Foreign Policy Key Issue in 2012

The following is an entry for “America’s Best Blogging Scholarship” sponsored by YourLocalSecurity.com on the prompt:  “As the nation approaches its 57th Presidential Election, we’re asking the future leaders of this country, students, to define the single most important political issue in this election. Tell us not only what that issue is, but also tell us why and how you propose we come to a solution that benefits the majority?”

Democratic strategist James Carville famously coined the slogan “It’s the economy stupid,” as part of a successful strategy to unseat George H.W. Bush in the 1992 presidential election.  With a sluggish economy, unemployment, and high debt dominating the headlines, it would seem that the election of 2012 should be run on similar lines.  However, to assume our domestic economy operates in some isolationist vacuum would be folly.  While the economy is important, candidates’ ability to outline a cohesive foreign policy in 2012 showing good international relations as essential to economic recovery is of the highest importance.  Consider the following:

Fact 1:  The economy is predictable, the world is not.

With the wild market swings of the last few years, this would seem like the most unintuitive argument.  However, in a world where the only sure things are death and taxes, market cycles come in a close third.  Sure, no one likes a down economy, but they happen… and fairly regularly too.  What are far less predictable are world events.  Were we ready for Pearl Harbor, or 9/11?  Could anyone anticipate the meteoric rise of the Chinese economy in the wake of Mao’s Cultural Revolution?  As late as 1988, a lot of observers were still operating on the assumption that the USSR would be around for quite some time.  Focusing on domestic issues and assuming the world will take of itself is worse than a mistake, it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the world’s most powerful nation.

Fact 2:  Our economy rests on trade.

From the beginning of English settlement in America this country has looked outwards to fill its coffers.  Indeed, it was because our merchant fleet was getting picked apart by the Barbary pirates that presidents Adams and Jefferson commissioned our navy.  In a country that was allergic to the idea of standing armies, we were ready to fork over the cash for a permanent navy to protect our international trade.  It is that important to us.  Today, there are few countries in the world that American does not invest in and even fewer who would refuse to trade with us.  Maintaining the proper relations with countries that are beneficial to trade is essential if we’re going to keep our ports, factories, and retailers in business.

Fact 3:  Free trade is absolutely necessary for global economic stability and security.

A lot of people will assume I’m off my rocker with this one.  “Are you kidding?” they say, “Free trade is why we’re losing jobs.”  Check the numbers friends. For every job America has directly lost due to free trade, she has created more, and higher paying ones too.  Besides the benefits of free trade domestically, free trade has also contributed to stability and security.  Who wants to fight wars, erect barriers at international borders, and raise import taxes when they could be increasing the amount of exports their country is sending out to a waiting world, thereby growing their GDP?  Right, North Korea, but when posters of your “Glorious Leader” are your contribution to world trade who can blame them for getting pissy when we all ignore them?  Still not a good argument for no free trade.

Fact 4:  The American economy benefits from a stable global order.

This is pretty self-explanatory.  Free trade only works when there is global stability.  When there is a threat of war, fears of collapsing markets, failed states, and the possibility of loose nukes opening up our markets to most of the world just doesn’t sound that appealing.

So what needs doing?  We need a foreign policy that is mutually beneficial to the domestic economy and global security.  A few suggestions:

Suggestion 1:  Deal with Iran.

As long as Iran believes that the powers that be are not going to take serious steps to check back their nuclear ambitions and their proxy wars against Israel and other regional neighbors, the Middle East will continue requiring a hyper vigilant stance that sucks time, money, materials, and attention from developing tighter trade relations in the Pacific Rim, which leads to

Suggestion 2:  Stop treating China like a black sheep little brother.

China is not a threat to the geographic American nation, but a regional challenge to American influence. Key distinction here.  We get antsy when we think in terms of the former (building bases in Australia for example), but in terms of the latter, there is room for mutual cooperation.  Both parties want to maintain trade, and both parties need a secure South China Sea to stabilize that trade.  Let’s work together on that.

