The Draft, Iraq and Class Warfare Rhetoric

Incoming House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has renewed his proposal to reinstate a military draft for the United States. He claims that if a draft were enacted, that the war in Iraq would not continue.

He claims that the war effort is not equally shared across the socioeconomic spectrum. Jesse Jackson has said that rising college costs and a loss of US manufacturing jobs has reduced opportunities for poor and has led many to seek opportunities within the military.

To her credit, incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has opposed Rangel's effort, although she commended him for calling for a "shared sacrifice" of military service throughout all socioeconomic strata. Rangel's publicity ploy is nothing more than a renewed attempt at creating a larger rift between Americans by reviving tired class-warfare rhetoric.

I served in the US Army. I volunteered. I went to college, graduated with a degree in Journalism from a top university, and felt a patriotic obligation to serve. In my situation, I had many employment options. I was not overly disadvantaged, but I still willingly choose to put my life on the line in the military. In my Officer Candidate School class (501-04,) I had a classmate who had graduated from Harvard Law School, near the top of his class. He volunteered for the Infantry. Another of my platoon had a degree in finance and left a job with Smith-Barney to serve as an Armor officer.

Jesse Jackson and other civil-rights movement rejects routinely claim that the war is primarily being fought by blacks and Hispanics in a number disproportionate to their representation in the general US population. This is not only inaccurate, it is a flat-out lie. The Infantry is primarily white and a large majority come from the South. There are thousands of soldiers that fight because they believe in their country, not because they have no other options. The idea, reinforced by John Kerry's recent campaign gaff, that the military is a repository for societal misfits and the uneducated is propaganda designed to rally the proletariat to support the Democrats.

The Democrats have a long history of oppressing minorities. According to the Congressional Quarterly (26 June, 1964,) 69% of Senate Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 compared to 82% of Republicans. Former Democrat Senate Leader Robert Bryd admitted to not only being a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but also recruiting for the organization. This was a man who was leading Democrats in the United States Senate? If a Republican had ever even mentioned the KKK, they would be immediately tarred and feathered by the media and Democrats. For any Democrat today to claim that the war is racist or that a draft is needed to balance out the sacrifice is hypocrisy in its most glaring form. The Democrats don't care about the poor. They only care about the poor's vote.

To borrow a phrase from President Bush, the Democrats practice the "soft bigotry of low expectations." For Jesse Jackson to suggest that college is too expensive and a decline of manufacturing leaves poor people with no other options than to join the military, is a calculated and wrong statement. The federal student loan program, along with the Pell Grant and numerous state programs puts college within the reach of any American who desires an escape from their economic status. Rather than bemoan the loss of low-skilled jobs, perhaps the Democrats and Mr. Jackson should welcome the opportunity for poor people to upgrade their skills to become the workforce behind America's future, rather than being slaves to the past.

For further reading:

Experts seek roots of US military makeup (USA Today)

Key Democrats oppose return to draft (Reuters)

Old article about Charles Rangel's 2003 draft bill (CNN)

Article about Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans)

A Senator's Shame: Democrat Robert Bryd and the KKK (Washington Post)

Vietnam trade bill defeated in US House

In a striking blow to free(er) trade principles, a bill in the US House of Representatives died after failing to receive the two-thirds majority required under special House rules. The bill would have normalized trade relations with Vietnam, thus paving the way for a Vietnamese entry into the World Trade Organization.

President Bush is due to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting in Hanoi next week. He had hoped to trumpet the passing of the bill as a milestone in opening up trade with the communist country. The Bush administration still has hopes for normalizing trade relations with Vietnam, although with the current political climate, it seems that the Republicans and Bush have a difficult path ahead.

This defeat is a setback for the global economy, especially with Asia trade relations. As demonstrated in the Chinese model, trade is a proven way to open closed societies and to further the influence of freedom and democratic principles. Normalized trade relations with Vietnam could have been the crack through which democracy could slowly infiltrate Vietnamese society.

For further reading:

A setback for Vietnam trade bill (IHT)

Vietnam trade bill fails in U.S. before Bush visit (Reuters)

House set to approve trade bill for Vietnam: lawmakers (Reuters)

Two groups that make a difference: ONE and DATA

Charities have always been cause for suspect. While there's something noble about altruism, most charities or activist groups tend to rub me the wrong way. Usually it's due to self-righteous pontificating from the leaders of a particular group that turn me off to supporting various causes.

However...

There is a cause in which I strongly believe. The DATA group is an organization dedicated to improving the situation on the African continent through economic, rather than "charitable" means. Essentially, this group favors eliminating poverty through global trade. Rather than throwing money into a black hole under the guise of "helping," DATA prefers to influence policy to promote a free-market escape from the chains of AIDS, poverty and oppression. I would encourage everyone to read more about DATA and sign on to support their efforts.

The ONE campaign is a sister organization that is not about donating money, but about donating a voice. This non-partisan group is dedicated to ending poverty by working with governments and influencing rather than simply screaming to the masses as many advocacy groups unsuccessfully do.

What is ONE?

ONE is a new effort by Americans to rally Americans – ONE by ONE – to fight the emergency of global AIDS and extreme poverty. ONE is students and ministers, punk rockers and NASCAR moms, Americans of all beliefs and every walk of life, united as ONE to help make poverty history. ONE believes that allocating an additional ONE percent of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the world's poorest countries. ONE also calls for debt cancellation, trade reform and anti–corruption measures in a comprehensive package to help Africa and the poorest nations beat AIDS and extreme poverty.

