History Rhymes

"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." - Mark Twain

Everyone close to me knows that I have an interest in World War I. Some might call it an obsession, but I think that is an overstatement. The reason for my interest is because many of the events of the 20th and 21st Centuries had origins in the first World War. I believe that one cannot understand the world today without some sort of understanding of World War I. Luckily, as we approach the 100th anniversary there is more and more discussion of the world before, the events leading up to, the tactics and technology, and the world after "The Great War".

American corpses on the beaches of Tarawa. We had no such images in the first World War, which is partially why we don't know as much about it

In the U.S. at least, there is, has always been, and probably always will be more focus on the second World War. This could be because many of us still have living relatives that fought in that war. It could be because the U.S. involvement was so much greater (16 million U.S. soldiers fought in WWII vs. 300,000 in WWI). It could be because there were more casualties (60-80 million total deaths in WWII vs. 16-17 million total deaths in WWI). Perhaps the reason we ignore the first world war is because some saw the second world war as it's inevitable conclusion. In my opinion though, there is also another factor: after any war, it takes time to gain perspective. Many are traumatized. Many have difficulty sharing their stories because they want to forget or they feel like most others can't relate. Many are grieving for the people and the world they lost. As time goes on, lives are rebuilt. The memories become a little less painful. Perhaps the survivors never "get over" their loss, but they can at least come to peace with it. The problem was, just as this was beginning to happen after the first World War, World War II happened.

The causes of World War II were in many ways simpler. Personally, I don't think that the Second World War was inevitable after World War I, but it cannot be denied that many of the reasons why it happened can be drawn as dotted lines from 1919. Understanding the reasons why the first World War happened, at least in the way it did, is much more complicated. Unlike the people clamoring for war in 1914, we know now that the great powers were virtually deadlocked for 4 years. We know that the empires of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, and Turkey were destroyed and the Empires of Britain and France were weaker in 1918 than in 1914. We know that the theory of mutually assured destruction does not always work. Looking back at the history, one cannot help at times to think that there was some super-natural force that kept the two sides deadlocked for so long slogging it out. Both sides had opportunities to win the whole war or at least win a decisive battle if they would just have pushed a little harder at the right time, yet it did not happen. We know that now because, well, hindsight is 20/20.

How different would the world be if we could have stopped this?

The great tragedy of the first World War, at least for those of us in the present, is that it almost seems like it happened by accident. If I had a time machine and I could go back and prevent the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, perhaps I could prevent WWI (and thereby WWII) from ever happening. Even if not, surely it would have happened differently (and probably not as horrifically) right? Digging a little deeper though, it is clear that the Great War was did not happen by accident. If the assassination of one man can spark the biggest war in history (at that time), there must have been a powder keg.

The scary thing is that when we pick apart the reasons for WWI there are clear parallels with today, 100 years later. Maybe we are sitting on top of a powder keg ourselves?

A confusing web of alliances. It may seem ridiculous, but don't we have the same thing today?

- Entangled alliances: The reason the first World War was a world war and not a regional conflict was because of a set of confusing alliances between the great powers. Russia was allied with Serbia because they shared a Slavic background. Germany was allied with Austria because they shared a Teutonic background and because Germany was somewhat isolated in the center of Europe without the Austrio-Hungarian alliance. France and Russia were allies because they feared the rise of the German Empire. Today, we can look at the alliances between Russia and Syria, between the U.S. and Israel, between China and North Korea or between Iran and Syria. In 1914, when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, Austria-Hungary felt free to punish Serbia as they wished because they had been given a "blank check" from their German allies. One could surely imagine Israel going a little too far in punishing Syria or Palestine after a terrorist attack, right? Surely, with their big brother America behind them they would have nothing to fear. Yet we can also imagine how the Iranian or Russian allies of said nation might draw the line somewhere.

French schoolchildren in 1887 being taught to never forget the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine

- Old Grudges: in 1914, France had been waiting for 40 years for an excuse to fight Germany after Germany humiliated France and annexed the Alsace-Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian war. Luckily no one has any grudges against the U.S. today though... except for Iran... and Cuba... and Pakistan... and Yemen and Iraq and Russia and Palestine and Egypt and Lebanon and Serbia.

If a major war breaks out in the next couple years, there's a good chance it will start somewhere in the former Ottoman Empire.

- Regional Conflicts: Though there had not been a "major war" in 1914 since 1871, there were plenty of minor ones; in particular, the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. The first Balkan War represented the chiseling away of the European territories of the Ottoman Empire. The second Balkan War was about who should get the spoils. Though "The Great Powers" were not directly involved, their reactions were preludes to the Great War. The Serbians were upset that their Russian allies had not come to their aid. Austria-Hungary was upset that Germany had not come to it's aid. The memories of 1912 and 1913 were still fresh for all sides in 1914. 100 years later, there is still conflict in the former territory of the Ottoman Empire. Today, the focus is in Syria. As I write this, the outcome of the Syrian Civil War is still unclear but it is easy to imagine a resolution that leaves plenty of resentment. The Syrian government of Bashir al Assad may resent Iran or Russia for refusing to help them more. The Syrian rebels and possibly Israel may resent the US for not helping more. If we become involved in a new conflict in a couple years, it will all be remembered.