Suggestion 3:  Expand export markets in Latin America. 

We cannot just be importing goods from south of the border, our goods need to be going that direction too.  In terms of geographic proximity and political stability, Latin America presents an excellent layer of insurance to our trade network that is over reliant on the unstable Middle East and mercurial Asia.

Suggestion 4:  Affirm American commitment to the little guy. 

We have a special place in our hearts for small countries with big dreams; we used to be one of those.  Despite the pounding our image has taken in recent years, many still look to America as a land of possibility and our cultural values of liberty, equality, and freedom remain our top exports.  We need a serious retread of our soft power capabilities and efforts to reach out to smaller countries (particularly in Africa and Eastern Europe) to help them build their own stable countries.

James Carville had it half right when he claimed that the big issue was “the economy, stupid.”  It is not just our economy anymore; the global economy is fundamental to American prosperity, and it is high time that a consistent foreign policy to maintain it is outlined and adhered to.

This is an official blog entry for the YourLocalSecurity.com Blogging Scholarship. If selected, I’ll receive $1000 towards my college expenses in 2012. This scholarship is sponsored by YourLocalSecurity.com

Who Gets Credit For South Sudan’s Independence?

BBC Image from Juba, South Sudan

So I was ecstatic last weekend when the Republic of South Sudan became the world’s newest country.  As a student of international relations, this development was exciting in that it achieved a long advocated end of splitting the massive country of Sudan into northern and southern halves after decades of civil war had destroyed the lives of millions.  This is no small achievement.  As a teacher, I’m excited to share the story of Sudan with my history and geography students when we study Africa this school year.  Despite the challenges still facing the infant country, this is an incredible story of conflict, hope, and fulfilled dreams.  I work hard to get my students to see the bigger world as an ever-changing place and this is a great example of how things are always changing.  Finally, as human being I’m excited to see a people long oppressed finally be given the opportunity to chart their own course.  Yes, there are a lot of reasons to be excited about South Sudan.

However, I cannot help but feel a little frustrated in the midst of the rejoicing when I consider who will be getting the credit for this momentous occasion.  Surely the South Sudanese will look to their armed forces and regale them as heroes, and the world will look to those countries that worked to bring the two sides to the bargaining table and negotiate a successful treaty.  Both were surely key in bringing about the final resolution.

BBC has also addressed an article to another key aspect of the independence movement:  the publicity campaign.  Ten to fifteen years ago, few people in the developed world were even aware of Sudan’s protracted struggle, but then high-profile movie projects like Hotel Rwanda and Tears of the Sun spotlighted the ethnic conflicts of Africa, and A-list actors like George Clooney became advocates for South Sudan’s independence.  We sat up.  We took notice.  International pressure on the regime in Khartoum began to mount as lobbying efforts swung into action on Capitol Hill and in European capitals.  South Sudan, among the world’s poorest regions had come by a massive public relations boon.  And while the glitz and glamor of Hollywood has brought the conflict into the global conversation, I really do believe that George Clooney has stolen the show from an ensemble cast of NGOs that have worked tirelessly in Sudan since the 1970s when most people could have cared less for Sudan.  I applaud the efforts of all who have contributed to the independence of South Sudan, from the Sudanese themselves to George Clooney, but I especially want to recognize the following:

Invisible Children:  For those who have seen the powerful documentary, they will know that this film was not about Sudan, but child soldiers in Uganda.  However, the filmmakers were originally en route to Sudan to film the civil war there when they stumbled across the tragic abuse of children in Uganda.  The result was an award-winning, much talked about film that brought Africa’s many simmering conflicts (including Darfur, western Sudan) into the public eye through the stories of Ugandan children.

World Vision International:  A Christian relief organization, World Vision has been active in Sudan since 1972!  Since that time, WV has had an active presence in the South with faithful workers risking their lives to bring clean water, medical supplies, and other services to a region even in the midst of a 20-year civil war.  Sounds like amazing grounds for a movie (maybe George Clooney would consider playing a Christian missionary?).

