Tough Mother Russia

In early 1997, I accompanied a US Assistant Secretary of Defense in face-to-face negotiations with a Russian minister in Moscow. Our closed-door meeting had only 4 people in the room: my Assistant Secretary; the Russian minister; an interpreter; and, me.

At that time, the US enjoyed huge economic and military advantages over Russia.

The US economy was booming with the Dow Jones average reaching an all-time high. The Russian economy was in tatters. Only one year later the Russian government would devalue the Ruble and default on its debt.

The US military was just 6 years removed from destroying Iraq’s Russian-supplied weapons in Operation Desert Storm. America’s stealth and precision monopolies were the envy of the world. Russia’s military was a comparative wreck. It had just absorbed a second wave of massive post-USSR reductions; training was practically non-existent.

Despite these disparities, the Russian minister in 1997 would not compromise. He would not negotiate. The concept of “cost-benefit ratio” seemed alien to him. The Russian refused to give up anything if it resulted in any cost to Russia, however intangible that cost might be. He was like a boxer who will take 10 shots to the head in order to get inside to land one shot of his own. His message? Just because Russia was weak did NOT mean Russians weren’t tough.

Fast forward to 2014 and Crimea. Promises and threats of economic benefits or sanctions will NOT drive Russia to reverse course. As George Kennan wrote in 1946, “deep and powerful currents of Russian nationalism” are “impervious to the logic of reason, and highly sensitive to the logic of force.” Russia will only reverse course if forced to do so.

Force is the only currency Moscow will accept – and this is too high a price for Kiev to pay. Unwilling to resort to force, Ukraine has accepted Russia’s will. It is difficult to imagine why the United States should pay the price of force for Crimea when Ukrainians are unwilling to pay it themselves. Mother Russia may be weak, but it remains a tough mother.

A Tale of Two Districts

Virginia’s two northern-most Congressional Districts have open-seat elections this year. Democrat Jim Moran will retire from the 8^th District (centered on Arlington) after 24 years. Republican Frank Wolf will retire from the 10^th District (centered on Leesburg) after 32 years. Both are members of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Neither had trouble with reelection over the decades.

You might expect a political free-for-all over two Congressional seats “owned” by incumbents for decades. You would be only half right.

In the 8^th District, only one Republican has filed to run. At last count, 12 Democrats are competing for the Democratic nomination.

Numbers are reversed in the 10^th District. Only one Democrat is running. Seven Republicans are competing for the nomination.

The Cook Partisan Voting Index (Cook PVI) rates Moran’s 8^th District as D+16. A nominal Democrat will usually beat a nominal Republican by 16 points. This makes the 8^th District a certain Democratic win. Baring a felony conviction, whoever wins the Democratic Primary in June will almost certainly win the general election in November.

High as it is, Virginia’s 8^th District has far from the highest Cook PVI in the Nation; it is only tied for 73^rd place among House districts held by Democrats nationwide. It puts Virginia-8 within the top 37% percentile of Democratic-held seats in the US House of Representatives.

The 10^th District, currently held by Republican Frank Wolf has a Cook PVI of R+2.  That places Virginia-10 in the bottom 12% percentile among GOP-held seats in the House.

Given the narrow Cook PVI margin, Democrats are optimistic for winning Virginia-10's open seat in 2014. However, any Democratic optimism is a stretch. There is a reason for the raft of Republicans fighting for the nomination versus only one Democrat. Virginia-10 is gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

In the 2012 Presidential election, President Obama lost the 10^th District to Mitt Romney by 1%. In the 2013 gubernatorial election, Democrat Terry McAuliffe also lost the 10^th to Republican Ken Cuccinelli by 1%. Despite massive fundraising advantages and get-out-the-vote campaigns by both Democrats, the 10^th voted Republican.

The 2013 race Virginia’s Attorney General pitted Democrat Mark Herring (a state senator from Loudoun County, the most populous county in Virginia-10) against Republican Mark Obenshain. They statistically tied each other in Virginia-10.

The 2013 race for Lieutenant Governor was more definitive. The Republican candidate, Bishop EW Jackson was a laughingstock. His statement that “yoga can lead to Satanism” was only one in a series of extreme positions. Others included, “Democrats are anti-God” and “Planned Parenthood is worse than the Ku Klux Klan.” His Democratic opponent, Ralph Northam was a state senator, pediatric neurologist, professor of ethics in medical school, a Gulf War veteran and graduate of VMI (where he was president of the Honor Court). Despite the Democrat’s clear character advantage, Northam won the 10th Congressional District by only 52-48%.