The HMS dreadnought, one of the first "modern" battleships

- An Arms race: In the wars leading up to WWI, there was a Naval Arms race between Germany and Britain. Britain built the Dreadnoughts, predecessors of today's battleships. Kaiser Wilhelm felt that a great navy was the mark of a great nation, so made sure Germany had them too. Britain, feeling that it was losing grip on it's longtime naval dominance, felt that it had to stay one step ahead. Ironically, there was only one major naval battle in WWI and if either country had spent more time developing bomber planes or tanks before the war they might have had a decisive advantage. However, it cannot be denied that the naval arms race before the war played a significant role, especially in bringing the UK into the war in the first place. Though they had signed a treaty that pledged them to defend any neutral nation that was attacked (Holland and Belgium were invaded by Germany in the early days of the war), this treaty was not quite as firm as the alliances that caused Germany, Russia and France to enter. The real reason Britain entered the war is to protect it's naval dominance. Today, we might compare this to the nuclear arms race. The US certainly doesn't want Iran or North Korea to built atomic bombs, but even if Russia, China or India were to build more atomic bombs it would throw off the balance of power. In reality, this is not so much of a balance, since the US is thought to have more active nuclear weapons than all the other countries in the world combined. It is very likely that if we were to enter another world war, nuclear weapons might not even be used. This, however, does not mean that we don't have an interest in maintaining our nuclear dominance... an interest that might strong enough to go to war over.

By 1914, most of Africa was controlled by European colonial powers

- Imperialism: In 1914, Germany was still building it's empire. Germany had only unified 40 years earlier and it was late to the Imperialism game but it was quickly acquiring colonies in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Britain was fighting to maintain it's empire as Germany scrambled for territory in Africa and there was an increasing call for self-determination in India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other colonies. The empires of today are not so much a matter of outright rule, but the freedom to conduct business and station military bases wherever we choose. The conflicts in Egypt and Syria have placed these interests in danger. The US pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan may leave the door open for Iran, and possibly China and/or Russia.

British soldiers march through open fields at the Battle of the Somme, only to be mowed down by German machine guns

- New Technology & Old Tactics: In 1914, the prevailing military doctrine was to stay on the attack. The military colleges had been teaching the "Primacy of the Offensive" for 40 years after they had been thrown off balance by a fast moving Germany in the Franco-Prussian war. The problem was that in 1914, defensive technology such as machine guns, barbed wire, land mines and observation balloons had developed faster than offensive technology. Bomber planes, tanks, flame throwers and chemical weapons would appear later in the war as responses to the stalemate in the trenches but the technology was so new that the tactics had not yet caught up. Throughout most of the war, both sides would attempt suicidal missions like cavalry charges and slow marches through bombed out craters into the face of artillery and machine gun fire from well entrenched positions. This problem was especially slow to change because much of the leadership on both sides came from the aristocracy rather than the meritocracy. Today, there is also lot of new technology that we have not fully learned how to use or defend against. Drones, Missile Defense Systems and EMPs are perhaps the best examples, but the US military hasn't really learned how to defend against even "low-tech" weapons such as roadside bombs and IEDs, and since Vietnam we have been embarrassed by our inability to fight Urban and Guerilla warfare.

The Russian military was years behind France of Germany, but with a huge population and virtually unlimited natural resources, the potential was there to become an unstoppable force... should the world let them

- The emergence of new Super Powers: One of the things that pushed Germany into a war in 1914 was the rise of Russia. Though the Russian Empire would be short lived, Russia's power would continue to grow. Russia's population in 1914 was 175 million, twice that of the US, 4.3 times that of France and 2.7 times that of Germany. Russia was less Industrialized than any of those nations and it's military was years behind but if it was given the time to develop, Russia would be an unstoppable force. Germany knew that if they didn't stop them now they might not have another chance. Today, the emerging super powers are China and India. Together, the two countries make up 36% of the population of the world. Though their militaries are not anywhere close to as powerful as the US military, the potential is there. It should be remembered that the US entered WWII with the 17th ranked military in the world. With the right population, industrial and economic resources, a nations military power can grow quite quickly.

Is this where we are today?

If I did have a time machine and I could go back and try to stop the first World War, I would certainly try. Perhaps I could even stop the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, but if the power-keg theory is true it would only have prevented war for so long and no matter how much knowledge of the future or access to leadership I had, there would be little I could do except to advise them how to make some terrible situations slightly less terrible. Perhaps the same is true today. If a major world wide conflict were to happen, there might be little that anyone could do about it. I just hope that in looking to find the way forward we don't forget the past.

The Power of the People

Rob Portman (R- OH) became the first GOP senator to support Gay Marriage. He states that it was because his son came out as gay. Let's not forget that he comes from Ohio, a swing state. Would he have done the same thing if he were from Alabama?

