Neocon Foreign Policy: Freedom by Bombing

This post will be a not-comprehensive rejection of the neocon foreign policy. Twitter for the past week has been filled with neocons trying to justify their unnecessary murder for democracy. Neocon is actually a combination of two words: “Neo” meaning New. “Con” meaning conservative. I believe neocon foreign policy can probably be traced back to the beginning of American foreign policy. (This may be another post) For the purpose of this post, I think the appropriate place to contextualize the beginning of Neocon foreign policy is 9/11/2001. (Some sources say the 1960s were the birth) Yes, the World Trade Center attacks began the Neocon movement. After the attacks in the following months, there was a push for a war against the countries supposedly harboring the terrorists who carried out the attacks. Unfortunately the Bush Administration ignored the fact that Saudi Arabia was actually the home nation of most the terrorists. Very convenient because Saudi Arabia is a close American ally.

The push for war in first Afghanistan and then Iraq was put forth the loudest by conservatives. Historically, there has always been members of congress called War Hawks. There members traditionally are the loudest voices for war. Also just because the term Neocon contains conservative doesn’t mean it only applies to conservative political leaning. Neocon foreign policy is a bipartisan activity. As far as I’m concerned, I think Vice President Dick Cheney was the unspoken leader of the Neocons. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, a well fed (government contracts) military contractor before his selection to VP. He also served as secretary of defense for a stint under Clinton. I’ve mentioned before that Cheney stayed on as a senior advisor for Halliburton even after taking office. He had plenty of motivation to push the US into two more wars.

We also have to remember that the War on Terror as Bush termed it, was against specifically the terrorist group Al Qaeda, who was known to train and hide in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In classic American foreign policy, the Iraq war had shaky grounds for going in. Saddam Hussein was accused of having weapons of mass destruction which were never found. The false flag plant is not a new tactic in America foreign policy. Nearly every war has at least one, Vietnam War–Gulf of Tonkin, World War 1– Sinking of the Lusitania, World War 2– Pearl Harbor (US knew Japan would attack), Spanish American War– Bombing of the USS Maine… just to name a few. You can start to see the formula for the necon foreign policy forming.

President George W. Bush might have been the beginning of neocon foreign policy but he certainly wasn’t the only one. After Bush’s presidency, the strategy of trying to prevent future conflicts by invading on the assumption of a threat was given a name. It was called the Bush Doctrine. The funny part of all this is that Democratic President Barack H. Obama really cemented the Neocon foreign policy. Obama use preventative war and drone striking in countries such as Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Plus he continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said Neocon isn’t exclusively a conservative thing.

Now that we understand what Neocon foreign policy is, I think it’s time to completely reject it as a good form of foreign policy. The first thing I want to say is that America has a position in world power struggle as a hegemonic power. Hegemonic means predominant power. The hegemon position allows America to act in ways that would otherwise be checked by similarly powerful countries. I believe once America loses hegemony, the Neocon foreign policy dies with it. (I’d be lying if I said we aren’t close to losing it) When I look around the world, I don’t see any country using the same style of foreign policy. Which is weird, especially if you think about President Trump’s main enemy China.

China is the hegemon in Asia. China controls nearly all of the Asian sphere of influence. There are many differences in America and China but I think there is one similarity which makes this foreign policy comparison relevant. China’s government, the Chinese Communist Party wants to spread communism just as much as American spreads democracy. Hear me out. The CCP approaches foreign policy very differently than America. China uses more soft power to persuade countries to do whatever it is that China wants. Soft power is things like trade deals, sanctions, border controls, and currency or anything not involving the military. Soft power can be both positive and negative in terms of influence. The US only uses sanctions in soft power, and unfortunately for Trump, he wrongly tried to use tariffs. (Protectionist policies don’t work)

The differences in government style definitely affect the ability of the US to use soft power. The Chinese government has very fine control over every aspect of the government and the economy. Most big industries in China are owned by the government like banking and energy. The US democracy is pretty clunky in that every needs to be voted on and leaders change every four years. You’ll notice that you never hear about China in recent years engaging in any kind of war-like behavior. Some Neocons might tell you because the US would rebuttal them. But in all honesty, the Chinese don’t the fear the US military because their military is larger. The Chinese haven’t been ignoring their military, they have built a lot of battleships and aircraft carriers in recent years. The point here is that there is nothing with using soft power.

The neocon obsession with war is sick. The real problem is that most of these neocons probably have never fought in a war. Their children will never go to war. Take it from me, I think that studying war is the most interesting thing in the world. As a kid, I was fascinated by it, I had so many GI Joes. But personally, I probably couldn’t handle a real war. This is the main reason why I’m against it. I’m not willing to fight in one so why should anybody?

I want to conclude on this thought about Neocon foreign policy. Neocon foreign policy has probably killed more people than its set free. Are the countries who America has tried to help by bombing now better democracies because of it? Although I’m against the organization of all forms of government, I think that peaceful means of negotiation exist between both governments and countries. The main problem with Neocon foreign policy is that it kills a lot of people who don’t deserve it. Also that it doesn’t work. If it did work, we wouldn’t still be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Democracy isn’t worth spreading.

Thanks for reading!

Check out my Social Media List/Links page

Also Hit the follow button below!

The Pivot Revival: Will Joe Biden try to heal relations with China?

If you have read any of my blog, you might be familiar with my obvious disdain for anything mainstream politics. I typically criticize and deconstruct any and all policies as bad and useless. However, there is one particular piece of foreign policy related legislation that was started under President Obama, which I absolutely support. Its called the The Pivot, which also happens to be a fantastic book by Kenneth Campbell. Now I’m against governments being in charge countries with drawn borders but they still exist unfortunately. So as long as they exist, my foreign policy attitude for nearly any rational and smart country is basically Switzerland (aka neutral in war). But one of keys to the success in foreign policy is using your soft power appropriately. There is another book called War by Other Means by Robert Blackwell and Jennifer M. Harris, which discuss how America falls behind other countries like China in using soft power. This particular post is not about soft power. (Definition of Soft Power: Any political, economic or social tool that influences other actors in either a negative or positive way. Examples: Negative soft power: Economic sanctions. Positive Soft Power: Lucrative Trade Deal) This post will be about whether or not President elect Joe Biden who was former President Obama’s Vice President will continue the Pivot. In the present, President Trump decided to not continue to pursue it, and instead elected for a trade war. I think most foreign policy wonks look at this idea as kind of stupid although it does show toughness. I think the biggest issue with it, is that America and China are hugely dependent on each other’s economy. China produces a vast majority of products to be sold in America. America buys a vast majority of products from China. China also holds a large amount of US debt. So each side has a stake in the others fortune.

Question: Will Biden pick up where Obama left off in regards to the Southeast Asia pivot?

I think the best place to start is to state the question that I’m trying to answer. Which is will Biden pick up where Obama left off? (Above in bold) I think the answer is yes. The election turned up a lot of evidence that Biden has ties to China. But I think that there is even more compelling reasons for Biden to restart what Obama was doing. In each swing of Republican to Democrat presidential elections and vice versa there is an mindset to take absolutely every policy the exact opposite direction of the last president. If you watch football, you can see this same phenomena with coaching changes. Take for example, my favorite team the New York Jets. The Jets fired defensive minded coach Todd Bowles two years ago. Instead of hiring another defensive minded coach, they went with offensive minded “guru” (should be noted 0-12 proves this to be false) Adam Gase. In any case, I think mainstream politics works exactly like sports in that its not a longshot to say Biden will go the opposite of current President Trump. This brings me to my next question:

Is US-Chinese relations un-reconcilable after Trump’s efforts to fight China economically?

President Trump really did some damage to Chinese-US relations since taking office in 2016. He started a trade war which saw each side raise tariffs on each other on multiple occasions. President Trump called out the Chinese for cheating on currency trading. He called out the Chinese multiple times on different occasions. Like I said before, Trump’s reason for continuing to blast them was to make America look tough. One of Trump’s overarching objectives and slogans is America First. I think his behavior clearly makes this point. I think that nobody really knows how China might react to olive branch from Joe Biden. But I can tell you that China is not interested in healing unless it leads to some kind of undermining of American hegemony. Its important to realize Chinese aggression especially within its own sphere of influence is due to its desire to become the world hegemon. China is gunning for America’s role of World Police and World arbiter. Another thing to realize about China is that it uses hard and soft power much better and more effectively due its oligarchy with the Communist Party in control of both the government and the biggest and most important industries such as banking, telecommunications and energy. This allows them finer tuned control in diplomacy. In comparison the US has a slower, more clunky system of democracy where every issue is a procedure and a vote. You might be asking well how can America compete with its slow moving democratic process? Honestly, America may not be able to compete but I think the Pivot will at least give us a chance.

Why should Biden continue or restart the pivot?

The benefits of the pivot are pretty obvious: Economic stability with all of Southeast Asia and especially with China guarantees more peaceful resolution. The diplomatic consequences are far less extreme, forces China into a mutually assured destruction scenario which already exists due to inter economic dependency. On a political note: The pivot might represent the healing that Biden has preached, the opposite of Trump. Matters little but for elections. I said earlier that China wasn’t interested in healing, but I think Americans will see Joe Biden extending an olive branch to China as healing.

The pivot is important because it allows US to exercise soft power against China. It’s basically the same idea as Keeping your friends close and enemies closer. I also believe that the Pivot represents a way for America to practice using soft power appropriately. The US clearly hasn’t learned from the Roman empire where continuous war and overspending lead to collapse. That being said, I don’t believe the wars will stop. I think that if Joe Biden has any sense left, he will continue the Pivot. Its possible to be firm with China while also improving relations. I also think there is a realization that if China got mad enough, it could start selling off the US debt bonds and absolutely ruin our financial system more than it already is. But let’s face it, in any situation where the US-China feud goes south, the outcome will be ugly for BOTH sides.