If their biographies were reversed, if the Republican was credible and the Democrat was incredible, the Republican would have won in a landslide. This is the reality in Virginia-10. Only an extreme Republican candidate puts the congressional election in play. Although Virginia-10 has a slim Cook PVI of R+2, that “+2” is solid. Whether or not the gerrymandered District votes for a Democrat is less determined by the credibility of the Democrat than by the incredibility of the Republican. This is why a raft of Republicans versus a single Democrat are competing for this open seat. 

The Next Civil Rights Movement

Over the past half century, Americans have fought and argued historic battles over the civil rights of African Americans and the LGBT community. To stop government from codifying personal prejudice into civil law, we marched, battled and bled through progressions of violent protests, generational combat across our dinner tables, protracted court cases and emotional elections.

While civil rights battles continue, the outcomes of these wars are decided. Any list of the 10 most popular people in America might include: Barack and Michelle Obama; Oprah Winfrey; Colin Powell; Michael Jordan; Denzel Washington; Magic Johnson; Beyoncé; Tiger Woods; and, Muhammad Ali. While race-based discrimination continues in American hearts, law and majority opinion solidly condemn it. Jim Crow is on life support.

The civil rights of the LGBT community are solidly endorsed by America’s youth and increasingly validated by our Courts. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, receives the same levels of ridicule and scorn previously reserved for Plessey v Ferguson. Five words from Pope Francis, “who am I to judge?” signaled a global religious reassessment of homosexuality. The days are clearly numbered for politicians who believe anti-Gay campaigns are winning strategies.

If these two struggles are decided, what is next for the Civil Rights movement? What is the next class of people who will reject today’s social paradigm and force another national re-examination of civil rights in America?

Within 5 years, certainly no more than 10 years from now, the civil rights of Undocumented Immigrants will rise to similar levels of partisan and protracted political combat. Undocumented Immigrants will cease to accept second-class status and insist on equal rights under the Constitution. They will force a civil rights struggle over the meaning of citizenship in America and its value in a globalized world.

The Department of Homeland Security lists specific “Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities” on its website (http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities)

Rights

Responsibilities

1.  Right to vote in elections. 2.  Right to run for elected office. 3.  Right to apply for federal jobs requiring U.S. citizenship. 4.  Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 5.  Freedom to express yourself. 6.  Freedom to worship as you wish. 7.  Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury.

1. Defend the country if the need should arise 2. Serve on a jury when called upon. 3. Support and defend the Constitution. 4. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws. 5. Pay income and other taxes honestly and on time. 6. Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. 7. Stay informed of issues affecting your community. 8. Participate in the democratic process. 9. Participate in your local community.

The “Responsibilities” of US citizenship are very light. Of the “Responsibilities,” current citizens routinely ignore numbers 7, 8 and 9. Numbers 4, 5 and 6 apply to anyone within US borders, citizen or noncitizen. Number 3 (Support and defend the Constitution) is more aspirational than actionable. That leaves us with national defense and jury duty. With no draft in an era in warfare when conscript armies are ineffective, the national defense responsibility is more theoretical than real.

Jury Duty remains as the sole concrete responsibility of citizenship. Is that sufficient grounds for discriminating against non-citizens? As an aside, California Governor Gerry Brown vetoed a 2013 bill that passed both house of the legislature to allow Green Card holders to serve on California juries. Even the bind between jury duty and citizenship is fraying.

The “Rights” of US citizenship are almost as light. Of the “Rights” listed above, numbers 4 through 7 are basic human rights. Number 3 is self-fulfilling (you must be a citizen to get a job that requires you to be a citizen). The most exclusive rights of US citizenship are the right to vote and to hold office. I doubt Undocumented Immigrants would argue these exclusions. All the other rights are shared by all humans, including inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. They are not unique to US citizenship.