I have talked before about strategies that I would recommend for both major parties, but the more I think about politics and politicians, the more that for real change to occur the demand has to come from the people. The recent gay marriage debate have exemplified this. Everyone knew that a lot of Democrats, possibly a lot of Republicans, supported gay marriage but as long as the majority of voters in their districts did not support gay marriage, very few stepped forward. Public opinion has shifted rather quickly, and so have politicians. Some may see this as wavering; I take the more optimistic outlook that this shift demonstrates the power of the people.

It is easy to get caught up in the cynical mindset that we are powerless. Campaigns cost a lot of money. Candidates have to pay a staff, conduct polls, travel around and speak to voters, and most importantly, run ads on TV. Candidates get elected with the help of donors, but campaign donors always want to see something in return. Though they may claim to be unbiased, representatives will vote in the interest of those that gave them the most money. So yes, it's easy to think that unless we are able to donate hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars to candidates or Super-PACs, we are powerless except for our one vote. And if large corporations and the super wealthy appointed the candidates on both sides, aren't we really just voting for the lesser of two evils?

The only way that poor and middle class will exercise our power is if we unite under common economic interests. The Occupy Wall Street movements, with their notion of "We are the 99%" tapped into this, but political powers have kept us apart by deliberately driving wedges into the 99%. Both major parties have done this, as they both have a vested interest in keeping us polarized.

Let's start with the Republicans. It has been a much talked about phenomenon that Republicans have made a base out of rural America, the geographic majority of our country. Many of these people are poor or lower middle class, yet they have consistently voted against their own economic interests. One explanation is that they are just gullible; easily fooled by misleading TV commercials about candidates. I give these people a little more credit than that. Part of it is social issues. Rural areas tend to be more religious (Christian), and Republicans have done a better job aligning themselves with the church. At the end of the day, we have faith in our representatives and trust that they have our best interests in mind. So if you are a person of faith, it's a no-brainer that another person of faith would be easier to have faith in. Then there are the specific wedge issues such as abortion. Nixon was the first to realize that he could incorporate a lot of Catholics into the Republican base by reversing his stance on abortion and taking a pro-life stance. Perhaps the most brilliant and impressive political tactic that Republicans have employed over the past 40 years is how they have used the insecurity and resentment of the "Northern Elite" to win elections. This notion goes back before the Civil War but it has made a resurgence recently. Watch this video of Palin and McCain from 2008:



The basic idea is that it's a group of grad-school educated, fine cheese eating, liberal yuppies living in New York and San Francisco have all the power and they don't represent "real America". Really, it's a distraction from the fact that it's the richest 1%, or maybe even the 0.1% of the 0.0001% that really have all the power. Republicans have done a much better job making themselves the party of the "good old boys" even though the truth is the opposite. Remember that when asked how many houses he owned, John McCain didn't even know. Of course, as a black man and the son of an Afircan immigrant and a single mother, Obama had an easy time capitalizing on this quote during his campaign and positioning himself as the true "man of the people", ignoring the fact that he has a net worth of almost $12 million.

So much has been made of Republican failures in the 2012 election that few people have thought about the failures of the Democrats. In truth, Democrats coasted to victory in 2008 because of the horrendous failures of the Bush presidency and they would not have won in 2012 were it not for demographic changes. But Obama has done just as much, if not more, to provide tax breaks for big business and grow the military. Though in principle the Democrats represent the interests of the 99% much better, what have they done? They gave up on the public option in the Affordable Care Act without much of a fight, they haven't done anything to regulate Wall Street and fix the problems that caused the crash, and the social safety net continues to be dismantled.

Why don't Democrats do more to bring rural and socially conservative voters into the fold? Well, perhaps it's because they don't need to, and if they did that they might actually have to do something to help the poor and middle class. I don't think it would be that difficult to reach out to the poorer 99% of what is now the Republican base. All they have to do is shine the light on the fact that the real "elite" are the rich. As for social conservatives, most Democrats are just as religious. Democrats would not be able to come out as pro-life because they would alienate their own base but they might be able to do something to reduce unwanted pregnancies with better sex education and better, more easily available birth control. The truth is, both sides would rather argue about the philosophical fundamentals or the most divisive part of this issue than actually do something about the problem both sides agree on.

The Tea Party: protesting against the corruption of the corrupt minority in power

Most of all, they could address the fear of external power that many in rural America, in particular in the south have. It is tempting to ignore the Tea Party movement, but Democrats do this at their own peril. This movement was brought about by the same ideals that brought about the American Revolution: the fear that we are ruled by a distant and corrupt power. This is not a ridiculous fear. Time and time again we have been misled by a Federal government that was supposed to represent us and protect us. Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq, Katrina and the Financial collapse are all examples. It is not a crazy idea that more localized government would represent our interests better.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement: protesting against the corruption of the corrupt minority in power

I don't think that either party wants to represent the 99%. Both parties would rather find a way to get just over 50% of the vote but represent the interests of the 1%. My bottom line is a hopeful one though. We are the people. We still have the power. Politicians will not represent our interests unless we demand it. So we have to look past the ways that we have been polarized and look for what unites us. United we stand, divided we fall.

Maybe this Republic thing is a bad idea

Abraham Lincoln was certainly against slavery, but he led the Nation into war to preserve the Union, not to end the institution of slavery

One of the tragedies of over-simplified history lessons is how most people have lost a sense of why the Civil War was fought. My guess would be that if you ask an average high school Sophomore they would tell you that the North fought to free the slaves and the South fought to keep their slaves. Of course, it doesn't take too much research to realize that most people in the South weren't slave owners and most people in the North (Abraham Lincoln included) weren't abolitionists. Just to clarify, the Civil War was about slavery. It started because of the issue of slavery and as it lingered on for 4 horrible years, ending the institution of slavery became the method and the motivation (at least in part) for the North to win.

Captured Rebel soldiers. As the story goes, when asked by their captors why they fought they answered "Because you're down here!"

If you were to ask a Southerner in 1861 why they were fighting they might tell you it's because the Northerners invaded them. Perhaps this is why some Southerners still refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". In principle though, they were fighting for the right to control their own destiny rather than being ruled by a Federal government that didn't understand them or represent their interests. The way the South saw it, if they didn't like how the Federal government was running things, they could choose to go their own way, just as the United States had split from England 85 years earlier. Although Lincoln initially had no intention of emancipating the slaves not a single Southern state had voted for him and in many states he didn't even appear on the ballot. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to realize how one might feel that if they didn't vote for Lincoln and no one they knew voted for him, he didn't exactly represent them (and by "them" I mean Southern white men). When you like and agree with everyone around you but you hate and disagree with the far away government running things, it is a natural conclusion that smaller, more localized government would serve you better.

If you were to ask a Northerner in 1861 why they were fighting the answers probably would have been more varied. For Lincoln, it was a matter of preserving the Republic. It is easy for us to forget that during the mid-1800s our Republic was still seen as an experiment. Many of the European monarchies saw that experiment as one that was destined to fail. The central question was whether or not people can really govern themselves or if we would go the way of the Ancient Greeks. When Lincoln said that "A government by the people, of the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth" in the Gettysburg address, he was essentially arguing the case for our form of government. The Civil War exemplified the difficulty (and perhaps the fatal flaw) with Democratic Republics. Just because a representative wins the majority of votes doesn't mean that they represent everyone. So what happens when there is an issue [like Slavery] that is highly contentious and highly regional? The people will not see their vote as a choice between 2 different opinions about how to serve the people best but as a choice between good and evil. Inevitably, one side will be very upset. So what are they to do? As we all know, the Southern states decided to try and separate themselves. But what kind of precedent would this have set if states are permitted to secede the moment they don't like the outcome of an election? Would certain regions or counties secede if they didn't agree with their state governments? As a matter of fact, many did just that. The state of west Virginia is only a state today because they sided with the Union in the Civil War. Many other counties or regions of Southern States either successfully or unsuccessfully did the same.

"...if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." - Mark 3:25 (later adapted by Lincoln)

The great irony to me is that both sides were in some ways fighting for the same thing- the right to be represented in their government. Of course, it is an even greater irony is that for slave owners, exercising that right for themselves meant denying it to others. In 2013 most people seem to see the issue of whether or not this great Republican experiment can work or not as settled. Since the American Civil War democracy has become the prevailing form of government in the world. But is it the best form of government? I have to admit, I am not sure. The problem is that people don't always understand the details of government. One might argue that this is because people are too stupid or too selfish, but the reason we have a representative democracy is so we can elect professionals to understand the details for us. Otherwise democracy is just a series of ballot initiatives and it's easy to see where that leads...

"Do you want free stuff?"
"Yes!"
"Do you want to pay for it?"
"No!"

Ballot initiatives are a great way for politicians to avoid the responsibility that comes with taking a stand

The problem is that we aren't electing representatives that are willing to take responsibility for actually governing. In practice, "governing" has become an endless exercise in maneuvering and juxtapositioning in order for politicians to get themselves elected and re-elected and keep their party in power. Instead of saying that compromises and deal making are part of the sausage making of government and we have to trust the people we have elected to do it with our best interests in mind, we have made it into a childish game in which winning is the only thing that matters. If you are in charge, use your power to destroy the other side. If you aren't in charge, do whatever you can to obstruct the other side.To some degree, this has always been the case in American politics. I would argue that the 24-hour news cycle, the internet and the short attention span of most modern Americans all make this worse. We have little patience for understanding the complex nature of many of our problems. We need everything boiled down to catch phrases and sound-bytes.