This isn’t a partisan issue to me because good foreign policy is policy that creates beneficial relationships between countries. In a few months after Joe Biden takes office, I’ll be watching closely to see if he actually does anything. Most of this post is pure speculation. But I think going forward, the relations with China will be important. One of the most important factors in the election is the economy. A lucrative trade deal with China could mean a good economy and reelection for Biden or if he doesn’t last, his VP Kamala Harris. Think about when there is no longer a Covid pandemic to blame economic distress on, there has to be improvement somehow.

Thanks for reading!

Check out the Social Media!

Twitter- @GforAnarchy12

Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experiences Blog

Benefits of Intervention: Syria?

Trump has recently organized an response to an alleged chemical attack in Syria. The United States along with England and France have come together to missile some targets of known chemical weapon storage and research. This post will be about this newest Syrian Intervention but it will also generally cover the track record of failure with interventions. I have actually written about this in December 2016, when under President Obama decided not to get involved in Syria despite the humanitarian crisis. (Post is linked here)

Allies: Syria and Russia

The bombing of targets in Syria in response to a alleged chemical attack comes with more controversy than usual.  The Russia President, Vladimir Putin warned against the US trying to take action against Syrian President Assad. The reason is that Syria and Russia are allies. Russia has been helping the embattled Syrian President fight against the rebels in their seven year civil war. This means that Russia is very territorial about who intervenes with the civil war. I think Russian goals in Syria are pretty clear, they want to expand their hegemony in the middle east. Putin probably has no real humanitarian interest in the Syrian people. Similar to Russia invasion and annexation of the Crimea, the nature of their allied relationship with Syria is to project power on the world stage.

False Flag Attack: Did it actually happen? 

Another interesting aspect of this particular situation is that reports came out that the chemical attack was a false flag. This means that no chemicals or possibly no attack ever occurred. Interestingly enough there is still a question about the legitimacy of the attack. Of course, Syrian President Assad has a history using chemical weapons against his own people. This alone is a serious offense especially if you consider the Geneva Convention protocol. Geneva Convention refers to the rules of engagement and genocide. The murky nature of the civil war with many different factions makes it a complex situation. Its not clear to me or to experts that there is a genocide occurring in Syria.

Another point about false flags is that many wars have started because of false pretenses. I think that this is a theme which can found throughout history especially in United States since 1917.

Precedent False Flags in US History

I believe that the intervention in the Syrian conflict is not unprecedented. The US has a history of going in on wars with the basis of a lie. For the sake of length, I want to start with the Vietnam war. The Tonkin Gulf incident occurred in 1964, it was a false attack on US ships. It led to the escalation of the Vietnam war. Moving on to the Gulf War, which had rumors about Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. More recently, we invade Afghanistan under the pretense of fighting terror. Ironically, the terrorists main goal was have to us overreact and spend trillions upon trillions of dollars and nearly 3000 lives to kill an enemy so small.  Then we got the Iraq war, which was started over the rumor that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We still never found any weapons. Then you have Libya, where an NATO coalition decided the Muammar Gaddafi had to go, not for any particular reason but oil. Obviously, there are numerous examples, but the point is that lies are a great pretense for war.

Benefits of Intervention

I believe that history would tell us that intervention doesn’t work out as intended. Just look at Vietnam for example. The US mission in Vietnam was to keep the communist North Vietnam from invading the south and turning it communist. The US lost the war by a lot. The US had superior military power, bombs, 500,000 troops and state of the ark equipment. The US lost to a bunch of farmers in the jungle. Sad life. (Note that Gun Control advocates ignore this fact, farmers with guns can defeat the US military)  I think that Vietnam and others beg the question: Is there any benefit to intervention?

The answer is both yes and no. Let’s start with no. There is no benefit to the American public. War is very costly, if you add up the cost of the wars since the Korean War, the total cost is nearly equal to our national debt of 21 trillion dollars! The other costs include military causalities, lots of injured veterans, and instability in the region of conflict. There is no benefit to the American People. So you may ask who DOES benefit? I am glad you didn’t forget because ironically, the government and military contractors benefit the most. The government benefits because its a justification to raise taxes and spend more of your money! Military contractors are corporations who are given (usually awarded them) contracts to produce military equipment and research. The Department of Defense is responsible for this process of handing military contracts. Unfortunately, the DoD does a horrible job of holding these companies accountable. Many times the military contracts are exploited, because companies spend more money and take longer than they are supposed to. This lack of accountability wastes TRILLIONS of dollars. Its a big problem and a big topic for another post!

Conclusion: Intervention Sucks

Ultimately this intervention into the Syrian conflict will come back to haunt us. President Trump has shown himself to be no different than his peers (past presidents). Its a shame that the America people don’t hold the government accountable. One of the reasons for the sudden explosion of intervention is the President’s ability to declare war without Congressional approval. This needs to change. The founding fathers gave Congress the power to declare war for a reason. A President with the power to declare will eventually become a tyrant. Its a dangerous precedent. The benefits of giving congress war powers back is that Congress can’t agree on anything and therefore it will prevent 99 percent of new interventions. A great victory for the American people!

Check out my Social Media

Zuckerberg’s personal data mine: (Facebook)  Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog

Twitter: @gpslife12

Have an awesome day!

US Foreign Policy: Syrian Intervention?

Many people have found the heartbreaking videos of the Syrian refugees in Aleppo to saddening and angering. The Syrian conflict has been going on since March 2011. It seems that the conflict will not come to an end anytime soon. The situation is Syria is hugely complex. The conflict itself has many sides in addition to the international ramifications that could lead to worldwide consequences. Russia has already thrown their weight around with air strikes called in by the Syrian President himself, Bashar Al-Assad. The conflict involves major powers like the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Denmark, Australia and of course the United States. It also involves archenemies like China and Russia. Its a very tense and dangerously unstable situation. In this post, I want to praise the Obama Administration for showing restraint and handling the situation in the proper way. A rare thing for me to do. I also want to discuss the pros and cons of military intervention. Its probably more accurate to say that I want to argue for a massive humanitarian effort.

To my surprise, President Obama has perfectly dealt with the Syrian Civil war. Although he did help create it by withdrawing troops out of Iraq. However, Obama cannot be blamed for the conflict, it was many years in the making. Assad’s father had re-written the constitution of Syria. He tried to move it toward a democratic government not so connected to Muslims. After his father died in 2000, Bashar took over. He opposed the Iraq war and US invasion. He promised democratic reforms but ultimately fail to implement them. This created the events that occurred in March 2011. The peaceful protest all over the middle east suddenly turned violent in Syria. Assad went to suppress the protesters with violence. This act only spurred more violence and the formation of the Free Syrian Army. By 2014, ISIS had joined the fight and then in 2015, Russia and Turkey joined the fray. All told about 470,000 people have lost their lives. As for President Obama, he chose not to intervene with full military force.

Similar to Russian efforts, President Obama opted for airstrikes against ISIS targets. I’m sure glad he didn’t go any further than that. President Obama is very much against the war in Syria but even he knows the military intervention would be dangerous option. Not even mentioning the coalition that it would bring and the international controversy but the causalities would probably quadruple. Syria is a bigger death than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. We cannot afford another extended conflict. I want to praise Obama for his restraint because I think most President’s in his position might be tempted to intervene due to the human rights violations. I think the case against intervention is that of a humanitarian effort. We also can’t forget that there would be some major foreign policy implications.

Let’s say for argument that there was invasion plan on the table with the backing of Department of Defense and a UN coalition not including Russia and China who have problems. Like usual with any UN resolution it demands that the US front the bulk of the troops on the ground. They call it a peacekeeping force to keep Assad from murdering his own people. But everyone else knows its a suicide mission to eliminate ISIS. Russia has a problem because Syria is their ally. Syria is in the Russian sphere of influence. Assad had called Vladimir Putin for air support. China is opposed because it sees the US as trying to grab influence and oil. The invasion plan calls for 100,000 troops over the next year or so. It calls for increases as necessary with full air and navy support. This plan could incur up to a million causalities in total. It could double the causality rate especially for the Syrian civilian population.

There is another plan lingering among some of the other countries who don’t feel that all out military invasion is the route to go. Germany used to be in support but pulled out. (Truth) For argument sake, Germany proposes a plan of humanitarian support for Syria. After the last terrorist attack on the Christmas flea market they can’t stand for this human suffering and refugees any longer. The humanitarian plan includes donations of at least 100 million dollars in food and supplies for each country who joins. It includes a plan for small force to protect the distributors of the food and supplies. Germany thinks that if the United States joins then it could help keep the international tensions of Russia and China at bay.

The problem with the military intervention is that Russia won’t possibly stand for more influence in their sphere. Putin has already show a willingness to intervene if it means that Russia can take that influence. Just look at Crimea, there were many pro-Russia elements even though they were separate from Russia, Putin decided that military push to annex Crimea with pro-Russia elements could extend the Russia influence and strengthen it. The pros to an intervention are far and few in between. One pro might be the decimation of ISIS. However, ISIS has shown a willingness to move somewhere better  and terrorists rarely ever stay put if they are being overwhelmingly attacked. It also a desired outcome of any terrorist to have the one of the most powerful nations come after them. It means they have power.

The cons of military intervention are those of death and destruction of the Syria society. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan dramatically change the lives of citizens. In an unforeseen turn of events, the Iraqis and Afghans have turned against the United States. The Syrians already find the US to be detestable because of their actions in the Iraq war. In a simple phrase, we have been in this situation before. However, I do think that doing nothing is not an option. The human rights violations call for action, but we can’t exacerbate an already violent situation with more violence. If a humanitarian plan is put forward either by Germany or any country it might be suggested that sanctions be issued against Syria. It might also encourage the elimination of allies trying to help fight. The more countries that join the fight, the more complicated it gets.

The humanitarian effort could save more lives. The humanitarian effort help the civilians who are stuck in the middle of this terrible conflict. According to the most recent numbers, the Syrian Civilian death toll is near 90,000. You can break it down, about 16,000 children, about 11,000 females over 18. The death toll is already too high, a military intervention could see these numbers triple.  I haven’t even mention the refugees already created, approximately: 6 million refugees according to the UN. The controversy continues with these refugees about whether to accept them. Germany has already experienced what many are convinced of. The Christmas market tragedy. I believe the UN should set up a background check system to vet these refugees for admission to safety. The dangers of a terrorist slipping through are well known.

Another unanswered question is that of Genocide. (Not to end on a dark note) Under the Geneva Convention rules on Genocide it defines a genocide by:

“Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III:  The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. “

Source: http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm

Has Assad and the Syrian Government committed genocide under the convention? Now I personally would have too look at who is being killed. We know the why. They were protesting for a democratic government, better economic conditions and the like. However, Syria has a rather large population of Muslim sects. This might need another post to cover. But it is a serious question to ask.

I want to wrap up this post on Syria with one last summary of perhaps a different of saying what I’ve already argued. The Syrian Civil war is a conflict that is extremely complicated and controversial. The conflict cannot be solved with war as evidenced by the past five years of fighting. The people of Syria are suffering the most from this prolonged conflict. The refusal of the UN countries to sufficiently act in a humanitarian effort is deplorable. However, a military intervention is not necessarily the best option in terms of the safety of the Syria people. As human beings, we have a duty to help those in need, those in suffering. We need to act to either bring help to those suffering in Syria or we need to figure out a way to sufficiently prevent terrorists from coming with those 6 million refugees to the United States and Europe alike. Humanitarian efforts keep the Syrian people safe and the international tensions at bay meanwhile a military intervention guarantees nothing but the antagonizing of the terrorist and America’s enemies.

Thanks for reading!

Sources:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#cite_note-SOHR-90

Preventing Dictator Trump: Judicial Review and Separation of Powers

An important principle of our constitution that set ups our government is that of separation of powers. It is a part of checks and balances. Separation of powers has always been a hot topic especially in the Supreme Court. It keeps our government running smoothly. It helps determine the jurisdiction of each branch of government. In order to understand the separation of powers, you have to understand Judicial Review. In middle and high school history the concept of separation of powers and judicial review is taught. Mainly because it’s on the regents. Many students sort of zone out on it because it’s not all that interesting. Once again I want to take two Supreme Court cases and review them. After briefly reviewing each, I want to put some modern context on the separation of powers and judicial review. Let’s just say when an election rolls around with a controversial president being elected, my mind goes to thinking about how the constitution allows for checks and balances that keeps our democratic president from becoming a dictator. It’s really petty to blame the election results on Russia or voter fraud. A choice was made and we should deal with it by invoking the constitution. Without further or do, I want to present Marbury vs. Madison.

Marbury vs. Madison was decided by the court in 1803 by the Marshall Court. It was unanimous decision. Now you might remember some of the facts of case from high-school. If you don’t then I suggest you read up on it here. Like usual, I want to skip directly to the questions of the case and the majority opinion. The court had to decide whether or not the officers had the right to go court over the commissions and  whether or not Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was valid? The court held that because Adams had signed the commissions they were legal and should have been given out despite Jefferson’s order to not give them out. They also voided Section 13 of the Judiciary Act because it interfered with Article 3 section 2 of the constitution. The Court had an obligation to uphold the constitution over the congressional law. Here was what the Judiciary Act, section 13 says :

That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. [NOTE:  Text in bold of particular relevance to Marbury v. Madison. (Source, here)

The Court invalidated the last part of this law in favor of the constitution.  The constitution goes against the Judiciary Act, more specifically Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial branch has jurisdiction over any case involving: 

• The US constitution, the laws of the United States laws, treaties, or any cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

This particular quote is what the Supreme Court cited as their jurisdiction to hear Marbury’s case. Marbury essentially tried to argue for a broader Supreme Court jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act would have allowed that if not for the constitution’s strict view what the Supreme Court is allowed to do. Marbury vs. Madison was the first case to strike out part of a congressional law. Its become known as judicial review. This is only the first case of it, comes up again years later in the Dred Scott decision. (another blog post)

I want to go over just one more case before I bring it into a modern context. I think that one of the most interesting Supreme Court cases is McCulloch vs. Maryland. If you want to read the facts, then click here. The McCulloch vs. Maryland is not so much about judicial review but it does establish an important pecking order within our government. You may have heard of federalism. This is a case that shows what federalism. In this case, a uanimous decision was made that the state of Maryland could not tax the federal government. The question the court had to answer was simply one of federalism. Congress legally created a bank and Maryland tried to pass a bill to tax it. The court found on the basis of the 9th amendment (see my last post) or the enumerated powers amendment. The court set the precedent that federal government has constitutional power over the states. The federal government is allowed to establish banks because of the 9th amendment and the states can’t tax it because its a constitutional function. This is monumentally important case especially with the civil war later in the century. (case was decided 1819)

Marbury vs. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power to strike out congressional laws that are unconstitutional. McCulloch vs. Maryland gave the federal government the priority over constitutional functions within the states. So why are these cases so important today?  I alluded to the controversial election in the beginning of the post. I believe these two cases give the people some hope that President Trump won’t become Dictator Trump. Obviously, he has a favorable Congress and he might even get a favorable Supreme Court pending a successful nomination. But Trump and Congress still have to follow the constitution. In the end, the Supreme Court has a duty to uphold it. So no matter what happens with Trump, I think the separation of powers and judicial review will keep him in check.

Let’s quickly for example, take President Obama and his presidency. Obama’s biggest accomplishment (depends on how you look at it, failure is more accurate) is Obamacare or the Affordable Health Care Act. It was a very controversial becuase it mandated that everyone get healthcare or pay a fine. Parts of it went to the Supreme Court to be decided if they were constitutional. Some parts of it were unconstitutional and others remained. In my opinion there wasn’t enough struck down. However, I think that knowing that obviously unconstituional laws will be struck down is comforting. Nobody saw Trump getting elected. I think we all gotta have a little faith

This definitely won’t be the end of this topic, it went a little longer than I wanted but I hope to revisit it soon.  Thanks for reading!

 

Citations:

Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. “McCulloch v. Maryland.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316 (accessed December 12, 2016).

Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. “Marbury v. Madison.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137 (accessed December 12, 2016).

 

Donald Trump Wins. America Reacts.

This post will be relatively short because I just want to share my thoughts that I already expressed via Facebook. In addition, I want to say that I never really guessed right but I think that the News Media Party was a big factor in Trump’s victory. I think that maybe there is a few articles to come from this Facebook post that I wrote today.

I have refrained from stating my political opinions until now. I wanted to see what everyone’s else reaction would be. Now that I have seen it, I have a few thoughts. To start off, I voted for Gary Johnson and it was a vote of conscious not against anybody but FOR Gary Johnson. I will not defend Trump nor Clinton. What I would like to share is something that it seems many people do not understand. The Electoral College seems to blamed for Trump’s nomination and Clinton’s loss. Many people think this because Clinton won the popular vote. However, I have two big problems with this type of sentiment. My first problem is America is not a populist democracy. In most Europe and some Asian countries like the Philippines, they use a plurality voting democracy. This means each candidate has their votes tallied and the one with the biggest majority is the winner. America has a representative democracy meaning that voters vote for representatives. The representatives of the government are citizens which is why its for the people and by the people. My second problem is in two parts. First, the electoral college was created for a reason. The founding fathers weren’t trying to create a Donald Trump scenario. They were trying to protect the citizens (white land owning men) from their own stupidity. I believe this is smart. It is often held that an educated voter will elect a better politician. I think we can all agree that most of America is not educated enough on politics and to some degree at all. Second, the electoral college has some fishy rules. But its concept and principle is sound. Cities often vote Democrat. Rural place often vote Republican. There are exceptions. Cities have more population than rural areas. To go even bigger, states have different populations. California has 40 million people meanwhile Wyoming has 500,000. Its would be fair to the smaller states to always the big state interests put first. The founding fathers spent more time on this issue in the constitution convention then many others…even for the Congress. How the electoral college works is that it awards electoral votes based on population. For example California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3. It fair because if California votes one way and a few smaller midwest states vote the other way, it makes a fair voice. Also to those people that are scared of Trump, Rhetoric is often used to get votes. Typically a President never lives up to their campaign promises. Also politicians lie and Trump is no different. We all need to relax and let the government do its job. Let our constitution of checks and balances maintain our liberty no matter what Trump tries to do. Last thing, 120 million or so people did not vote! Being silent is making a statement. Its probably a statement you don’t want. So next election urge everyone you can to vote. Not voting, not caring or caring about the wrong things in politics is why Donald Trump has been chosen. Stop blaming third parties. Stop blaming the electoral college. Start doing something about it, write letters, emails, protest in a peaceful way. Dissent is a beautiful thing. Thank you.