Voice of the Martyrs:  One of the most unique advocacy groups in the world, and the one that opened up my eyes to Sudan when I was in junior high and high school in the late 1990s.  VOM focuses are serving the needs of Christian individuals and communities around the world who suffer persecution for their beliefs on a daily basis.  The world pays lip service to the idea of religious freedom, but VOM works in some pretty hostile places to ensure that those who are persecuted for their Christian faith can still receive medical care, spiritual nourishment, and necessities of life.  Their work in South Sudan has included rescuing Christian children taken in slavery, providing medical care to civilians caught in the crossfire of the conflict, and bringing humanitarian aid to the poor.

These organizations, and others like them, have been going about this work faithfully for decades with little public acknowledgment (to be fair they are given a generic mention in the BBC article above), and will continue to work there even after the public once again allows its conscience to slumber where Africa is concerned.  I believe they deserve a lot of credit for their work.

 

Thank You Mr. Secretary

Gates at 9/11 Pentagon Memorial, 2010, US Army

As the Fourth of July approaches, and we prepare to celebrate our independence, it’s not a bad idea to remember the many brave men and women who continue to fight and die to maintain that independence.  Though we may generally think about our brave men and women in uniform when we think of those who defend us, we should also consider the people who write their orders, specifically:  Robert Gates.

As of today, Robert Gates is no longer our Secretary of Defense.  After five years of distinguished service in that position, and a career in public service in the intelligence and defense fields, Gates is retiring as he announced last year.

Not many people are familiar with Robert Gates, but he deserves a place among the great statesmen of the last half century, right up there with Kissinger, McNamara, and all the others.  Why?  Because not only has he demonstrated clear-sighted leadership in a difficult job in difficult times, but in his retirement he demonstrates the ideal of the American system:  Civil servants serving faithfully, then handing off the baton and going back to their private lives.  It is because of people like Gates that we have a military that truly serves the citizenry of this country.

It should also be noted that Gates inherited two messy wars and an equally messy bureaucracy from his predecessor Donald Rumsfield.  So intent was Rummy on mishandling two wars that things became cluttered at home too as was evidenced by the 2007 scandal of poor treatment of soldiers at the Walter Reed Medical Center.  Gates calmly and sincerely addressed the needs of soldiers and their families here, while simultaneously implementing the “surge” policy in Iraq and later Afghanistan, perhaps the policy he’ll be most known for.

In adopting the “surge” policy, Gates committed America to not just ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (troops were scheduled to be out by 2011), but ending it well.  It would have been easier to just hold position and wait it out, but Gates knew what soldiers desired:  honorable victory, a job well done, and he went for that.

Reading through his biography on Wikipedia, or on the DoD’s website one is impressed with the man’s singular focus on keeping America safe, but in a manner befitting our highest ideals.

His short farewell speech early this week was both humble and distinguished.  We need more like him.

China’s Losing Battle to Be a Superpower

By TWR Cartoons, http://www.toonpool.com/cartoons/Superpower%20China_100070#

As a debate coach at Biola University, I’m very excited about events in China this summer.  A member of the National Forensics Association, Biola will be participating in Lincoln-Douglas debate that will focus on foreign policy with China this year.  As I’ve begun studying China and its global position this summer, I’ve been struck by the fact that no one seems to be addressing China’s superpower status.

Maybe it’s because everyone longs for the oddly more secure days of the Cold War that they look to find another power to balance America and they think China fits the bill.  Or maybe it’s because some individuals, even in this country, want the Age of America to be superseded by someone, anyone, else….  Again, China seems to fit the bill.  The most populous country, the fastest growing economy (currently #2 in the world), a military aiming for a broader global role, nuclear arsenal, and manned space flights all seem to indicate that China is indeed the superpower it claims to be.  Indeed, it seems like China’s superpower status is no longer a question in the minds of most observers.  However, after closer inspection of the Chinese economy and military I really am beginning to think that what people are commenting on is really a facade, and that China’s claim to, and hold on, superpower status is in fact fragile to false.

