The AFL-CIO

Well, it's official: the AFL-CIO got a divorce on its 50th anniversary. With it has fallen the greatest grassroots activism base of the Democratic party. The new blood - led mostly by Andy Stern of Service Employees International Union, who is joined by Jimmy Hoffa the Second of Teamsters - were unwilling to fork out the big bucks to pay for Democratic candidates who strangely keep failing to get elected. So they split off to focus on recruitment in order to rebuild their dwindled rank and file. The reasoning goes, when only 8% of workers in the country are union members, political clout cannot be expected.

Without making a call either way on unions - my opinion on that subject varies from case to case and decade to decade - I would like to point out that this represents the fracturing of a Democratic voter base while the Republican counterpart is burgeoning. The Republican counterpart to labor unions is, of course, conservative Protestant evangelicals who are interested in grassroots (hat tip for Ned Ryun, the man: http://www.generationjoshua.org). Last election cycle Christian homeschoolers alone mobilized unknown thousands in cities all across the U.S. Generation Joshua, the organization I worked for at the time, had a team of 85 homeschooled high school students who did a huge chunk of the grassroots work in the Columbus metropolitan area. This movement has quite clearly nowhere to go but up.

My conclusion is, the next election's grassroots landscape will see a marked shift in political power.

On Bangladesh and the Decline of Western Civilization

Hat tip to Mr. Piotrowicz, with whom I carried on two distinct and intriguing e-mail conversations this morning....

The first was on Bangladesh... apparently, his valiant continuing effort to protect the country from nuclear terrorism culminated in a discovery that Al-Qaeda terrorists are hiding in this small South Asian country, near the nation's rather prolific single port. This called to my memory some research I did on Bangladesh - why this place could distract both of us in our ongoing efforts to maintain relevance I have no clue - that indicated the primary challenge anybody moving into the country might face. What's the problem? Over a third of the country gets washed away every year during the rainy season.

I can immediately see the problems, starting with the maps that they sell on http://www.virtualbangladesh.com: accurate only nine months out of the year, the rest of the time we look like part of the Indian Ocean.

Flood insurance would make a killing, except that nobody really has a net worth to insure - all the sheep and shepherds and musk oxen get washed away in the flood every year, along with that suburban mud hut we just came up with at the end of last year's disaster.

You would think that it might occur to people, "For the last twenty years, my house&home and all my earthly possessions have washed away in a flood every year. I think I'll get a summer home in Nepal."

Be on the lookout for terrorism sponsored by Bangladeshi Al-Qaeda.... but wait until at least December so they can dig their dastardly implements - and colaborers - out of the mud.

On the decline of Western Civilization - this is the diagnosis Mr. Piotrowicz presented to me after I gave him a rough approximation of one of our clients' medication tally. She was taking a total of something like 21 pills every day and listed their various side effects, usually limited to "sleepiness" and "the taste gives her a headache." Laughable, tragic, and highly unfortunate, we all can probably agree. Mr. Piotrowicz even believes he would rather die than dose so heavily. I agree with him, at least in his case although I'm undecided on my own.

But the reason this woman is so overmedicated is that we have to advise our clients they are unlikely to get SSD (Social Security Disability) benefits unless they frequently see a physician, psychiatrist, and/or hospitals & other medical facilities for their ailments.

All of this is almost always rather visibly smoke and mirrors when what the client really needs to do is take better care of their health and sometimes get a more sedentary job. In the meantime, we manage to screw Uncle Sam and thus the American taxpayer, giving a lot of these people 80% of their salary for the rest of their lives for doing nothing. A systemic flaw.

Well... I think Western Civilization will pull through this one. Think of it this way: we could all be underwater.

NPR

Of all the things on which I am uncertain in today's international landscape, I am certain that Americans are becoming less competitive comparative to the citizens developing countries. For every American college student without a lot of vision for his career, there are at least a dozen programmers, engineers, and other technical personnel from India, China, or the Philippines. Our population is moving regrettably toward complacency. Not that there isn't hope - America is still at the top of the pile and rules the world for creativity - but the next couple of decades need to see the resurrection of motivated work ethics and intelligence. Education reform would help.