I truly believe that people need to better understand how our government was set up and how the electoral college works. I have written another on the electoral college in the past. This Facebook covers a variety of topics that I have written about on this blog. Now the reason why I haven’t made a post in awhile is because this election has gotten away from the true politics. It became a horrid mess of personality smearing and attacks. Now with the election over, I will start to write again about President-Elect Trump and his policies going forward. I will also write more about constitutional and governmental issues. I am hoping to educate so that next election, we will be equip to elect better politicians. We can do better than Trump.

If you have any ideas or suggestions, drop me a line: garrett_smith12@yahoo.com

Thanks for reading! Have a great day!

Economic Series Part 3: What is Gross Domestic Product?

Welcome to the third part of my economic series. This final part will explain what GDP is and why it is so often used as politicians go to economic figure of success or failure. Gross Domestic Product or GDP as I will call it by the acronym, is an economic indicator. It measures a very specific part of the economy in any given country. If you have not read parts ONE and TWO of this economic series I strongly suggest that you do. My first two parts of the series describe the arguments for and against minimum wage in part one. In part two, I  go over the basics of government budget and taxation. It’s important to recognize that economics is a very complex subject and many topics involved having an understanding of other topics. In this case, I think that GDP is definitely the most advanced of all the topics that I have covered thus far. In order to properly discuss GDP and the politics that usually surround it, I feel its necessary to explain how it come to be and what it involves.

The book that has inspired me to write on this topic and my primary source of information is called GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History by Diane Coyle. Coyle’s book gives a full rundown of everything GDP. I would strongly recommend it because this post won’t even cover 1/4 of what she does in this book. Coyle gives a simple word breakdown of GDP. Gross meaning not deducted as opposed to net (Her example was like net weight of a cereal box, it’s only the weight of the cereal without the packaging) Product meaning stuff made, and Domestic is simply at home.(Page 7) GDP is much more complex than the three simple words that make up its name. The history and founding of GDP begins at the start of World War II. However, the idea goes back throughout the ages.

One of the many controversies over GDP that still exist today was first explored by one of the greatest economic scholars to ever write. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. In his book, he went over some relevant facts of GDP. His point to paraphrase is this: The manufacturer that produces something with their labor creates value and adds it to the economy. The person who employs many menial servants grows poor while the person who employs many manufacturers grows rich. The point here being that Smith sees the production of goods as adding value to an economy. He sees the services of a servant or a service in general adds nothing. GDP has often not included services because it’s too hard to measure the true output of a teacher. Also the word “Product” in GDP lends itself to the production of goods not services. (Page 10)

GDP’s history comes out of collection of statistical data and economists. Colin Clark calculated the expenditures and national income of the United Kingdom. Clark based his work on a publication by Alfred Marshall who wrote Principals of Economics before the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt encourage more research and work on the national income and expenditures during the Great Depression. This led to Simon Kuznets to work with the National Bureau of Economic Research, which earned him a nobel prize. One of things that Kuznets brought up is an important facet of GDP. Kuznets thought that he was working to measure welfare rather than just output. GDP is often used to measure the welfare of any given country. However, because like I said previously, GDP is typically measured by the output of an economic. The problem of welfare and GDP is one of modern criticisms of GDP. Coyle dedicates two chapters to the subject of GDP and welfare. (Page 12-14)

I want to focus more on the particulars of GDP and how it’s calculated. Coyle covers this topic quite well. I want to save welfare and GDP for another post because it’s too much for this post. Coyle goes over the three different ways to measure and calculate GDP. She gives a two charts. One chart shows how these calculations are done. Since I don’t have the chart, I will just describe each way. The first way is a Value Added production. Value Added production adds up the Gross Output. The gross output is the all the sales made in an economy. The gross output excludes the inventory because it’s counted by the next category of intermediate inputs. Which stuff like staffing, inventory, and other things that businesses pay money for to make their business work. Finally you get to a number that tells you how much value added each industry in an economy.

The second way to calculate GDP is through Income (by type) approach. This approach uses a set of different incomes and expenditures to make final figure of Total Domestic Incomes earned. There are rental income, profits and proprietors’ income, Taxes on production and imports, Less: Subsidies, Interest and miscellaneous payments, and depreciation. These are the categories of the Income (by type) approach. The third way to calculate GDP is through Final Demand (or Expenditures) approach. This approach uses the sum of these categories to make up the final sales of domestic product to purchasers. The categories are the consumption of final goods and services by households; Investment in plant, equipment, and software; Government expenditures on good and services; and net exports of goods and services (export-import). No matter how you calculate GDP, the measurement always is trying measure how much an economy produces and what kind of income the country who benefits from it makes. (Page 25-26)

The most popular and most used method in modern times is the Expenditures approach. Coyle also goes over the equation along with an awesome chart. The equation simply is GDP= C+I+G+(X-M). The letters stand for Consumer Spending plus Investment plus government spending plus exports less imports. (Trade deficit/surplus). Coyle also tries to show some problems with the GDP equation which is mostly that GDP is not so simple. The categories have multiple sub-categories. There is a lot of gray area. The numbers can be shaky. However, in the end GDP is the most reliable measurement of economy. Coyle mentions other indicators which can help round out the welfare aspect and government impact. The awesome chart I was referring is a two circles. On the left side there is the word “Individuals” and on the right side there is “Business”. The top of the circles, have two words. On the bottom circle it says Expenditures, and on the top circle it says Goods and Services. In the lower two circles, the top one says Income and the bottom says Labor. (page 26-27)

The story is that Individuals and Businesses interact in two different ways. The circles represent the different ways. The bigger circle with Labor and Goods and Services basically shows that Individuals supply the labor for business. The Business supplies the good and services. This is basic economics, it shows a supply/demand for labor and good and services.  The smaller circle with Expenditures and Income show that Businesses supply the Individual with income and the Individual supplies the business with Expenditures. The vice-versa is also true. Businesses make income on the Individual’s expenditures. This is a simple economics lesson that can help you understand GDP. (Page 27)

GDP is an important facet of economic measurement of any given country. As Coyle notes in later chapters which this post won’t cover, that GDP is not accurate in second and third world countries because of faulty accounting and statistics. She also covers a great deal of debate over whether welfare should be measured by GDP or not. These are more complex questions than I really want to go. I think the point of this post is to say that GDP is important to understand. GDP is not a true measure of welfare. It’s the statistical measure of economic input and output. As an example, GDP measures the number of phones that Apple sells after the release of the Iphone 7. It doesn’t take into account the welfare of the people who buy those phones. GDP is also a political tool especially when it comes to arguing over the economy.

Moving away from Coyle’s book in some ways, I want to briefly discuss why politicians like to use GDP. I think that much of the political controversy surrounding the use of GDP comes from the myths of GDP. Many people don’t realize the history of GDP. The misunderstanding of what GDP represents. Many politicans including present candidates for President seem to think that GDP shows how well the economy doing or more often how bad it’s doing. However, the reality is that GDP can fluctuate just based on how you calculate it. One increase or decrease in any given category there could be a 1-2 percent fluctuation. Another important myth to dispel is that government spending actually helps GDP. The debate that surrounds government spending and its effect on the economy is prevalent.

This is where I want to end this post and this series for now. My last words is that government spending doesn’t necessary make for the best economic move. The problem with government spending is that the government is NOT a business. Government makes their money from taxpayers. Its mandatory, you can’t just not pay taxes. It also makes a problem with counting the statistics for GDP. The government doesn’t have a real income with the exception taxes. This means that when the government tries to invest in anything it only represents an expenditure. If you recall the chart, the point of an economy is a cycle of labor into good and services that make income provided by expenditures. One example, that I know the best is that of the spending on the military. Military spending has often been one of the biggest items on US government budget. The national debt is nearly 20 trillion dollars. Some scholars have estimated that 16 trillion of that was spent during the cold war on military research and wars. The way that the DOD (Department of Defense) and the government have gone about spending this money is the problem. The military contracts assigned to military contractors during these years were given without little scrutiny. Many of the biggest contractors were able to contracts with no competition. The contracts included very little accountability or responsiblity especially in regards to money spent.

The point being is that GDP has actually suffered since the Cold War. This mainly due to stagnant economy. I mentioned that GDP doesn’t measure services which now is the most prominent feature of our economy. The reckless spending and bad fiscal policy by the government has given us some unfortunate consequences. GDP will always be controversial because of its complexity. I believe that its important to understand how GDP works. If you understand economics and GDP then you can understand that fallacy that politicians try to push on us. For me, this topic is fairly new but I wanted to try to introduce a little bit of the controversy and facts of economics and GDP.

Thanks you for reading! Have a great day!

 

Citation:

Coyle, Diane. GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History. Prinction University Press, 2014. 

 

Colin Kaepernick: Oppressive Irony?

I love football. It is my favorite sport. I have been a diehard Jets fans for nearly 20 years now. Quarterback Colin Kaepernick recently made headlines for something not football related. I love football, however when a player or players bring politics into it. I have a problem. You might say why not politics in football or what’s the problem he was doing something right! To preface my take on Colin Kaepernick and his refusal to stand during the national anthem. I want to say something about the NFL and politics.

The NFL and politics have long been intertwined. The NFL is the beneficiary of politics that promote economic growth. The NFL is worth over 9 billion dollars. Local and state governments both help facilitate NFL teams and their ability to operate within their state and city. Even the federal government loves football, in the 1970s, the NFL was able to get non-profit status. Usually reserve for charities and churches, the NFL runs like any for-profit business. Under the non-profit tag, they receive huge tax breaks. The NFL with the help of the government also has a monopoly on its brand. With no anti-trust laws restricting it. So you could say the NFL has benefited politically. The way stadiums are built and teams are supported is through taxpayer money. The politics around the NFL center on economics. So why do I have a problem with Kaepernick?

My problem is that Kaepernick took political stance during an NFL game. There’s a saying that goes “don’t mix sports and politics”. The reason for this saying is that politics is real life issue and it tends to divide people and takes away from the fun of the game. If you go to an NFL game or watch it on tv then you probably aren’t interested in the political views of the players or coaches. In addition, I think it’s a little ironic that Kaepernick who has contract worth approximately 114 million dollars to trying to fight oppression. I applaud him for realizing that oppression is a real thing and that it exists. However, I find his sit down to be less effective. Sure, he has brought nationwide publicity to the issue. That’s still not enough to fix it.

Oppression or the feeling of oppression is a common thing among minorities. The best way to fight it, is by being fair to everyone. Helping people out by doing charity work or donating money. I hope the irony isn’t lost on Kaepernick that he has the ability to make real change. Many people who are oppressed are not rich. The oppressed tend to be poor because they have no influence or because of their sexuality. Typically money gives one influence, but in historical cases your skin color matters more. Rather than just sitting down in civil disobedience, Kaepernick should take it a step further. He should donate to charities that help minorities and poor people. Unfortunately for him, civil disobendience in the world of sports is looked down upon. In any other situation, that would be a noble thing to do.

I want to applaud Colin Kaepernick for his motives in sitting down. However, I think he should put his money where his butt is. (pun intended) I think that if he were to donate to charity he would see a lot more good. Standing up for people is one thing but an act of kindness is a totally different thing. Next time he feels the need to put politics into football maybe he should just do it in the offseason, less backlash for him. Just my thought.

Thanks for reading! Part 2 of my economic series is coming soon!

Economic Series Part 1: To Raise or not to Raise the Minimum Wage?

Welcome to the first part of my three topic series on Economics. If you haven’t read this blog before then you should check out my last two posts that explain exactly what this series will be about. One post is here, and the introduction to this series is here. I would also suggest reading some of my previous posts, many of which cover this very topic of Minimum Wage. In particular, this post and this post among others. I have already prefaced this topic on multiple occasions so in this post, I will dive straight into the question that I want to present both arguments for and against. I will briefly explain what the minimum wage is, first. Then I will give you brief history of it. The bulk of this post will be my arguments, however, it will be up to you to decide what side you are on.

The title of post implies that my question is about raising the minimum wage. This has been in recent years, a hotly debated and controversial question. My question is: Should the government raise the minimum wage? Now it’s not a simple yes or no question. If you say yes, then you have to explain why you think that raising it is such a good idea. Or If you say no then why not raise it?  The principle of minimum wage is fairly simple to understand. Minimum wage is the base wage of all workers in the United States. Typically, the federal government sets a standard wage. However, the states also have the ability to set their own wage higher than the federal government if they choose. Right now, the federal wage is 7.25 an hour. There are 29 states that have minimum wages above the federal level.

The history of the minimum wage starts in the beginning of 20th century. The progressive movement that help develop labor laws and other regulations on business helped bring about the minimum wage. Before the minimum wage existed, workers were paid based on how much skill their job involved. They were also paid according to market value. Just like today, typically the less skilled your work, the less pay you received. According to the Department of Labor website, the minimum was officially brought into law on June 26, 1940. The name of the act bringing it to life was called Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Standards Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It originally started out at 1 dollar then worked its up. In January 1980 it was $3.10 and by 2007 it had increased to $5.85. Now in 2016, we see movements to increase it even further from 7.25. This is where the controversy and debate starts.

There are two distinct sides, I want to present arguments for and against raising the minimum wage. I want to present it fairly. So I feel obligated to tell you that I am against raising the minimum wage. However, I’m not against raising a reasonable amount that is in accordance with the market value of labor. In other words, if the economy can handle a raise in the minimum wage then so be it. Let me first present the supposed arguments for raising it. This is even hotly debated among economists. So you can expect to be baffled by the contradictory arguments for each side.

For Raising the Minimum Wage:

The line of reasoning for raising the minimum wage is that it will help the poor and single parents. The various other reasons for raising it are that big corporations can afford it, CEO’s make too much and workers deserve it. Typically the Democrats champion these raises in Minimum wage. In recent years, there has been push to raise to 15 dollars an hour. You might hear about the rationale to raise it as a living wage. A living wage really means an increase that is adjusted for inflation. These are just some of the arguments made for the minimum wage to be raised. I want to quote some interesting pro-minimum wage Mythbusters facts from the Labor Department website. (I seriously couldn’t believe this government website sounds like a liberal Facebook page. Talk about propaganda) Without further or ado:

Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office.

Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That’s why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support.

Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Once again these are straight from the Department of Labor website. They tried to make the argument that the minimum wage being higher is actually good for the economy. I want to show just a few more for the sake argument. You might read all of this and say looks the minimum wage being 15 dollars an hour isn’t so bad?  If you believe the Department of Labor’s website then yes. Here those other myths before I move onto to the against argument:

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, “In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.”

Myth: Small business owners can’t afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don’t support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase “would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.”

Let’s move onto why one might be against raising the minimum wage. The against argument will consist of a series of rebuttals. In my personal experience, I can rebuke quite a few of the arguments to raise minimum wage. Let’s start with the things I can agree with. I do agree that the public supports raising the minimum wage. More people are for it than against it. Its obvious why too, being paid more money is not something that most would have objections. However, I believe the Department of Labor website completely contradicts a different government agency report on raising minimum wage and the effects it would have on the economy. In order to keep this post from becoming a book, I will just list my rebuttals to the common Pro-minimum wage arguments:

1. It’s true that minimum wage has not been adjusted for inflation, however, it’s not advisable to raise too quickly since businesses are used to the current level.
2. It’s a false notion to say that minimum wage WILL NOT cause job losses because according to a Congressional Budget Office study done in 2014, a raise of the minimum wage to just 9 dollars an hour would lead to a short-term decrease in both employment and hiring of low skilled workers. In the long-term it would see the hiring of  higher-skilled workers. The effect would be a little more pronounced at 10.10 an hour and potentially more so at 15. However, the study only takes increases to 9 or 10.10 into account.
3. The notion that people will won’t lose jobs once again is rebutted by the CBO study on minimum wage. (I will make sure to link the study to this post)  Also just based on a basic knowledge of economics you can make an argument. The way that businesses work and the economy works with the minimum wage is complicated but its a simple concept. Workers who make minimum wage are usually low skilled. Low skilled workers are needed in any capitalist market economy. They are typically the majority and typically short-term. Raising the minimum actually hurts them. Businesses are in business for profits. If they have to pay workers more than that hurts their bottom line. They either have to raise prices or cut workers. Which is different from a business raising their wages on their own.
4. Small Business owners are for a minimum wage increase. This has to be bullshit because I work for a small business. I’ve worked in companies with low skilled workers. In fact, I am one of those such workers. Let me tell you that most employers in my experience would rather cut the hours or cut the workers than raise prices. A minimum wage increase would only cut employment for the majority of workers in low skilled positions.
5. My last rebuttal, is that minimum wage will help the poor or single parents. This is the biggest lie ever told. Since the conception of minimum wage it has not helped anybody. Even if it was adjusted for inflation, money is always fluctuating in value according to the markets. Also if the minimum wage is let’s say 15 dollars an hour. That is the base wage for everybody in the country. If the base wage is higher than companies won’t keep their prices lower, they will increase their prices. Not only because they have to pay workers more, but also because people will have more money. So in the end, the rich get richer, the poor stay poor. Minimum wage can’t help poor people because when the government arbitrarily raises the price of labor it only hurts the workers and consumers.

There are my arugments for and against the minimum wage being raised. I know I said I am against it. However, I would be ok with a small increase because of inflation. According to the CBO study it would help a little bit at 9 dollars an hour. But I think there will adverse effects if we raise it to 15 dollars too soon. I also think that theres other options like Baisc Income. I would suggest you read my post on that. So consider my arguments and my sources. Look into some articles about minimum wage yourself. The problem is truly not that raising minimum wage is a bad thing, its only bad if the government is trying to force it on an economy that isn’t ready for it. Like I said if a business raises its own wages thats ok but because the business made that decision on its own. For example, Starbucks recently give all its workers a 5 to 10 percent raise. They also raised their prices. The cause and effect of minimum wage is more important than the amount of the wage itself.

Thank you for reading! Have a great day! My sources are linked below:

CBO Minimum Wage Study: 2014

Department of Labor Website Mythbusters

History of Minimum Wage; also DOL Website

Breaking the Blogging Silence

You probably didn’t notice but I took a pretty long break from writing on this blog. Most of the reason for my absence was not a lack of material to write. It was more of a lack of time to write about it. I was experimenting with podcast and I may get back to that eventually in the future. As for the political news, there isn’t much new to write about. The general election is strangely one-sided. Donald Trump has quite literally defeated himself by going into off message tangents and make it easy for voters to not pick him. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton of all people, is considered to be the lesser of two evils. The two candidates are both embattled with different shades of controversy. Hillary with her emails, and Trump with his bombastic commentary.

This post will be relatively short depending on how much I want to ramble on. This blog has been extremely focused on politics especially current events and happenings. I may still do some posts about that. I want to expand more into scholarly subjects. I want to discuss and try to solve problems in modern politics. I want to use my deep knowledge of history to help more people understand these problems. I have a lot of subjects that I want to go deeper into. I feel like there are subjects that I want to explore. One of those such areas is economics. Economics is not a subject that I studied heavily in either highschool or college. I sort of, taught myself about it. I took one college class on economics which gave me a basic understanding. Now I have been trying to read and research books that might help get even a better understanding.