First, consider the economy.  So they’re #2.  But this economic growth is built on a shaky foundation.  James Petras notes that the Chinese economy is split in two:  A weak, domestic Chinese economy, and an industrial powerhouse that is predominantly run by multinational corporations.  Petras argues that this is creating some deep socioeconomic fissures in Chinese society as those participating in the multinational economy are growing increasingly more wealthy and powerful while those in the domestic economy continue in poverty.  Battles over land use and ownership are an excellent and heart breaking illustration of Petras’ analysis.

Second, the military.  Yes China is increasing its budget, and their worst kept secret is that they’re getting ready to launch an aircraft carrier.  This understandably has its neighbors jittery as well as US military planners, but hold on.  This “new” aircraft carrier is a refitted Soviet era ship that was originally constructed in 1985!  When it’s launched, the Chinese will have one carrier group to our 11.  Yes, China is increasing its military spending, but let’s not forget that such spending is still a fraction of what the US spends and its being used on old technology.  But what about their stealth fighter?  Please, stealth was so Desert Storm.  While the Chinese are working are a stealth fighter, we’ve deployed the F-22 and will be deploying the F-35.  For the Chinese, stealth tech is new technology, for us it comes standard.  I would also point out that in military deployments the Chinese currently deploy fewer peacekeepers than Bangladesh!  Bang…..la……desh.

Is China a strong country?  Sure, but a little perspective is still necessary, particularly in the world of international relations.  China is certainly growing and seeking a bigger global role, but does that necessarily mean that it is able to sustain that?  Is the Chinese regime experiencing a little hubris regarding its sphere of influence?  What does this mean for the future of Chinese-American relationships?  NFA debaters, I’m looking at you.

Weiner’s Scandal, America’s Problem

After nearly three weeks of muckraking, allegations, denials, reallegations, and redenials New York congressman Anthony Weiner is finally stepping down.  I applaud him for making the right decision, but his failure to take the high road and resign immediately after his story came to light severely damages his integrity, and exposes a moral problem for America.

We love public scandals.  Not only do they give us reasons to dislike those whose politics we disagree with, it provides a public measuring rod to which we can sanctimoniously hold ourselves and move on with life assured that we’re not as dirty as “that guy.”  We’re also doing more than that.  The public disgrace and scandal that is layered on public figures who find themselves in situations similar to Weiner’s paints these individuals as having no character and integrity, and what is created is an impossibly high bar of moral perfection for our leaders.  But is integrity measured by moral perfection?  I don’t think so.

For an example I look to the ancient Israelite King David.  In one of the great scandals of the Judeo-Christian tradition, David slept with Bathsheba, another man’s wife, got her pregnant, tried to cover it up, and, failing that, murdered the husband so that he could marry the woman.  Weiner is a novice at scandal compared to this guy.  However, the biblical story does not end there.  When confronted with his crime, David immediately acknowledges his wrongdoing as being a violation of God’s moral law, and humbly accepts the consequences.  He’s not called a man after God’s own heart for just being a morally upstanding figure, but also because of how he responds to his mistakes.

Now those among the Republican party, giddy over another scandal to knock the Democrats with, and having the potential to pick up another seat in the 9th District may mockingly say that Weiner has no integrity, which is why he was behaving the way he was.  However, I disagree with such a suggestion.  Integrity does not mean perfection, but somehow it has come to mean that in our political landscape and its created a larger moral problem for America.  We have become so cynical that we accept the reality of individual’s sexual dalliances, but still require the more public among us to somehow live to a higher standard of perfection.  In applying such a double standard, we lose our understanding of integrity, and our ability to show mercy. 

