illegal wars, and corrupt ignorant rule by a couple bilionaires and their families, corporations and millionaire puppets, many in Congress. Use to call them
gangsters
.
“On Feb. 13, seven writers who described themselves as “concerned citizens, activists and financial professionals” filed a 325-page comment letter to financial regulators, outlining their concerns about loopholes in the “Let’s Try to Avoid the Next Financial Crisis” proposal known as the Volcker rule.”
Guttenberg Press, Telegraph, Phone, Satellites, TV, Internet, etc are key positive change technologies delivering increased transparency. Transparency legal blog of the realities works well in the long run because, imho, we would all mostly agree on most everything if we all had the same information & knew the same truths.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(30)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE