Thinking about sitting out the November elections because President Obama and Congress have let you down? Think again. The 2010 midterm could prove to be the most pivotal election of our lifetime.
This is already the most cutthroat contest I have experienced during the last 15 years of working on federal elections. According to The Cook Political Report, there are now 73 highly competitive House races, compared to 51 in August of 2008. 66 of these 73 endangered seats are currently held by Democrats, compared to 20 out of 51 in 2008. Senate Democrats are equally pressured.
Although my organization, Citizens for Global Solutions, endorses on both side of the aisle, these numbers do matter. In our latest Congressional Report Card the average Democratic grade was an A- in the House and Senate while Republicans averaged a D in the House and a D+ in the Senate.
While Republican wins in swing districts could result in a more moderate party, there is also a looming possibility of losing the internationalist majority in Congress that Citizens for Global Solutions has worked so long to establish. Tea Party endorsed Senate candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Clint Didier in Washington both want to see the U.S. out of the U.N. Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul insists that "funding of the U.N. as a whole becomes voluntary." So does Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who sponsored legislation that would "shift the funding mechanism for the regular budget of the United Nations from an assessed to a voluntary basis." Governments would vote with their wallets for their favorite U.N. line items, turning the U.N. into a Darwinian jungle.
2010 could decide if our nation will stay the course of responsible global engagement or slip back into a militant unilateralism. How the United States is governed matters not only to us, but to the world. All of the current international institutions that function today, from the United Nations to the International Criminal Court (ICC), were established with leadership from the United States. Implementation of credible proposals to empower international organizations will not be achieved in the future without U.S. support.
In 2008, speaking before a jubilant crowd in Chicago the night after his election, President-elect Obama reached out to the world saying:
To all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
I was on a flight to The Hague that evening. My fellow passengers shared great expectations: The U.S. would reengage globally in a responsible and multilateral way. Obama would close Guantanamo, pull us out of Iraq, seriously address climate change, and begin to eliminate nuclear weapons. We would shift from being the world's "super power" to the world's "super partner."
The Obama administration has taken serious steps towards this vision. They have paid off years of past due assessments to the United Nations, joined the Human Rights Council, negotiated and sought ratification of the New START treaty, engaged with the ICC, are removing all combat troops from Iraq, and more. In a letter introducing the National Security Strategy, President Obama laid out his world vision:
The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times... stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; resolving and preventing conflict, while also healing its wounds.
The president's desire for an "international order" is a signal to both support his administration's efforts and to push the envelope of what can be achieved. But will we have the opportunity to do so? Or will the belief of uber-nationalists prevail, like those of the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, who in her rant against the New START treaty said, "We live in a dangerous world in which bad guys respect strength and weapons and disdain weakness and disarmament."
Citizens for Global Solutions is working hard for a positive outcome from the elections in November. Global Solutions PAC is identifying and supporting candidates of any party or affiliation who share our internationalist values. We are reaching out to our members to volunteer, contribute and vote in November. In the end, it will be up to all of us. No one ever said that change would be easy. It's time to get to work.
and interconnected planet that we share with all the other countries. We must figure
out how to make this planet a more peaceful, safer place that is sustainable for future
generations. The USA cannot afford to continue with our current model of serving as policeman
for the world, establishing our military presence in so many countries. We need to establish
a better model for ourselves and our planet. We need to support leaders from either party
who are willing to recognize that our national security is more dependent on the way we
treat others than on the size of our arsenal of weapons. The United States of America
is an awesome country. So many people want to live here. We owe it to ourselves, our
children, and our grandchildren to help figure out a better way for all nations on Planet Earth
to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes, turn your back on all of those that would follow this leadership's vision, we need honest men and women of real character , without corruption and for the United States and which it stands for.. This is not what we have in any branch of government currently in power. Vote!