Men and women of integrity are not perfect, but are humble enough to quickly acknowledge their failings when confronted with them, correct them, and receive the consequences without complaint.  Is Weiner such a man?  Hard for me to say, but the reactions this scandal has engendered leaves me wondering at our capacity for mercy when a public figure fails to meet our impossible standards.

Double Dip and the New Stagflation

By Tim Robinson

The 1970s were a lost decade in the history of the American economy with high energy prices, high inflation, and high unemployment (the triple threat).  Coming on the end of almost 30 years of consistent growth and wealth creation, economists were baffled by this seemingly permanent cycle of recession.  The Keynesian model found its great antithesis in the stagnated 1970s just like the laissez-faire model founds its antithesis in the Great Depression, and a new economic term was coined:  stagflation.

Simply put, stagflation occurs when inflation and unemployment are happening at the same time.  Under the Keynesian model, controlled inflation was thought to create economic growth, which would mean more jobs as consumers spent their money and producers used that revenue to create more goods for consumers to spend their surplus wealth on.  Relative surplus that is, since inflation meant that purchasing power dropped….  No worries, however, since an industrial economy and synthetic materials enable cheap mass production of most consumer items.  Under this model a phenomenon like stagflation was impossible.  The 1970s changed that real quick.  Inflation was too high and as consumers felt their purchasing power diminish in the face of the inflation, and their energy costs go up because of oil embargos, they stopped purchasing consumer goods.  With a hesitant consumer market and increasing production and transportation costs, businesses shut down and unemployment rose.  It was a perfect storm.

Jump forward to 2007 and the onset of the credit crunch plunged America into its latest economic crisis.  The economy shrunk, people got laid off, and value of the dollar dropped against competing currencies.  The Bush and Obama administrations responded with retreads of Keynesian ideas:  Pumping money into the system to spur consumer spending and business output.  Though these policies seemed to stop the slide, the hoped for growth has failed to materialize and what had been voiced as plausible is now becoming very possible:  a Double Dip Recession.  Put another way, it’s the return of Stagflation.

CNN, in cooperation with Fortune, reported today that five key indicators  of the economy (hiring, home sales, stock market, family income, and manufacturing)  have failed to achieve sustainable recovery levels despite four years of government bailouts and subsidizing.  

Worse yet, those indicators show that despite some signs of recovery, certain variables have canceled out any gains.  Home sales are a great example of this.  Standard & Poors/Case-Shiller home price index has recently reported a new low in falling home prices despite tax breaks and credits for new home buyers.  This is an excellent example of stagflation at work:  The market fails (credit crunch, foreclosures, etc), the government steps in with subsidies that drive up inflation (to encourage consumers), but the market does not respond because other variables are affecting it (unemployment, lack of available credit, etc).

Stagflation occurs when an administration fails to account for economic variables that would affect consumer behavior and choice.  The result is often misguided policies and wasted money (home buyer credits, Cash for Clunkers, etc.).  One could claim initial gains and successes, but these mask a systemic instability, and on this count the market doesn’t lie.  Major indicators are showing that government-generated inflation has failed to create a consumer-driven economic reboot, and that the economy is not recovering as businesses and families turn inward to shore up their own financial holdings. 

The market is not demanding more goods and services, the demand is clearly for stability and less debt at both national and individual levels.  When the government finally recognizes this demand and begins working to supply it by stabilizing the money supply, balancing the budget, and reducing its market controls, we can expect systemic stability and a return to investor confidence that will make a more sustainable recovery possible.

Graphic Organizer of the American Economy Since 2007

Morning Jay: A Formidable Republican Field | The Weekly Standard

Morning Jay: A Formidable Republican Field | The Weekly Standard.

Jay Cost writes a compelling piece on the electability of the current frontrunners in the GOP race:  Huntsman, Pawlenty, and Romney.  While I’m not entirely convinced that Cost is correctly interpreting the mood of the public, I think he provides an interesting piece analysis that is a good counterargument to my previous post.

Why Republicans Want Obama Reelected

As the 2012 Election picture begins to take shape, there’s growing commentary on the weaknesses of the Republican field.  Major contenders (at least potentially so) have pulled out of the running leaving Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty the nominal contenders at the moment.  The Wall Street Journal made an intriguing observation today that the pull out of numerous high-profile Republicans has left many in the party wondering just what is going on.  Has the GOP surrendered 2010 to Obama without a fight?  I don’t think so.  In fact, I think the Republicans are sensing something bigger than a presidential election is at stake.  Let’s connect the dots:

Polls:  While Osama bin Laden’s death has provided a beleaguered presidency with a bump in the polls, most pundits seem to think that bump will be short-lived and the RCP average really bears that out.  However, despite the poll bump this only indicates a sense of goodwill towards the president, not necessarily his party as every measure indicates that a majority of Americans still favor the repeal of health care, and think the country is going in the wrong direction.  These numbers indicate that the president is not in a secure position with voters.

The Economy:  Major indicators still show that the touted economic recovery is at best not moving forward, and at worst may not even exist.  This continued frustration over the economy lends urgency to the budget and debt battles on Capitol Hill, debates that the Republicans are largely controlling the public’s ear on.

Budget and Debt Debates:  As a party swept into Congressional power last year on a wave of voter frustration and protest, the Republicans are enjoying the position of being able to stonewall a lot of Obama administration legislative efforts without losing too much political capital with voters.  This makes it difficult for the Obama administration to manuever, but simultaneously engages the GOP in a dangerous game of fiscal chicken with the Dems as each side waits for the other to give amid growing voter clamor for resolution to deficit crisis. 

Taking the above into consideration, the Republicans clearly need some legislative victories to maintain their momentum coming out of the midterms.  They cannot be satisfied to just delay/stop Obama legislation, they need to respond with some of their own, but that requires a majority in both houses of Congress.  Only with Congress firmly in the Republican grip can a clear battle between the parties ensue in the form of Congress vs. President.  Hence the

HYPOTHESIS:  Republicans need three things to happen in 2012 to strengthen their hold on power.  First, Obama needs to get reelected, the GOP  must retain control of the House, and the GOP must take the Senate.  Given the “weakness” of the Republican presidential field, the first need is moving forward.  The second will be a challenge if the Obama administration can tout a victory on the budget, but can still be done given the majority that was achieved last year.  The third is where the push has to be.  Thirty-three Senate seats are up for grabs next year, and 23 are Democrat caucus. 

If the Republicans can gain control of Congress in 2012, they can ensure that Obama’s second term is a lame-duck, and turn the “Party of No” label back on a president who begins to veto all their measures.  The resulting deadlock would be incredibly problematic for Democrats come 2016 and would provide a strong boost to the GOP bid to retake the White House.  If you’re a Republican strategist in 2012, you almost want Obama to win.  It would be a Pyrrhic victory as loss of the Senate would stop the Obama “Change Train” dead in its tracks.  If you’re the GOP in 2012, don’t waste talent on a race where a victory can hurt your party long term.  Make short term legislative gains in preparation for long term rule.

State of the Union Delivers Mixed Signals to America

Despite disagreeing with most of Obama’s ideas about government, I was reminded tonight of why I just like to listen to the guy talk:  He can deliver a good speech.  If oratory were a national sport (pity it’s not) he’d be a yearly contender for a title.  Unfortunately, populist Obama is probably enjoying his bully pulpit a little too much as tonight’s State of the Union speech did little to achieve any sense of connection with the American people while it gloried in rhetorical flair.

That’s not to say he didn’t do some good things.  I think Obama laid out a very clear plan as to where he wants to go in the near future, and certainly attempted some version of damage control after last week’s debilitating Senate loss in Massachusetts.  The issue is not with the words of his speech so much as it is subtext undergirding them, which clearly indicated that he was in no conciliatory mood regarding his opponents, nor was he open to new ideas.

