The Real Meaning Of President Bush In Vietnam.

Much is being made of the President's visit to Vietnam. Apparently, Ted Koppel joked recently about Bush joining the National Guard to avoid Vietnam but now going there. Ha, ha, that is so funny, Ted. What a laugh riot. And what irony. What a shallow point of view.

The real significance of Bush's trip to Vietnam is much darker and not funny at all. Three decades ago America abandoned Vietnam and stood by while it was overrun by the Communists from North Vietnam. Today, America is once again poised to abandon a fight and leave allies to their fate. The Dims and the media are finally getting their Vietnam in Iraq.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, Politics, Bush, Vietnam.

Our Cruel And Counter-Productive Cuban Refugee Policy

Today the United States government returned 15 refugees from political oppression to the dictatorship from which they fled. (Here.) But few in our country will care because it's just Cubans being sent back to Fidel Castro's dictatorship.

Roughly, America's policy is to admit Cuban refugees who reach US soil but return those we intercept on the sea. The policy is designed to discourage Cubans from fleeing their country.

Our Cuban refugee policy is counter-productive to America's desire for Fidel Castro's government to fall. The Eastern European communist countries fell soon after the borders were wide open and refugees flooded out of their countries into their free European neighbors. When the people of a dicatatorship realize they can easily flee, they do, and the regime soon falls afterwards.

Rather than patrolling international waters to catch and return Cubans to Castro's prisons, we should be patrolling there to rescue refugees and bring them to the US. We should be encouraging the flight of as many Cubans as possible and we should be assisting them.

-tdr

Which Minority Candidate Will Be Germany's New Chancellor And Who Will Make The Decision?

The past two Presidential elections in the United States have aroused much criticism of the electoral college system and the way that we here in the US run our elections. Whatever one may think of US democracy its virtues are the winner take all voting and the requirement that the President receive a majority of votes in the Electoral College to win.

Look at what is happening in Germany today. (BBC story here.) No party has received enough votes to put together a majority in the Parliament. Nor have the two major parties received enough votes to allow them to put together a governing coalition with ideologically allied parties. And neither of the two major parties is willing to let the leader of the other party have the Chancellorship as part of a so-called grand coalition.

A new government will emerge when the political parties finish their negotiations and come up with a formula for governing. Maybe the minority left wing parties will get over their intramural differences with the Social Democrats and form a coalition. Maybe the Christian Democrats and Free Democrats will convince the Greens to join them in a strange left to right coalition. Maybe the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats will join together. Who knows what will happen at this point?

But here's the bottom line. The new Chancellor will be from a party that failed to win the votes of a majority of Germans. And whoever takes the position of Chancellor will not have been chosen by the voters. The new Chancellor will take his or her office as a result of wheeling and dealing among the politicians who run Germany's political parties. At least in the United States the President takes his or her office by winning a majority of the electoral votes as determined by the results of the 50 state elections. A much more democratic result.

-tdr

Long Live The Nation State

Nationalism has a bad name in Europe. The 20th Century saw an excess of nationalism in Europe that left millions dead. In reaction the European Union was formed and for years the EU has sought to restrain the power of its nation states within a political union. That drive suffered a huge setback when France voted overwhelmingly to reject the European Constitution, which it should be remembered, was drafted by a former French president. It seems nationalism is not completely dead in Europe.

Not to worry though, the EU will probably do what it has always done when a nation's voters said no. They'll schedule another election and do it all over again, or they'll let the French legislature decide the issue. Nine European nations have voted in favor of political unity. Only one did so by national referendum. To EU proponents "no" never means no.

Europe's drive to eliminate the nation state and to embrace an international union is an odd one for a democratic continent to embrace. Although European nationalism performed badly in the 20th Century, democratic self-rule is more closely linked to the nation state than it is to international organizations.

At least one voter in the French election quoted in this AP article on Yahoo (click here) recognized that connection. Emmanuel Zelez is quoted as saying, "I voted 'no' because the text is very difficult to understand. Also I'm afraid for democracy. The way the EU functions is very opaque. Many people there are not directly elected." His concern was shared by other voters. As another voter, Gilles Nouel, said in this Washington Post article in the San Diego Union Tribune (click here), "I voted no out of a concern for democracy. For me, the decisions should not be made by Europe but by each nation. I want France to make decisions for herself."

Some have suggested that the EU is the model for a future world government and that the United States has no alternative to offer. In that view, one day non-European countries will be clamoring to join the EU. This view has always mystified me. I've never understood why a democracy would hand over its sovereignty to a bureaucratic government unaccountable to the voters. It's one thing to join an economic organization to enhance trade and wealth. It's quite another to join a political union that promises to strip elected national governments of their power. Why voluntarily trade democratic self rule for empire?

France's vote is a reality check. France has not necessarily killed the dreams of a European Union but the difficulty the EU has in convincing Europeans to join it politically suggests its future is not as bright as some believe.

Moreover, the United States does have an alternative model to offer. It's not a model for a world government but it is a model for a world of independent nations ruled by democratic governments. That model is based on delivering the promise of the Declaration of Independence to all nations. The Declaration's promise says that a nation's sovereignty rests with the people. It further says that a government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the people and a government that rules without the consent of the people lacks legitimacy. National sovereignty and democratic self-government flow naturally from this model. The Declaration does not seek to eliminate the nation state. Instead it seeks to make the nation-state's government directly accountable to the citizens.

The EU's model on a global scale would result in a bureaucratic government unaccountable to the voters wielding power over powerless national governments. On the other hand, delivering the promise of the Declaration of Independence on a global scale would result in a world populated by democratic nations with governments accountable to their own people.

Perhaps before the world embraces international government as exemplified by the EU it should let the history of democracy's takeover of the nation state play itself out until the last tyrant falls.

-tdr