I would like to point out some fallacies in your arguement. Let me start with your report card. Seeing as you are obviously against Republicans, I would like to be blunt in this assessment. I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that your marks are based off of idealogical positions, so having a higher mark average for your own side is bias. Congress is at an 11% approval rating, so the marks across the board should all be below a C- on average. I can't see how Democrats have an A- with the ethics charges and wasteful spending. (Which does cross party lines mind you) so, I would have to say that the huffington posts grading system is dishonest. I have read some of the hack jobs on this site that have a surreal basis in reality and fact.
(Continued next post)
Regarding the Obama administration, I agree they are far from perfect, but base upon the direction our nation should be headed towards in our world, they are trying and slowly (perhaps too slowly) moving in the right direction and need the time and support to get there. Roosevelt once said something to the effect of "I agree with you, now make me do it." That's our job. - Don Kraus
Obama must concentrate on domestic issues first, so the "right" direction can't be pursued until we are strong enough to contribute. Maybe if you pushed for the policies of the Coolidge administration, we could get to global solutions quicker. Study the great depression, then compare it to the economic state before the 1920's, which was worse. Then, compare that data to today and you'll notice some interesting correlations and parallels.
Thanks for the link, it is interesting reading. :) I agree with some of your organizations beliefs, but I think ideology dominates the ideals, rather than what is achievable and consistent with our founding principles. Just my humble opinion of course.
I respect your position, but the grades are still based off of ideology, so equating higher grades with the people you agree with is still misleading. Ie, your organization supports Barney Frank, but he was responsible for the housing crash. He came out a week prior and said Freddie and fannie were fine, but a week later the bundled mortgages failed and plummeted. I grade someone on actions, not ideology.
You do realize the climate bill can actually cause more pollution right? A wealthy company can buy credits from other businesses and continue to throw off just as much pollution if not more. This bill would negate standards already in place because the company can buy as many credits as it wants if available. There are too many exploitable loopholes. Maybe that is why the majority of Republicans are against it.
Our country is in fiscal trouble and we have many internal problems. We can't effectively police world as it stands. We also can't fix other nations if we can't fix our own. I believe we can all come together as a world, but right now we have to help ourselves. I'll equate my point with this analogy; you are hired for a management position halfway through your degree process in management, but you want to take the job because you believe your ready. The only problem is you haven't situated yourself to the point that you can effectively perform the job. Am I making sense?
(Continued next post)
(Continued)
I don't quite understand your cheerleader mentality towards Obama, seeing as he has contradicted his words with actions. Ie; Guantanamo is still open for business, we are still in Iraq, the climate change bill failed because it didn't provide new technology, but instead would make businesses pay for carbon credits, an the nuclear weapons are still on the table. 18 months and he isn't even close to accomplishing half of these and he hasn't fully accomplished any. On top of that, he has spent more than every president combined when comparing a one year spending comparison. O'reilly gives both sides and plays devils advocate a lot on his show, but I don't see any kind of criticism towards your own party. We can't move forward until we become objective and stow our pride to accomplish what is best for the nation. Start criticizing every poor decision either side makes and become the checks and balances your supposed to be.
I'm not a Republican ideologue. I am a libertarian who votes as an independent, so I see positives on both ends of the spectrum. I just try to stay as objective as I can. You can't protect others if you lie to yourself. That is one of the many truths I model my life after.
I would like to point out some ideological parallels that aren't mutually exclusive in respect to the UN. Liberals saw the healthcare system needed to be fixed, so they decided to overhaul the system in their ideological way. The UN is corrupted in certain areas and powerless in others. (Ie, sanctions in Iran) the individuals you pointed out are performing the polar opposite ideologies that you believe in, so they are staying consistent with their beliefs. The actions of each side mirror the ideology, so they are directly connected. Both sides want to make policies that are complete opposites of each other.
The UN needs to be repaired and has to have some sort of authority to actually work. If many are opposed to the nuclear program in Iran, the UN should have some type of power in stopping the program. We both know they just throw out hot air on this issue. Just saying you are for or opposed to the UN is a fallacy within itself. It is in need of change one way or another.
(Continued next post)
I vote progressive and left. PERIOD.