Here's a video:



Now go do something. Add your name to the ONE declaration.

My vision of globalization

The concept of globalization as I mean it, is not necessarily the homogenization of cultures, but more the homogenization of economic systems to facilitate the unencumbered exchange of products and ideas. Globalization is the economic equivalent of freedom of speech. Of course, we all know that freedom of speech is not, nor should it be absolute, just as free trade should not absolute. However, the concept of freedom of speech as well as globalization is overall a good idea. Obviously, with trade and speech, there should be certain limits in order to not squash the rights of others. For example, US, EU farm subsidies are an example of where limits should be enacted. Those subsidies effectively limit the economic freedoms of developing countries (such as in Africa.) Those subsidies are not just unfair, they distort the market. Just as the media can distort elections via biased coverage.

My globalization ideal would involve graduated elimination of all tariffs, but of course that would require the graduated elimination of domestic subsidies. Over time, the markets will create a more efficient and productive environment. This is the stated aim of the World Trade Organization, however domestic political agendas often preclude trade fairness. Much as Colorado can trade products and services with Illinois with minimal regulatory interference, I would hope that America and Zambia, or France and Uzbekistan could enjoy similar trade efficiency.

Economic balkanization is a poison. It is one of the root causes of poverty. If Africa can't sell tulips to Europe because the Dutch oppose tariff elimination, then Africa effectively will have a smaller or reduced market for their products, thus perpetuating poverty in that region. Bono is more of an expert in that area than me, go visit the One Campaign website for more about African trade and poverty.

I am not in favor of cultural imperialism from any country. I am in favor of eliminating barriers to trade as it will benefit all economies, from developed countries like the US all the way down to small Bangladeshi basket weavers.

Much as the civil rights movement in the United States reduced barriers between races, I want to reduce barriers between economies. Racial segregation seemed like a good idea to some people throughout history just as economic segregation seems like a good idea to some now. Realizing that segregation hurts a country took many years, but looking back it seems obvious (to most of us) that segregation was wrong, both morally and economically.

A rising tide will raise all boats -- we just need to ensure all boats are ready for the rising tide.

Read a speech from the WTO Director General Mike Moore about Globalization. In the speech he explains that "globalization works."

For an alternative view check out the Free Trade section of GlobalIssues.org. Much as I slant strongly in favor of globalization, this site provides links and commentary slanting against free trade policies.

Dangerous changes in store for Southeast Asia

Newly installed Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont announced a proposal to inroduce Shariah law in the Muslim southern provinces of Thailand. This presents a dangerous turn of events for Southeast Asia.

The danger of allowing religious law in traditionally benign Thailand could set a precedent that may result in other countries of the region being pressured by Muslim radicals to accept Islamic law. The problems of Shariah are well documented. The Taliban is one of the prime examples of when Shariah goes wrong. Women's rights, religious freedom and other personal liberties will be threatened by Islamic governance.

The military installed government of Thailand seems to be attempting to placate Muslims in the southern part of the country, but as the old saying goes, "If you give a mouse a cookie..."

Read the International Herald Tribune story.

The Rice Solution

The recent failure of free trade agreement talks between the United States and Korea is frustrating. The "sensitive" issues of rice (for the Koreans) and textiles (for the Americans) are harming consumers on both sides of the ocean.

Korea is concerned that by opening up its rice market to imports, that it will effectively make their domestic industry obsolete. The Korean rice industry is practically obsolete and as such requires extensive subsidies to stay afloat along with highly punitive tariffs on imports. The United States feels similarly about its textile industry, although obsolecence isn't the problem in the US, it's the union monopoly on the labor supply that has resulted in anti-competitive wages for textile workers.

The solution is simple. Let the market solve the problem. Let consumers vote with their dollars (or Won.) Allow unrestricted rice imports from the US, but label that rice in the stores as "US Rice" in big bold letters. Label the domestic rice as "Korean Rice." The US rice will of course be dramatically cheaper, but if consumers don't want to lower prices, they would be free to buy the expensive domestic product. The same model could work for textiles. If the citizens of a particular country are truely interested in protecting inefficient industries, then let them pay for it themselves.

I am tired of overpaying for rice. I'm tired of overpaying for everything. Let the markets set the prices and the consumers set the demand.

Increasing Iraqi sovereignty

The pundits that often claim that the US "conquered" Iraq and are subjugating its people are losing credibility with each passing day. Although US forces are the primary operators in the Iraqi theater, the control of the country lies with the democratically elected government of Iraq.

Last night in Baghdad, Iraq Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for the removal of coalition checkpoints within the city. This order, although unexpected by US commanders, was immediately executed. The checkpoints are unmanned and US soldiers have been assigned to other areas.

This move by Maliki seems to be an attempt to satisfy Shite concerns within the city, although the larger importance is that Iraq's fledgling government is becoming more confident in exerting its independence. This current move should save US lives and hopefully bolster the credibility of the Iraqi government with Shite groups.

The downside is that Shite militia groups within the city might have an easier time navigating within Baghdad and this could pose a significant threat to the city's stability. Time will tell.

For further reading:

U.S. troops quit Baghdad positions on Iraqi's order