Evidence Exhibit A:  the body language.  I know I  heard him speak of no-bipartisanship and both parties needing to work together to help America, but I saw him looking at the Republicans most of the time.  Additionally, one commentator noted that on his way out he did not move to shake hands with Republican leadership, nor did they make moves to shake hands with him.  His dig at his opponents for not  applauding some initiatives came off as imperious and insensitive, which does not ingratiate himself to a party that he is hoping to meet with and honestly discuss his legislative agenda.

Evidence Exhibit B:  I heard  him state that it was time to move forward in creating jobs, opening new energy sources, creating tax cuts, etc.  However, I remember that those things were either promised on the campaign trail, or flatly argued against as being faulty (in the case of tax cuts he first called for them, and then later said that Bush’s tax cuts contributed to the recession… wha’…!?!).

Evidence Exhibit C:  I heard Obama say that he wanted to hear new ideas for health care reform from his opponents, but I watched him lecture those same opponents on responsible governance as though they were my AP Government class.  Paternalism on the part of an executive is not exactly looked upon as a republican virtue in our land.  I’m curious to hear how that “meeting” with GOP leaders in Congress goes next month.

Evidence Exhibit D:  I heard Obama call for increased security and more action in securing our borders, but I didn’t hear any mention of Gitmo closure and civil trials for dangerous terrorists and foreign combatants in the heart of our greatest cities.

Evidence Exhibit E:  I heard Obama demand less lobbyist influence and greater transparency of proceedings, but I saw the gathered members of his cabinet and was reminded that some half-dozen of them used to work as lobbyists.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.  Good speech though it was, the words did not fit the context, and the subtext did not fit  reality.  The ultimate impression is that the President was attempting to blow the hot air of populist rhetoric into the sagging sails of a ship of state that is becalmed amidst the shoals of public disapproval…  I’m not sure 70 minutes of blowing did the trick.

Neither Party Can/Should Celebrate Massachusetts Results

Democrats and other Obama-loving liberals can say what they want about the results of yesterday’s special election in Massachusetts, but the fact of the matter remains:  that election was a referendum on the Obama administration and his Congress, which indicated growing frustration among voters in no uncertain terms.  To lose a Senate seat (with four years still on it) that had been held for 50 years in a deeply blue state to a GOP challenger at a moment in time in which the American people are supposed to be clamoring for more government help in a time of crisis is gut blow of a reality check.

That being said, I wouldn’t be dancing just yet if I were the Republicans.  True, you really set Obama at a disadvantage; and yes, you may have gotten your fiibuster back, but those accomplishments pale in comparison to the greater lessons that hopefully will be learned by both parties in the aftermath of this election.

First, you, Congress, are not the power.  We are the power.  We, the people, say whether you stay or go; and we, the people, are not happy right now.  The last year has shown a Congress that is dangerously out of step with the American populace that it purports to represent.  The cap-and-trade and healthcare fiascos have shown that Congress sees itself as being in Washington to rule and not to represent, and the American people have begun to wake up to the fact that there is a difference between the two.

Second, if a seat that has belonged to one party for 50 years is not safe in this environment, then no seat is safe.  No matter the party you’re from you cannot afford to ignore the fact that almost half of American voters now consider themselves independents and will vote accordingly if they think they can change anything (forgive us, if we’re not as cynical as you Congress, we still think we can make a difference).

Third, the Obama administration must accept the fact that it is not the American Messiah.  Maybe people wanted it to be, but that first enamored glow is past.  Obama cannot expect to tell the American people what’s good for them without expecting some kind of retort, and the retort has been given.  The Obama administation must acknowledge and act as though it is participating in a social contract.

So whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican office holder today, please realize a few things from Massachusetts.  Realize that the American government does not exist for your own pleasure.  Realize that your office can be as easily lost as it was laboriously gained.  Realize that you serve a populace of free people that desire the maintenance, not the cooptation of that freedom.  Realize that you are a public servant, and that servant’s who don’t perform, don’t keep their jobs.