A good government has to do things that are painful sometimes, just a like parents sometimes have to punish their children. Sometimes taxes need to be raised. Sometimes benefits need to be cut. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the benefit of us all. The good thing about monarchy is that the monarch doesn't have to worry about getting elected and re-elected. They are free to do what is right for the people. Now I am not suggesting that single party rule like China or North Korea is best. Absolute power breeds absolute corruption. But when I look at monarchies that have an elected parliament that keeps a balance of power between the monarchy and the democratically elected government, for example the UK, Japan, Norway, Sweden and Denmark... well I have to say that things don't look so bad. Those nations are some of the richest in the world with the strongest middle classes. They have the best health care and the best education.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and King Harald V of Norway. Norway is ranked #1 in the Human Development Index, 7th in Education, 4th in GDP per capita, 7th in Education  and 11th in health care. FYI, the US is ranked 4th in the HDI, 8th in GDP per capita, 13th in Education and 38th in Health Care

This discussion is really an exercise in rhetoric. It's not like we are going to appoint a King, or re-attach ourselves to Britain after 237 years. The question now is how can we elect a better government and hold them accountable to do their job? First, we need to accept some responsibility. We need to accept that we won't always get our way. We need to accept that if we want better representatives we need to be better educated and stop making every issue into black vs white/right vs. wrong.

The promise of our country is that everyone should be able to have a chance to make it. That doesn't mean everyone owns a mansion and a yacht. It means that everyone, no matter where they come from and how much money their family has, should have an opportunity to be the best they can be. If it works, it is good for everyone. It means that our society can benefit from the ideas, innovations and hard work of everyone, not just a chosen few that have the resources to be relevant. But parents won't be able to prepare their children if they are constantly worried about what they are going to put on the table for dinner. No child can get a good education if they are worried that they might get caught up in a drive by on their way to school. The value of a college education is limited if going to college means crippling yourself in debt for 20 years. And would be entrepreneurs will never be able to take the risks they need to if they can't afford to start their own business because they can't afford to get sick.

It's always the first line that everyone remembers, but it's the last line that is really worth thinking about. Will the government of, by and for the people perish from the earth? TBD

The job of our government is to keep this promise alive. Right now, our government is failing us. If this Republican experiment is really going to work, we cannot resign ourselves and we cannot simply split off and form our own country. We have to be smarter and better informed and we have to elect a government that really does represent our interests.

The Way Forward for the Republican and Democratic Parties

John C Fremont was the first presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Though he lost to James Buchanan in the 1856 election, Republicans would win 14 out of the following 18 Presidential Elections

Although we have had the same 2 dominant political parties in this country since 1856, neither party looks anything like they did 150 years ago. Come to think of it, the Democratic party of 1856 scarcely resembled the Democratic party of Andrew Jackson, elected just 20 years before.

In the 1850's, the issue of slavery would come to define both parties. The Republican Party was a coalition of former Whigs, Conservatives and Free Soil (Anti Slavery) Democrats. Though the new party lost the 1856 election, they did not lose another until 1884 and in total, Republican Presidential candidates won 14 out of the 18 elections from 1860 to 1928. That's not to imply that all of those elections were landslide Republican victories. In many cases, they were quite close actually. For example, the 3 times that Grover Cleveland ran for President in 1884, 1888 and 1892 resulted in very small margins of victory each time (Cleveland won in 84 and 92 but lost in 88 despite winning the popular vote).

The 1880 election map looked like many others in the late 19th and early 20th century. Even with "the Solid South", Democrats needed support in the North in order to win

After 1856 the Democratic Party was no longer the party of slavery, but the battle lines were still drawn along the Mason Dixon line. Though a Democrat from the deep South wasn't elected from 1848 until 1976, the South voted for Democratic candidates consistently until 1964. Yet even if Democrats could count on their Southern base, the fact remained that without some support from the North, it would impossible to elect a Democratic President. Woodrow Wilson cracked that code in 1912 and exploiting a divide in the Republican Party and becoming the choice of Progressives. Yet because of disenchantment with Wilson's Idealism in the aftermath of World War I and the looming Great Depression, many voters returned to the Republican Party in 1920, 24 and 28. It took the spectacular failure of Herbert Hoover to bring about a more long-term shift.

Woodrow Wilson struck a chord with Progressives but his idealism eventually was his undoing

FDR won the 1932 election the same way that Wilson had, by appealing to Progressives. But unlike Wilson, Roosevelt (like most great Presidents) was a pragmatist, and that is why he was re-elected 3 times. Modern Conservatives like to chastise the broad government spending of the New Deal, saying that it was World War II rather than the New Deal that really lifted America out of the Great Depression. Whichever way you feel though, it is a fact that Roosevelt was always willing to re-evaluate and get rid of programs that didn't work. He never clung too tightly to his ideals that he wasn't willing to change. If FDR were running for President today, the opposition would surely adopt a strategy of labeling him as a "flip-flopper". Though sound bytes make this easier in today's world, the line between flip-flopper and pragmatic has always been thin.

Just as Republican Presidents had been in power most of the time from 1860 until 1932, Democrats won 7 out of 9 Presidential elections between 1932 and 1968 and with a bigger and more powerful country and a more powerful Federal Government these victories were just as, if not more significant. Republicans had to find a way to turn the tables. They did it by bringing white southern voters into their coalition by adopting religion as a part of the Republican platform. Of course, many will also argue that Republicans also played to Southern racism in subtle ways as well but however they did it, they did it well. In the course of one election cycle, Republicans managed to reverse 136 years of Southern voting patterns. Overnight the South became the crucial voting block for either party to win the Presidency. Even the 3 Democratic Presidents from 1964 to 2008, (LBJ, Carter and Clinton) were all from the South. Richard Nixon was the first to recognize the opportunity at hand. Before Nixon, abortion was not the political issue it is today. In fact, Nixon was himself Pro-Choice until he realized that he could gain a significant percentage of the religious vote by taking a firm Pro-Life stance in his 1968 campaign. Later on, Lee Atwater would refine the political tactics that would define elections until 2008. To this day, Democrats have not figured out an effective strategy against these tactics.

Jimmy Carter along with Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only Democratic Presidents elected between 1964 and 2008. What did they have in common? They were all Southern boys.

In 2008 and 2012 however, it became clear that winning the Southern vote would not be enough to elect a Republican President. Demographic shifts meant that a coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Liberal Whites could not be beaten. Now, again, Republicans are left trying to figure out how to divide the Democratic coalition. A couple "easy targets" are Hispanics and gays. Many Hispanic and gay voters already have a lot in common with Republicans, so Republicans don't have to distance themselves from their Xenophobic and Homophobic history too much to chip away at those blocks. In my opinion though, these votes won't make up for the continued demographic shifts unless something more drastic is done.

Rand Paul might just be the savior of the Republican Party

When I checked Facebook this morning, I was amazed to see many of my Republican friends anxiously posted their support for Rand Paul's Filibuster against drone attacks. Certainly, much of the support for Rand Paul may be coming from libertarians that either ally themselves more closely with his stance against taxes or those that simply hate Obama (i.e. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") but Rand Paul may have put his finger on something that could create a serious rift in the Democratic coalition. Since World War II, both parties have increased military spending and increased the American military presence around the world even there are [arguably] no serious threats to our national security. Even as our National Debt has skyrocketed, neither party has wanted to be the one to back down on military spending. Meanwhile, neither party has presented a realistic way out. Republicans talk about cutting entitlement spending but even if we completely dismantle the American social safety net we can't fix our debt problem without looking at the elephant in the room: the $700 billion we spend every year on our military (by the way I wrote about this in my last post). I believe that there are many anti-war Democrats out there that feel strongly enough that we need to cut military spending to vote for a Republican, as long as they aren't too offensive on social issues. Even if you disagree with the Libertarian views of Ron and Rand Paul, you have to respect their straightforward logic. Instead of resorting to political trickery and deception, voter suppression and gerrymandering, they are some of the only ones to actually present a clear vision and way forward for Conservatives that holds up to any serious scrutiny.

The Democratic Party has a choice about whether they want to stand with the 99% or the 1%.

Though demographic shifts are undeniable, Democrats should be careful not to get to comfortable. A major crisis is looming and Democrats can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. You can bet that Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure the latter, even if it means actually contributing to the crisis. Since not much has changed since the financial collapse of 2007/2008, the same problems (e.g. lack of serious government oversight & regulations) that caused the collapse are still in place. Just as neither party has done much to stand up to the military-industrial complex, neither party has done much to stand up to the big business and the super rich. I believe that Democrats have a unique opportunity right now to ally themselves with "The 99%" and distance themselves from the "1%". The Occupy movements as well as the popularity of some recent YouTube videos about wealth inequality demonstrate that these ideas have traction. Democrats may lose a few votes (and certainly a lot of campaign contributions) in the short term but they can afford to right now. If they make a full court press against the small number of people and corporations at the very top that have recorded record profits and wealth while the rest of us have suffered it will pay off in the long term. If and when the next crisis hits, Democrats will be in a position to blame the 1%. I know that this sounds like a childish blame game but but this is the sausage of politics. Though both parties have done a good job representing the interests of the super rich so far, if Democrats continue on this path they will be the ones to take the blame for the next collapse simply because there is a Democrat in the White House when it happens and they could pay the price for the next 20 years.

A Storm is coming...

I do not pretend to know the future, but I think history gives us many clues. Looking at the past, it is too easy for us to believe that everyone failed to see the crises that were about to happen, but this is rarely true. Most often, many people saw the storms brewing but were unable to stop them. The smart one's didn't try to stop the storm, only prepare for it. Others engaged in exercises of futility and tried to stop the inevitable. I don't know which party will do a better job preparing for the upcoming storm but if I had to guess, neither one will bother to look up to the sky until it's right on top of us.

The greatest danger

As much as people complain about the bitter partisan environment in Washington, the alternative to disagreeing about everything is that some important issues get no attention, as seems to be the case with military spending. Neither party wants to make any serious cuts to military spending and as a result we are hurling towards bankruptcy, default and possibly worse; a world war with the U.S. as the main agitator.

Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in WWII, 34th President of the United States

In 1961 Dwight Eisenhower, veteran of 2 World Wars, Supreme Commander of allied forces in the second, and a Republican President, warned of the danger of an ever more powerful "Military Industrial Complex" in his farewell address. Although he had arguably done more to create this problem than any other previous president, he surely recognized the danger at the end of his administration. The military and it's suppliers exist in every state in the Union, as intended. Some have argued that the military growth of WWII, rather than Roosevelt's New Deal and the improved world economy was what really propelled us out of the Great Depression. Whatever you choose to believe about history though, it is irrefutable that our government now sees military spending as essential to keep our economy running. It would be a death sentence for any President, Senator or Representative to propose significant military spending cuts because jobs would be lost and we would be less safe. I beg to disagree.

First, we cannot afford our military. It makes no sense to me that with a national debt of over $16 trillion, so few people even mention military spending cuts. We spend over $711 billion annually on our military, almost 5 times the amount of  the #2 spender, China (a country with almost 4 times our population). That is $2,260 per capita every year as opposed to China's $102 per capita. This comes out to a full 20% of our annual budget, ten times what we spend on education. It makes no sense to me that Republicans whine about government spending so much but never mention the biggest thing we spend money on, which also happens to be the most bloated, bureaucratic and federalized department.

Although I would argue that our military leadership has too much power over our elected representatives, they are in most ways not the problem. In many instances they haven't even asked for the things we want to give them. In fact, Congress continues to approve one unnecessary military expenditure after another, from battleships to tanks to who knows what else that the Military doesn't even want. I'm not suggesting that we just hand the military a blank check, only that they might have a better understanding of what we actually need than our Congressmen that see military spending as little more than delicious pork.

Of course, Democrats are only slightly less hypocritical. Maybe Democrats would rather see money go to "social safety net" programs than tax cuts for the rich, but that money still has to come from somewhere and I don't hear too may Democrats talking about defense cuts either. In fact, military spending is up under Obama and despite Obama's debate comments about "less bayonets and battleships", we actually have more battleships under Obama than we did under Bush. Maybe it's because there are military bases and jet manufacturers in Democratic districts too or maybe it's just because they are too afraid of being called pussies if they suggest any such cuts. And though most Democrats seem to prefer being engaged in the international community to always "going it alone", none seem to so much as suggest that a military spending that equates to the total spending of the next 13 countries combined, a military presence in 130 other countries and drones flying overhead, bombing innocent civilians might actually make us less safe?

Kaiser Wilhelm II helped foster a militaristic culture in Germany before WWI

World War I was the biggest war in history, at least until World War II. Of course, many would argue that the second World War was but an inevitable continuation of the first. As we approach the centennial of the war that kicked off a century of large and small world conflicts, historians still struggle to understand the causes. Though the assassination of Franz Ferdinand may have been the spark, the Great War would not have happened had it not been for a militaristic culture in many of the Great Powers, an entangled set of alliances and militaristic doctrines that emphasized fast, decisive blows before the enemy had time to prepare. Ironically, the first World War was a defensive war, with battle after battle ending in stalemate and nearly every attempt at breakthrough ending in disaster. Maybe I am paranoid but I don't have to stretch my imagination too much to see how it could happen again. History has shown that when nations make great armies and great weapons they find ways to use them. The alliances today between the U.S. and Israel, between Iran and Syria remind me of the alliances between Germany and the Austrio-Hungarian Empires and Russia and Serbia 100 years ago. And though it no longer takes our military months to mobilize, we still have a doctrine of "attack first, ask questions later" in a world where urban and guerrilla warfare allow a small force to defend against a larger, stronger force and it's hard to tell when, if ever, a military victory is actually accomplished.

Britain and Germany were engaged in a naval arms race before the WWI but there was only one major Naval battle in the war. Maybe they should have saved their money to develop tanks and bomber planes instead?

Se let's say we do enter a major conflict. So much of our defense spending is justified by this possibility, I think it's our job to ask the question. Are we really better off? Again, I don't think so. When WWII broke out in 1939, the U.S. army ranked a puny 17th in the world and when Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941 only one American division was on full war footing. Should we have been better prepared? Surely, yes. But stockpiling tanks, planes, bombs and rifles would most likely have hurt our ability to ultimately win the war. Just as in World War I 20 years earlier and many other major conflicts, the military technology that evolved during the war quickly made old weapons obsolete. In the first World War, both Britain and Germany invested heavily in "Dreadnaughts", giant battleships, thinking that wars of the future would be Naval wars. Yet there was only one major naval battle in the entire war. The fact that the U.S. was not invested in old, soon to be obsolete military technology at the start of the war was actually a benefit because it allowed us to concentrate fully on research, development and production of the newest technologies.

The pacifist in me would love to see our military spending reduce to somewhere around $30 Billion annually, or the size of Brazil or South Korea. In my opinion, the $681 Billion we save every year could be used to improve our social safety net, improve education, repair our infrastructure, save social security, pay for health care, start to pay off the national debt and even reduce taxes. And in my opinion, a smaller military would actually make us safer because we wouldn't seem like such a threat to the world. In my opinion, a smaller military would actually improve our ability to defend ourselves in the eventuality of a major conflict. But I am a realist. I don't see that happening any time soon. Most importantly, I just want to make sure that we don't start World War III.