It is for precisely this reason that I appreciate the existence of NPR - National Public Radio. I am a faithful listener - not because I agree with the (obviously and horribly liberal) bias, but because it is a broadcast center that favors and cultivates two vital aspects of culture: intellectual criticism and appreciation for the fine arts. If enough doctors, lawyers, businessmen and students make a practice of listening to their local NPR stations, America will have a better chance at competing with the rising stars of the third world in generations to come.

The key reason for this good word is that the content of the programs is so well selected. It is difficult to find a program that is not rich in old classical music, complete with the nomina opi and a brief history of the composer.

So I am a conservative in staunch favor of well-selected public broadcasting.

How It Happened In London

The Wall Street Journal's Europe Report ran an interesting story this morning, detailing the struggles Europe faces in counterterrorism. The synopsis is, the desire for maximum civil liberties conflicts with the desire for maximum security. European nations still have dramatically different legal codes - recall the difference between civil and common law, one based on the Napoleonic Code and the other on centuries of British verdicts - but they have all opened their borders to each other and allowed for virtually free passage between nation-states.

The result is that "insiders" with affiliations to Al-Qaeda or other international terrorist groups can travel virtually uninhibited throughout the continent, and of course Britain.

What is to be done?

Press on, Mr. Blair

Early this morning, London was assaulted by European Al-Qaeda operatives who detonated bombs on a double-decker bus and three subway stations. The attacks were designed to coincide with the G8 summit over which Mr. Blair is presiding, and news that the 2008 Olympics will be held in London. Shame on these "militants" so-called for attacking civilians. Maybe if they had better ideas, they would have recourse to legitimate means of making them known.

The latest casualty count has 40 dead and 300+ wounded, a horrible catastrophe. My deepest sympathies lie with those who were affected.

To Mr. Blair I say, Press on. You have been right all along in the face of horrific criticism from all corners. (Other than that other corner, the one in which Mr. Bush is under the same kind of fire.) Your political opponents will never wake up and realize that these terrorists are not "freedom fighters," but terrorists. They will always criticize you for working hard to keep them safe. Thank you for embracing your grim fate as a sole purveyor of realism in a continent that seems to have broken its chain to reality and spun off into folly, like Nietzsche's world without a moral compass.

We should all thank God for a strong leader in Britain, our oldest and best ally - a man who may not get it right on global warming, but has seen the light when it comes to terrorism.

Right About the Gap, Wrong About China

I think that's how my final analysis of The Pentagon's New Map will conclude. Barnett is absolutely right about the non-integrating gap as a strategic problem that can be (mostly, anyway) mitigated by ushering in connectivity. Sure, Muslim extremists are religiously motivated, but corrupt them with a pile of cash, TiVo, the internet, and Big Macs.... and maybe most of them will get the picture and leave us alone. (A vulgar rendition of The End of History - sorry Francis Fukuyama.) North Koreans are just like South Koreans or Chinese or Japanese or any other Pacific Rim culture - give them technology and the right focus for their energy and they will make amazing things happen. Kim Jong-Il will have to go first, of course, but they're not doomed to state failure by much besides forced disconnectivity.

But China - China is still a problem. They are remilitarizing at a drastic (maybe not alarming, but drastic) rate and they see us as the future enemy. We see them as the same (Barnett points out that Pentagon strategic planning has been preparing to match up against China since 1994). Just because they buy out all our technology and sell us loads of cheap toys doesn't mean they won't someday constitute a serious threat. We need to be wary of that nation. I'm not saying World War IV in two decades, just advocating that we don't dismiss a threat based on economic interdependency.

On The Pentagon's New Map

I just reached page 161 of The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett, one of the key strategic analysts the Pentagon turned to after September 11th. I love it and hate it. It is extraordinarily simple, but it confuses me.