The thing about economics is that it intersects with both history and politics. Much of the data collected on economic activity is from the past. The usefulness of economics in political debate and policy is based on this data. How you read the data and interpret it, is a big issue in political realms. I want to give you my readers an accurate interpretation of many subjects including economics, politics, civics, and history. I want to show how educating yourself on these subjects can be beneficial especially when it comes to election day. You will be able to weigh the candidates on something other than how they look, talk and how catchy their campaign slogan is.

In the future you can expect to see more posts, I hope if I can make time. Many of these new types of post will be a lot longer. I will most likely write them in a series covering one topic at a time. This blog is one of my favorite hobbies and unfortunately life has beckoned me to do other activities this past month or so. I can’t say it will be much better but I will attempt to commit even more time. In mean time, I would encourage you to look up Gary Johnson and consider giving him a shot. We have known and even scarier unknown qualities in Clinton and Trump, respectively. Think for yourself and make decisions based on logic and fairness.

I hope have the beginning of a new series starting as soon as this week but if not then definitely next week! Thank you for reading! Have a great day!

Protests: Are they effective?

In today’s news you see a lot of protests and riots over a variety of issues. Some of the protests have a point. While other protest seem to be just a waste of time. In light of the recent police oppression protests and Trump protests at the GOP Convention. I want to discuss briefly how these protests have points but in the end, they just aren’t that effective. One group behind these protests is the BlackLivesMatter group who say they are for protection of black lives. (Ironically, they only care about black lives if killed by white cops)  This group certainly has a right to protest but I think they are going about it the wrong way. They are inspiring domestic terrorism against police instead of peaceful change. An example of a successful protester for civil rights is Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr. used certain methods and peaceful negotiations to get what he thought was equality for colored people. King  was arrested many times for peaceful resistance to unjust laws. He inspired people like Rose Parks to sit in the front of bus and break the social norm of racism. More importantly, King didn’t try to incite riots or violence. He went through more diplomatic means to achieve his ultimate goal. He made political connections with powerful people in the government. One of those people was Lyndon B. Johnson. From the time that Johnson was the senate majority leader under Kennedy to the Johnson’s time as President, King had Johnson as his ally.

John F Kennedy was also persuaded by Martin Luther King Jr. to consider passing civil rights legislation. It was never passed under Kennedy because of his unfortunate assassination in 1964. King worked closely with the new President, Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson had a knack for passing legislation through congress. He spent most of his political career in congress. He knew the Congress people well, and he knew process even better. So when King met with Johnson on multiple occasions before 1965, it turned out one of the most advance civil right laws to ever be passed in the US. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote and help shape most of what is known as the Voting rights Act. It was the first step towards equality for colored people. It took away the southern states ability to pass Jim Crow laws about voting.

Let’s fast forward to now, where black people still perceive racism. However, its a bit different than how King perceived it. Now many people see it as police oppression and systematic priviledge or underpriviledge. This is not to say that voter suppression still doesn’t take place. Unfortunately, the supreme court has overturned parts of the voting rights act. So my question is, does protesting the police really help the victims of this oppression? The answer for me is not really. Donald Trump is another controversial topic because of his candidancy for President. Trump has not been very low key about his intentions as President especially regarding things like illegal immigrants from Mexico, women, and others. So naturally people have been protesting Trump. Once again, do I think these protests are effective? No, I really don’t. Let me explain why.

The problems that people perceive with the police and Trump are real. It may not be real to everybody but real enough for people to protest them. In my opinion, the protests are great for raising awareness. However, they do no good to actually change the problems. The reason why they don’t change problems is because the protests are directed at the wrong people. For starters, Trump isn’t even president yet, he has no real legal power. So clearly protesting him won’t change anything because he knows that people will hate him. As for the police protests, lets remember who’s in charge of our police. The government, State and Local. In reality, the police only take orders from your top government officials. People like Mayors, Governors, Police Commissioners. The police are merely following their orders and training.

My point is that protesting these pawns in a grander scheme of government is not going to be the most effective way. So you might ask who should I direct my anger torwards?  If anything, you should direct torward elected and appointed government officials. They produced and enforced all these policies that may add to the perceived racism or systematic injustice. If you don’t realize already, the world is not run by normal everyday people like you and me. Its run by elites. Elites are not just rich or wealthy. Elites hold 90 percent of the wealth and 99 percent of the world power. Many elites are government officials or serve in the US Congress. There is a handful of rich families about 300 of them. These families control all politicians all over the world. Just look up illumati or 300 wealthiest families. Trust me, Elites run this planet.

Once you realize that elites are the true power holders, then you can see why protesting these lower level pawns is useless. If you want real change befriend someone with power in government who has influence. Martin Luther King Jr was able to do this and achieved some amazing things. There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. I think its better to not waste your time and talent on protesting two things that don’t really hold any power to change.

Thanks for reading! Make sure to subscribe and watch my podcast on my youtube channel: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog.

Police Violence and Racial Tensions: War Intensifies

The past events of this week have brought the racial tension and police hatred to a fever pitch. The protest of police shootings has led to retaliation by the same people who feel oppressed.  The amount of death and destruction caused by this police versus colored people is absolutely unnecessary and unfathomable. It is unfortunate that police had to shoot and kill two black men. It’s unfortunate that 5 officers had to die in Dallas because of those same police shootings. Nobody should be dying from unnecessary violence. Not black people, Not police officers. I am beyond mortified by these events and the coming war that will only get worse unless we act to remedy the real problems that exist. This post is not a political grandstand nor is it an attempt to cover up or dilute the loss of life, no matter what color skin.

The first problem is obviously the social construct that is racism. People often forget that racism isn’t just limited towards black people but all people can experience it. It is accepted that black or colored people often face racism in common everyday situations. Unfortunately there are no laws or rules that we can make to fix racism. Racism is born out of our history. America was a slave holding nation in the beginning and after the civil war that same distinction that slaves had become the stigma of colored people. The racist ideas about colored people have never died only adapted over time. Now we see it in voting laws, education, police matter, and much more. Racism has one fix. It starts with you and me. In our everyday lives, we need to treat everyone fairly regardless of skin color. If you are in a position of power then judge people strictly on merit and character. Most importantly, encourage others to do the same.

The second problem is retorhic  of political nature. What I mean by this is that politicians especially liberals and President Obama tend to talk negatively about police. Yet at the same time they pass policies that hurt those people they say they want to help. The rehortic of gun control is also damaging to police and people who carry guns. The same people who want to ban guns are the same people who trust the police with guns. We need to stop talking and start doing something. President Obama does almost nothing but side with the victims. He gives no objective or constructive input on any of the situations that occur with gun violence by police or criminals. It’s unfortunate that the liberal media demonize guns and black people then it makes police shootings seem that much worse. The problem with talk is that its cheap. Politian need to shut up and maybe do something constructive to help mitigate this violence.

Now I want to look at what is not a problem and some possible solutions. It does no good to try to pick a side or try to sympathize with either of the victims. One thing that clearly isn’t problem is guns. There is no getting around the fact that guns will always get into the wrong hands. It happens and always will. We don’t need gun control just need to regulate who gets the guns. I have said this before, we need psychological evaluations every year just like a car inspection. Along with a yearly background check this will combat the number of people who get guns who might be a risk to shoot up some place.

Unfortunately there are limited solutions in tears of laws and rules. But one possible way to quell police shootings is through some stricter protocol of when an officer is actually allowed to pull the trigger. I personally know an NYPD cop. He and I have had conversations about police shootings. One of things that he told me was that officers are typically trained to go on their instinct. If they don’t feel safe then they are allowed to draw their weapon. I think officers should probably be trained to only pull the trigger if there is an absolute and immediate threat to their well-being. Such as if a suspect draws a gun themselves or another deadly weapon. The addition of body cams could help make sure that the officer actually does follow protcol. For me, I am just as concerned for the person who is being pursued by police as the police officer.

Another thing is make gun laws nationwide. The second  amendment guarantees the right to bears no matter what. Unify the gun laws so police know that in every town, county, city and state have the same laws. This way police can act accordingly. If every non-felon who has passed a psychological  evaluation year has gun than its fine. Another important thing if you do have a gun and the police ask you to identify where, then you should comply. The basic concept is that as long as you cooperate you shouldn’t need to worry about getting shot by police whether your white, black or any other color. However, on the flip side if you don’t comply then police should have a right to draw their gun. If you try to touch your gun then I would say they have to right to shoot. Its only fair.

If we don’t make changes to our justice system or to our social constructs this violence will only get worse. Its even worse because the two presidential candidates are totally blind to causes of this violence. Its never been white vs. black or police vs. black. All of these supposed rivals are human beings. We have set up these battles for political gain  or personal gain. This is not a new thing. We need to fix the laws accordingly and be more understanding of other’s struggles. Sadly, only a few people grasp the reality of this violence. The political policies of the democrats and republicans have only made the racism and wealth gap larger. Its no secret that the elites wants to battle each other. Look up Gender 21 or George Soros. Look up the Illumati. Look up who owns most of the world’s money. Its only about 300 families. People need to wake up. If we let these tragedies  control our emotions then we let the government take away more of our rights. Its a vicious cycle.

Just to remember to respect people of other races and respect the police, because like everyone else they have a job to do. Thanks for reading!

Meddling in the Middle East: Aid Trouble

Before I go into my headline topic on the middle east, I want to just take moment to say that I called the stock market crash and rebound after the Brexit vote last week. After nearly three days of down stocks, the market has returned almost all the losses. Once again I want to reiterate that the long-term economic and political results won’t be seen for at least 3 to 5 years. Now let me switch gears into a very controversial topic that relates to terrorism and the middle east. Today I want to discuss the absurdly of the US foreign policy toward Israel. I also want touch on tragic airport bombing in Istanbul, Turkey that was supposedly planned by ISIS. My main focus of this post is to make the point that Israel should be able to accept being an US ally without needing over 50 billion dollars for military aid.