If anything is to change, there have to be more voices that speak out. I don't see any reason why this can't come from either side of the aisle, but if we all consent to continued military escalation we all help to push ourselves closer and closer towards the abyss. The optimist in me thinks that if more people speak out in voices of peace and just plain common sense, reducing military spending could actually be popular. I don't really think that most of us want war, even if we're not quite as afraid of it as we should be.

Hyper Individualism

I think that a lot of our problems as a society come from a culture of hyper individualism. Basically a Rand-ian attitude of "Fuck everyone else", "I'm gonna get mine". For some, even the suggestion of any other alternative can seem like an endorsement of socialism.

Let's look at the gun control issue that has been talked about so much lately. I think that the most compelling point that "anti-gun control people" make is that if you were there when a robbery, rape, mass shooting or whatever was taking place, wouldn't you rather have a gun than not have a gun? A well publicized article in the Atlantic (published a couple weeks before Newtown) articulated this well, though you don't have to read any further than the second half of the title of the article to see that it makes a case for more gun control. Even Bill Maher admits to owning a gun for his protection. The idea is that "responsible" gun owners are not the problem (and some would take that argument to the next step... they are actually the solution to the problem). But if you look at the statistics...

- Thousands of children die from self-inflicted gun injuries (suicides) and accidents every year. Many of these are because "responsible gun owners" don't properly lock up their firearms to keep them out of the hands of their children or their children's friends.
- Introducing a firearm to a problem can often make the problem worse. Example: someone gets mugged. They pull out a gun to "defend themselves" and the bullets start flying. Which is worse, giving up the cash in your wallet or a high probability that someone gets shot?
- Even when "responsible gun owners" legally own firearms and use them for their own protection, mistakes happen.
- Mother Jones did some research on mass shootings that is very interesting. Note that there wasn't a single example where a gun was used to stop the shooting. Even when the shooter was stopped by someone that was armed, the firearm was not used.
- When people use a gun to settle a dispute, it's not gonna end well.

I think what people are saying (from the left and from the right) is that we are responsible enough to own weapons and we will make sure that no accidents happen, our guns won't fall into the wrong hands and we would never lose our temper and use our gun in an irresponsible manner but we need to be careful about what we allow for other people though, whether we advocate stricter background checks and assault weapons bans or better recognition and treatment of mental health issues. There is a clear difference between what we believe is acceptable for other people vs. what is acceptable for ourselves. This seems arrogant to me. Or maybe we are just to far removed from seeing ourselves as a member of society that we are unable to recognize the hypocrisy.

It's a similar issue with government help and the need for a "social safety net". In short, people that benefit from these programs are "moochers" and by supporting these programs we enable an ongoing refusal to take personal responsibility. But when we ourselves need the help, these programs are necessary to help us get back on our feet and contribute to society again. This hypocrisy was most hilariously exemplified by Paul Ryan and Craig T Nelson.

I think that we need to get rid of the stigma around the word "socialism". In my opinion, we need some socialism to help democracy and capitalism survive. Without it, we will inevitably end up with all of the power in the hands of a few, which will eventually result in violent revolution. It's a broader issue than just gun control and a social safety net. We have to start seeing ourselves as members of a society, not just individuals. In this society, we should have the expectation that we will be offered a helping hand if we fall upon (or are born upon) bad luck or hard times, and we have a responsibility to help others out. A rising tide raises all boats.

Every time I get in my car, I note the driving habits of people in Philadelphia. What I am always most amused by is when drivers go out of their way to cut people off or stop them from going where they want to go for no reason except possibly out of spite. It doesn't help them get anywhere any faster, and in many cases they actually slow themselves down int the long run. If I am completely honest, I fall into this trap too. And that's the point. I consider myself a competent and responsible driver, but I still act in ways that do not benefit the system sometimes. In a dog eat dog world it's hard to be a vegetarian.

Resurrection

I've decided to resurrect this blog after 2 and 1/2 years of hiatus. Why? Well, I just want a forum to formulate my thoughts on things. I have my professional blog, but I want to use that mainly for training advice and articles. I realized when I wrote a couple articles about doping that I might be crossing the line into opinion and analysis that may not be well suited to that blog. Still, I have opinions about things. I don't think that they are that unique, intellectual or even necessarily the best informed. Really, I just feel that the act of writing something helps me to organize my thoughts. Read if you like, comment if you like. I feel very strongly about some issues, but I am a pragmatist. I believe that one of our biggest problems as a country is that we don't try hard enough to see the other side of issues, so we end up arguing constantly about the most decisive parts of issues instead of trying to empathize, find common ground and actually get something done. Real changes doesn't usually happen quickly. Change comes bit by bit; step by step. Sometimes we move one step backwards and two steps forward. Sometimes we sidestep. This is frustrating to progressives but it's the price we pay for Democracy. I am hopeful that the next generation of leaders will understand that.

But one thing is clear. Change doesn't just happen, we have to fight for it. There are always powerful forces that stand to lose when we move forward. Though not all of us are able to be on the front lines of those fights, it is our duty as citizens to at least be informed and educated. This means making an effort to understand the point of view of people that we disagree with. Know your enemy.