Barnett's thesis divides the world into two distinct, opposing types (I suppose is the best word), the Functioning Core and the Non-Integrating Gap. Conflict is the result of disconnectivity, he argues; connect the Third World (Dr. Barnett, sorry for the Cold-War terminology) to the functioning world and everybody will get along. Entities like Iran (which is disconnected for religious purposes) North Korea (which is disconnected for ideological/personal purposes), and Al-Qaeda (which in Barnett's view seeks to disconnect the Middle East from the civilized world for ideological purposes) present the greatest threat to American security.

The points which generate the greatest reluctance in my realist soul are three. First, he suggests we will never develop conflict with China because they have begun the inevitable road to political reform (Deng Xiaoping, of course...) through economic growth. I hesitate. Second, he believes the eventual abolition of major conflict is possible if we handle this crucial time properly. He is an optimist; I am not. (My favorite statement was that the Gap can transition from Hobbes to Kant (Perpetual Peace - the apparent state of the Core) through Locke (rule of law). Third, he believes that making the jump from seeking national security to seeking Core security is the most effective way to protect America. That creates discomfort in my American nationalist skeletal system.

Comments are welcome here... I am struggling through it and asking my friends. Is there a better way to interpret the strategic environment?

The End of the World As We Know It

Hat tip to REM: http://www.rlyrics.com/R\REM/ItstheEndoftheWorldAsWeKnowItAndIFeelFine.asp

I grew up in an evangelical Christian family... we watched the Tim LaHaye movies and even read a couple of the Left Behind books. We went to seminars and listened to sermons about eschatological disasters in "The End Times," based on little-heard-of prophecies in the Bible. (Corrective note on behalf of my dad: we're reasonable people. . . we believe the world has a beginning and an end, and nobody knows when the end will come. The following claims did not originate in my home.)

I'm not a Biblical prophecy expert, although I swear I'll dig into the field someday and discover my own positions on eschatology - it's a fascinating field and I would not discredit its pursuers for the life of me. In my circle of acquaintances, I've heard patently ridiculous claims, including one that China is going to come attack us someday as an act of God to punish America for immorality. Hm. Well I can't say I would blame Him in such an instance, but let's be realistic. Besides, I remember the same people saying the same thing about the USSR nuking us, or the Y2K disaster destroying our society. I discredited the USSR thing when I was 6 years old - and that was before the coup. The Y2K deal? I was a programmer, need I say more?

All this aside, I wonder sometimes about catastrophe theories. They are entrenched in the mind of man. I am a fan of inevitable globalization and development theories - I love Fukuyama and Julian Simon - but could it all come crashing down around us with something almost random, almost accidental?

It turns out, at this very moment there are people circulating theories and possibilities on this very subject. And all of a sudden, they are legitimate voices in the foreign policy world! Here are the two I'm thinking about:

First, the Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) Threat. In this theory, propounded by heavyweights such as James Woolsey (who I met in January at an FDD event - http://www.defenddemocracy.org, a fantastic organization), terrorists or rogue nation-state actors could detonate a medium-sized ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead some 300-400 miles above the United States. Some minutes thereafter, the electromagnetic pulse emitted by the explosion would hit the continental United States and parts of Canada and Mexico. Ouch! Every computer motherboard would get zapped (like putting a powerful magnet on top of your laptop)...and some people say our entire cellphone, power-grid, and information infrastructure would fail also. And slash, there goes the heel on the mighty Achilles of American dominance. Suddenly, without all our UBERsexy military technology (sorry feminists about the sexualization of military technology - ask Edward Piotrowicz if you see him what my opinion is on Lockheed Martin missile technology), we might even be unable to effectively respond, or even figure out who nailed us.

Load of crap? I hope so.