First up, I want to mourn for the victims of the airport bombing in Istanbul, Turkey. It was a horrible and savage attack. The death toll has reach nearly 50 people with over 200 people injured. I think that its very necessary to use caution especially when traveling abroad. You never know when ISIS will strike. The US response was about as usual as it could be. There isn’t much choice but to strengthen the airport security. It’s very unfortunate for the Turkish people for whom terrorist attacks have been increasing in the past year. You can find part of the reason in the civil war in Syria which continues to raise havoc in the region. Turkey also has some domestic terrorist which are just as bad. Turkey actually relies on tourism for a good part of their economy. Hopefully the Turkish government can take the necessary steps to deter and stop more attacks. They can also thank Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy. Unfortunately President Obama and Hillary Clinton conceived a foreign policy that led to the creation of ISIS because of power void. This absence of power is thanks to George W. Bush, however, without a stable government in the area it was pretty much impossible to stop the formation of a terror group.

On the topic of stable governments in the middle east, there is at least one US ally that is not named Saudi Arabia or Jordan. That US ally is also one of the world’s nuclear powers. The small nation of Israel, location centrally in the middle east. A key ally in helping maintain a balance of power in the thick of US hatred. Recently, there was news about the agreements that happen each year between the US and Israel. This time around it seems that President Obama is standing up against Israel. The article highlights the main facts surrounding the Israeli-American defense agreement that sends 50 billion dollars a year of taxpayer to help fund the Israeli military. It also says that Obama wants to cut out his part of the agreement. The agreement also deals with civilian aid and economic aide. For once, I think President Obama is making the right move with Israel and here’s why.

First, no other country gets such special treatment like the Israeli’s do. Not the UK, not France, not anybody. Israel is the only country in the world that gets to spend its US aid on military weapons. Now granted, this policy was formed after World War 2 because of the holocaust and the need to protect the Jewish population. However, its has been a signficant amount of time since then, about 70 years. President Obama correct asserts that Israel should start paying for their own military. Second, it is not fair to the American taxpayers (that’s me and you) to have pay for defense that typically never benefits them. The reason why it never benefits US citizens is because just look at the middle east! It’s a fucking mess. I don’t think Israel has done much to help the situation.

The third problem is that America can no longer afford to keep shoveling 50 billion a year to Israel. We have enough debt as it is. We have a huge military and trust me its enough to defend Israel if its necessary. You might say “Oh but what about Iran, don’t they want to wipe Israel off the map?” Yes, that’s true. However, I think Israel will be fine since they have nuclear weapons and Iran just signed an agreement to not have them. The deterrence factor should come into play here. My problem with this is just about the money. I think the Israeli’s have always been a great ally and never tried to play us or trick us. However, many nations are America’s ally for benefits and many of them do it without 3 billion a year in military.

I am so proud of President Obama. His foreign policy has been characterized as soft and lacking. I think this is a bold move that Israel definitely won’t like but what are they going to do? Obama is so right to play hardball. Obama should absolutely stick up for American taxpayers. I honestly just don’t give shit about how good of ally and let me explain it in simpler terms. For example, let’s say you have two different friends. Both friends you’ve known for 15 years. Both friends provide you the same support and kinship that you love about them. The difference is that one friend only hits you up when they need money. The other friend is always down to pay for their own shit. Israel is like the friend that only hits you up for money. It’s not a very good way to be a friend. If you are only in it for the money!

I don’t want to sound anti-Semitic or anything, but I really think it’s an unnecessary amount of money. America is going through its own economic crisis. This crisis has been brought on in part by the spending of the military industrial complex. Trust me, 16 trillion dollars of our national debt is not just from bailouts and social programs. 16 trillion dollars is the estimation by a great scholar by the name of Paul A.C Koistnen. He is a tremendous scholar whom I gotten advice from. He is an expert on the military industrial complex with about 10 books in publication. I recommend that you read up on him. His estimate of 16 trillion dollars is the amount that the military industrial complex has cost the US since the end of World War 2. That is nearly 76 percent of the national debt. So I just want to end by congratulating President Obama on his good move and I hope that he continues to push to get rid of the 3 billion subsidization.

Thank you for reading!

 

US Foreign Policy: Candidates’ Terrorism Platforms

If you are just reading my blog for the first time, then you may want to go back to the very first post. If not, then you may want to read or re-read the first and second post of this US Foreign Policy series. In this series, I have offered some insight into our national security policies against Terrorism. I have also revealed our relationship with China and its vulnerability to change with a new president. In this third post of the series, I will try to wrap up the terrorism topic. Then I may write about other things for awhile until I can think of some foreign policy related posts to write. In other news, unrelated to this post, Donald Trump has indeed clinch the nomination and will go to the convention as the candidate. This is obviously not shocking given all his opponents have dropped out. I said in my last post that I would preview each candidates foreign policy platform and try to glean how that would play against ISIS. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump does not talk about ISIS specifically, so instead I will use his trade policy with China as a sample of his handling in international affairs.

Let’s being with Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state. She outlines a fairly specific national security plan. Instead trying to paraphrase it and make this post longer than necessary, I will instead just quote a part of it. The rest of it you read for yourself on her website, linked here. So here’s that quoted part:

 

• Defeating ISIS. ISIS and the foreign terrorist fighters it recruits pose a serious threat to America and our allies. We will confront and defeat them in a way that builds greater stability across the region, without miring our troops in another misguided ground war. Hillary will empower our partners to defeat terrorism and the ideologies that drive it, including through our ongoing partnership to build Iraqi military and governing capacity, our commitment to Afghanistan’s democracy and security, and by supporting efforts to restore stability to Libya and Yemen.
• Holding China accountable. As secretary of state, Hillary reasserted America’s role as a Pacific power and called out China’s aggressive actions in the region.  As president, she’ll work with friends and allies to promote strong rules of the road and institutions in Asia, and encourage China to be a responsible stakeholder—including on cyberspace, human rights, trade, territorial disputes, and climate change—and hold it accountable if it does not.

  ***

• Strengthen alliances. From the Middle East and Asia to Europe and our own hemisphere, Hillary will strengthen the essential partnerships that are a unique source of America’s strength. That’s particularly true of Israel, which is why Hillary will continue to support Israel’s ability to defend itself, including with Iron Dome and other defense systems. If anyone challenges Israel’s security, they challenge America’s security.
• Create partnerships for tomorrow. Hillary believes in free peoples and free markets. As president, she’ll invest in partnerships in Latin America, Africa, and Asia with people and nations who share our values and vision for the future. – Hillary Clinton

I quote two different sets of points. The two on the top are very controversial to me, because they are easier said than done and I will explain.  The bottom two essentially state the same goal but its actually a very encouraging sentiment to hear. Starting with defeating ISIS, it sounds like Hillary wants to use our allies in the middle east to help defeat them. (See the Italicized sentence) Although I find this to be a more tolerable policy then unilateral action, I still see problems. Naturally when trying to form a coalition to fight there will be disagreements. I think the real problems stem from who will pay for this fight and who actually can fight.

Let’s take Afghanistan for example, since the US handed over the reins of their newly installed democratic government, the Afghans still haven’t been able to re-gain full control. The insurgency is prevalent in interrupting day to day life. It also still requires a close relationship with US troops. If Hillary is counting on Afghanistan or even worse the center of ISIS in Syria to fight, then I think she is crazy. Now if we depend on other allies like Israel, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia; We might end up footing the bill. The sad reality is that typically the US does foot the bill for uni and bilateral action since we are the most powerful nation in the world. This is still leaves the question of would actually defeat ISIS?

In my humble opinion, I don’t think it would be enough. Nor would I say that invading would be effective either. I think Hillary should broaden the whole policy and include everyone across the world. Her stated policies of creating and maintaining allies and partnerships is the exact solution to defeating ISIS. The reason is that ISIS like other terrorism groups are fueled by fear and coercion. These two elements help a terrorism group achieve its goals. They are feared by the people, and they coerce governments into giving them what they want. So Hillary needs to make sure every ally that we can possibly have on board is ready to stand up against ISIS, not by fighting them but by not fearing or giving into their demands.

Before I talk about her policy with China, I want to highlight something I just said because its pretty much the point I wanted to make about the last two policies in the quote. The sentence in bold is why I like those policy points. Terrorism can only be fought with kindness not with violence. It seems to psychologically weird, however, the terrorism feed off of expensive wars and fear. Just look at Afghanistan. Now moving away from terrorism, I just want to make some quick points about her policy with China.

I have stated before that Hillary would follow in President Obama’s footsteps and continue the Asian pivot. If I am not mistaken it sounds like that is exactly what she wants to do. I believe that its a solid step in the right direction. However, I would add to her policy that we should become more economically independent by reducing our federal deficit. If you read my first two posts then you know that our relationship with China is securely hinged on interdependent economies. Speaking of China and moving into Mr. Trump’s policy, once again I will quote a part of it and link the rest of it, here on Trump’s website. Here is that quote:

Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism. – Donald Trump

Mr. Trump lacks any sort of real national security issue on his website. However, this tidbit gives at least some clue as to how Trump would deal with foreign policy affairs. I find it interesting that his first statement is calling China a currency manipulator. Now its true, however, if anyone knows how to manipulate currency its Trump, see this heated post. I am not completely sure how he plans to get them to even talk about stopping much less punishing them. The reason why I feel such a slight chance of punishment is because the UN would be handing the sanctions. The problem is that the permanent security council that votes on sanctions in the UN, includes members like China. So obviously China would block anything  like that.