The second major apocalyptic threat is propounded, to my dismay, in my favorite foreign policy journal, Foreign Affairs. This is the Avian Flu - a chicken bug from somewhere in the third world. What the....., you say? FA devoted the entire issue to this "threat"! Turns out, if this little bug that's killing a serious chunk of the chicken supply in China just happens to make a solid jump to the human species - and it is mutating fast - then we could suddenly see an international pandemic that would kill millions, shut down ports and airports, ruin globalization, and bring the whole world into a season of dark horror. The principal comparison Laurie Garrett (don't doubt her credentials no matter your politics - she won the Peabody, the Pulitzer, AND the Polk awards for journalism) makes is das UBERbug of 1918, disastrously complicated by the failure of the evil Woodrow Wilson to stop it. But the language Garrett uses is a little more evocative of the bubonic plague back in 1397.

I'm still reading the issue, so I'll improve my understanding of the situation, but what could we do to arrest the course of carnage if this pandemic came about? A sobering question, one that FA intends to force upon the country before it may be too late.

So there you have it - admired personalities in foreign policy are saying the whole world order might just collapse sometime soon. Well don't pull out of the market because I mentioned it... eat, drink, and be merry and keep those stocks up there for me. But don't forget you heard it here first!

Niall Ferguson

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301faessay84207/niall-ferguson/sinking-globalization.html

He's an eminent historian - http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/staff/other/ferguson.htm - and The Pity of War was chilling, awful, and very well-documented. And in Foreign Affairs a few months back, he argued that Globalization II (Globalization I being the period from the rise of American and British naval power to the Great War) could come to a screeching halt (cliche-PRAY for my writing) and witness yet another descent into war.

The article gave me a pang or two of worry for my progeny and my portfolio. Ferguson and I share very little in perspective and experience, as I am a self-proclaimed neophyte and only 20 years old. But if I may elevate myself, Ferguson and I have a shared perspective of human nature, and it is pessimistic. People suck. And we're not above throwing away all of this wealth and prosperity over some petty dispute in a region of the world nobody has noticed except for top-level strategists.

Will we do it? Can we do it? Is it up to us? Read my next post for some intriguing thoughts....

The China Threat?

What do you think about China? That's a huge question, and has been at just about any point in Western Civilization since we really discovered the place sometime back in the 15th century or so.

But today it's all over the news - people hate it, love it, embrace it, want to push it away. Chinese businesses are buying out American business everywhere... economist.com points out that Chinese international mergers & acquisitions are off the chart this year. With this whole political-business mess about CNOOC's offer for Unocal, I find myself for the first time ever entirely without a valid opinion on the issue. I can cite both sides.

For 20 years old, I am a boldly opinionated fellow. I criticize top foreign policy theorists and policy-makers on both sides of the aisle with probably arrogant alacrity. I have generally well-formed, well-argued, and well-developed principles of approaching all levels of foreign and domestic policy. But what to do with China?

I think the reason for this is my determined drive to learn everything about the international situation from a U.S. strategic policy approach. This summer I am reading The New Chinese Empire and What It Means for the United States by Ross Terrill, as well as The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett. Both men have a tremendous amount of knowledge about the China and the international situation, and each argues persuasively for a different approach.

The questions I have are these, which I will try to answer in my spare time:

Does China present a legitimate military threat, or is it just a Pentagon construction to keep budget money flowing for sexy new military toys? (Apologies to my Pentagon friends who may think this is a betrayal - I'm all about sexy military toys and want budget money flowing that direction as much as any neoconservative hawk. I just wonder what the likelihood of its use would be.)

Should we let Chinese companies buy out critical U.S. technology and energy firms?

Can we better compete with China economically?

Is the yuan as dramatically undervalued as we say? (The Economist says no.)

What about Taiwan? Is there going to be a naval war in the strait, or will cooler heads prevail (cliche...sorry)? And if so, how will it play out? Is Niall Ferguson right when he says that Chinese political&military officials believe the U.S. would pull out of a conflict if they sunk one of our aircraft carriers? (As my pal Jonathan Krull, a State Department intern, is fond of responding to this, "Bull f---ing s---!")

There are billions more, but I have to get back to work on this database (blogging at work - shhh!). BTW, a shameless plug for my summer workplace, the best PLM software solutions company in the world: http://www.ugs.com. And now that I'm putting all of their company info in order for them, they'll be even better. How do I wind up with these projects?