Fortunately, Mr. Trump’s second point makes a lot more sense if he can do right. One way to stop China from cheating to rely less on their economy. Trump is headed in the right direction with both the corporate tax rate and attacking the debt and deficit. However, let me hope that he doesn’t try to use his boneheaded and stupid plan that I blew up in a post recently. Of course, the right way to decrease our debt is to stop SPENDING. Just to set the record straight. The last part of Trump’s statement is a little controversial. Here it is again: bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism.

I’m not personally crazy on this type of policy because it could give way to a war that we don’t want. I wrote before when writing about China that the Chinese are preparing to try to enlarge their sphere of influence. The Chinese aren’t ruling out a war as the building of their navy would indicate. Once again, I think military build ups just lead to war. There is no way for diplomatic negotiations with increased military force in close proximity. I think that Trump and the US would be better off using economic measures to help combat the Chinese reach for world power.

I hope that this was informative and gave some insight on how these policies may affect us if they are put into use. The goal of this US foreign policy series to help educate people on the aspects of foreign policy. It should also make clear who you may want to vote for. A candidate’s knowledge of foreign policy is a highly regarded asset in political circles. I think that besides the economy, foreign policy is one of the hardest areas in politics. The complexity and multitude of variable factors is absolutely overwhelming. I will say that even I struggle to comprehend foreign policy at times.Fortunately, my background in History has prepared me well to understand it. I also feel that foreign policy can make or break a presidency. I’ll be honest with President Obama, he had almost no foreign policy experience. Yet he has done just alright, with a quite a few mistakes. The two bright spots are his Asian Pivot and his dealing with Syria and ISIS. Anyway, I hope that you enjoyed all the posts in this series, there will definitely be more in the future!

Thank you for reading!

US Foreign Policy: Terrorism is the New War

Welcome back to the second installment of US Foreign Policy  as it relates to the presidential candidates and their future presidencies. Today, I will continue a little bit on my China and US narrative. Then I will start on a new issue which can be considered the most alarming threat to US national security. If you read or watch the news you know all about ISIS. I am more interested in how the candidates intend to fight back against ISIS. I will also preview a short history of terrorism, very similar to this post I wrote awhile back. I would encourage you to read both that article and read my last post: US Foreign Policy: Commander and Peace. I hope your ready for some complex international relations because these two situations typify two classic international relations circumstances. Just a warning, this post may be very long.

In my last post, I started out talking about the Chinese rise to a world power via economic dominance in manufacturing. I also covered the economic interdependence that tie the US and China closely. In my concluding statements, I talked about Hillary Clinton and her corporate connections that might draw us into war because of corporate and self interests. Now I want to try to explain as simply as I can, the order of preferences for both China and the US. Trying to pick out preferences or national interests in this case, can show us where the relationship between China and US is heading. Its nearly impossible to predict because sometimes actors make irrational decisions. However, most of the time, it is assumed that actors are rational. A rational decision maker follows standard logic of any given circumstance making it easier to predict. Also my perceived preferences could be totally wrong because I’m merely an observer, not an actor inside China or the US. Observations can be inaccurate due to a lack of information. For the sake of education and knowledge though, I will try to be as accurate as possible.

Let’s start with China’s preferences or national interests. Its clear from Chinese actions that they want to build up their power. I would say that power is China’s first preference. They already have economic power but they want to be considered among the great world powers. The Chinese have perceived by history, that they have been sort of second class in terms of world power. This perceived lack of power leads into their two second preference or national interests. Chinese are looking to become influential within their sphere of influence. I can tell this because the US influence in Asian is quite large. The US holds some type of alliance or mutual defense agreement with Japan, Philippines, and Vietnam. Japan is a powerful economic engine itself. Also they happen to be a Chinese sworn rival. The last Chinese preference from what I can tell, is the continuation of their economic dominance. This is both a power AND influence preference because the economy can allow a country the resources and wherewithal to pursue their national interests.

Of course with any preference order there is a preferred set of outcomes. Based on the China’s building up a navy and their defiance of international law, one outcome is war. I would assume that in a rational decision making process they would try diplomatic  or non-violent ways to get power and influence. However, I sense that now after nearly 20 years of economic dominance they still don’t feel respected. The outcome of war is very likely something that the Chinese would embrace given their large navy and abundant population. The only downside is that their opponent is already who or what their aiming to be.

The US preference is very similar to the Chinese but for different reasons. The US prefers to maintain their power because unlike China, the US already has the world power and elite status. The US also prefers to increase their influence in Asian to push back China via the Asian pivot. America also prefers to increase their economic production to catch up with China. As you can see, the US preferences are similar to China’s because the US wants to keep China from gaining too much power and influence. The most important difference is the outcome of war. US does not want to go war with China, hence the Asian pivot. Another factor that helps US national interests is economic interdependence with China. It also hurts the US because China has the same ability to effect a war.

Now in the perspective of a presidential candidate like Trump or Clinton, they will have access to much more classified information and intelligence. The most important foreign policy decision in regards to China is how to handle their bullying of other Asian countries. We can’t get caught up in their games. Its very similar to a game of poker, if a player bluffs a good or bad hand, then its up to you to figure out which their trying to hide. Sometimes you guess wrong. I believe that as long as Clinton or Trump protect US interests only and don’t try to overreach, they can keep China at bay. At the very least avoid a war that might cost over a billion people due to nuclear weapons.

If you haven’t done so already, please read The Post 9/11 Narrative vs. The Past 50 years of American Foreign Policy. This is will give you some background about terrorism, also you could read my post on 9/11’s 14th anniversary. In order to save my word count and your time, I will get right into ISIS and how the candidates might deal with it. I think the best place to start is with former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State is an appointed position within the President’s cabinet. The Secretary of State is responsible for diplomatic relations with other countries. Under Clinton’s tenure, the rise of ISIS happened among the civil war in Syria and chaos in the Afghanistan and Iraq. Many news pundits like to blame Bush for creating a power void that let ISIS come to power. I don’t want to get into how it was formed or why because it would take a rather complex, scholarly effort to conclude such a hypothesis. However, if we look back on how Clinton handle foreign policy situations we can see how her policies might unfold as president.

One of Clinton’s most controversial moves as Secretary of State was a decision to leave ambassadors in Libya despite the dangerous conditions in the north African country. The political scandal that has followed Clinton because of the deaths of these four ambassadors under her watch. It has become known as the Benghazi Scandal. I feel like Clinton’s handling of the situation was poor, however the surprise attack cannot be faulted on her. At the same time, she should have known that surprise attacks are common and had prepare an appropriate security force to protect those ambassadors. I think from this situation, I gather the Clinton will follow a policy of national interests over human interests. During her tenure, she choose to remain out of the Syrian Civil War, which has just begun a year or two earlier. This was despite the reports of Syrian president Assad killing his own people. Once again, Clinton doesn’t deserve all the blame because I feel she made the right choice.

The Syria Civil war is a very complex conflict within the country of Syria. There are multiple warring factions. It would be stupid to get involved in such a conflict. Even to this day, President Obama and new Secretary of State John Kerry, have decided to stay away with the exception of training some rebels and bombing campaigns. An all out war on Syria would be more costly than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Unfortunately one consequences of not intervening has been the formation of ISIS. We have seen how Clinton handled some situations as Secretary of State, but how will she handle ISIS as president?

In the next series of this US Foreign policy, I will take the each of the Candidates platform on Terrorism and see how that will work against ISIS. To concluded this post, I will talk a little bit about why Trump worries me in foreign policy. Then I will do quick explanation of my title. Donald Trump is by profession, a business man. He brags about his book, Art of the Deal. Despite Trump being a savvy businessman, I have some anxiety about his foreign policy. Business deals tend not to have as high stakes as diplomatic talks can. Trump has to remember that in foreign policy, he represents the world’s most powerful nation. There are other countries and terrorist who want to see America go down in flames. Trump negotiating skills will definitely come in handy. However, his knowledge of foreign policy is probably not on par with many other past presidents.If there is one thing he could do to sooth my fears, it would be to get a very experienced Secretary of State that has been in foreign policy.

Obviously I can find positives and scary negatives about both candidates in foreign policy.  To conclude this post, let me explain why “Terrorism is the New War”. If you remember in your American and Global history classes,  in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries it was common for States or Nations to fight against each other. There is a multitude of wars that pit two or more countries against each other. The wars usually start over economic, religious, or land issues. Now, in the 21st century, we have seen a dramatic change in the face of war. Since the 9/11 terrorist attack, we have seen wars not to conquer other countries for land. The wars fought especially by the US have been over religious extremists and some economic interests like Oil.  War has changed and so has how we conduct foreign policy. Whoever becomes President in January 2017 will be dealing primarily with a terrorism threat. It was much easier when Nations fought each other because you know who your negotiating with. Also it was easy to impose international sanctions. Now, terrorists are just groups of people with a common cause. They don’t care about being diplomatic, they want to use force and coercion.

In order to defeat these terrorist who feed off fear and overreactions, we need to unite as country. We need to unite as allies with Europe and Asian. These groups of terrorist are not new or invisible. They are human beings. Whoever is President will need to bring peace of mind and stability. Their leadership will be instrumental in fighting back the terrorists. I personally feel that their intentions are to incite war. The best defense against another costly war is to be determined to keep peace through increased homeland security of our borders. We must keep out those terrorists and allow those who deserve to be here, to come freely. The future of our nation rests upon the foreign policy decisions made in these critical years.

Part 3 of this series in a few days! Thanks for reading!