For decades, while America had de jure prohibitions against illegal immigration, we extended de facto invitations to millions of people to cross our borders any way they could. Jobs were plentiful. Fences nonexistent by design. Hundreds of thousands (possible millions) of Americans hired Undocumented Immigrants without penalty. Undocumented Immigrants performed work that no one else wanted in the service, construction and agricultural sectors. They obeyed laws, started families, bought houses, started businesses and paid taxes. Some served in uniform. All the while Undocumented Immigrants remained vulnerable to exploitation. They endured unpaid wages, dangerous working conditions, uncompensated injuries and threats of exposure. These vulnerabilities continue to this day.

What will happen when Undocumented Immigrants take to the streets in violent protests over their lack of civil protections and their vulnerability to exploitation and deportation? If history proves a guide, authorities will crack down, meeting violence with violence. Politicians will either fail to act or will join the crackdown. Undocumented Immigrants will then take their cases to Court. After a series of successes and failures, judicial decrees will eventually trigger a reappraisal of American values over immigration and citizenship.

It’s entirely possible that this scenario will not play out. History may not repeat itself.  Problems posed by Undocumented Immigrants may simply “go away.” However, if history does repeat itself, Congress will refuse to act, forcing Courts to address a basic injustice. Congress will then criticize “activist judges” for stepping into the vacuum. As in the 1954 Brown decision, the Courts will dictate a leadership path that politicians will undercut for temporary political advantage.

A better course would be to place a short and specific proposal on the political table that extends basic civil protections to Undocumented Immigrants in America. We would debate and modify this proposal until a consensus forms. Our overall purpose is to get ahead of a possible civil rights struggle before it turns violent.

Future blogs will outline one possible path. Suggestions are welcome.

Prudent Cuts in Defense Spending

Anyone listening to the speeches at CPAC or reading the op-ed pages in major newspapers might assume the US military is headed for obsolescence.  President Obama’s plan to reduce defense spending has triggered no shortage of over-the-top histrionics. Robert Samuelson calls it “a huge gamble.” John Bolton referred to “an American military that is weak and poorly equipped.”

America’s proposed defense budget for 2015 is $495.6 billion. This is 40% of worldwide expenditures. The next two largest defense budgets belong to China and Russia. Our proposed defense budget is 4 times larger than China’s and 8 times larger than Russia’s. If we combine the US defense budget with those of our closest allies (NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia), we constitute 70% of world-wide military spending.

This $495.6 billion defense budget does NOT include the cost of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. It does NOT include the cost of Homeland Security ($61 billion), International Affairs ($41 billion), nuclear weapons ($11 billion) and Veterans Affairs ($165 billion, including military pensions).

Simple budget numbers do NOT reflect the high combat-readiness of US forces, forged through a decade of constant combat. US forces lead the world in jointness. Visit any combat headquarters any you will see a mix of uniforms. All communicate effectively at all echelons. Among our enemies, jointness is a one-word oxymoron.

Name any weapon system and the best-in-the-world winner will be American made. US weapons are the world’s gold standard in every category.

Bottomline: Any enemy attacking US vital interests will bring inferior, untested and stove-piped forces to fight our massive, best-equipped, proven and joint team. This will not be a fair fight. Any military challenging the United States and our allies would face proven leaders, command & control, logistics and weapons – all on day one of any fight. There will not be a day two.

When he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen said, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.” At this time of overwhelming military strength and comparative peace, the federal government must balance its budget. With national security comprising half of discretionary spending, modest reductions in defense spending are a prudent path. 

Obamacare vs Social Security

Today’s #1 political divide is Obamacare. A Google search on “force people to buy health care” and “Obama” generates 2.2 million hits.

Today’s Republican message is that Obamacare is Exhibit A in government overreach; another unnecessary intrusion into personal decisions. If today’s Republicans are right, so were their Republican parents and grandparents.

At its inception in the 1930s, Republicans bitterly opposed Social Security. They labeled FDR a socialist. Republicans used Social Security as a rallying call to win 81 House seats in the 1938 election. Democrats argued that although optional insurance was available, people simply didn’t buy it. Society was left to cope with all the problems posed by impoverished seniors, orphans and the disabled. A government mandate was the only realistic solution.

In the end, our grandparents devised a government-imposed solution that required every American to “buy” retirement, disability and loss-of-parents insurance. It’s expensive, drawing 12.4% off the top from every paycheck (capped at $106,000). No one can choose whether or not to buy this insurance.

Today, Social Security is effective and popular. Its mandate has succeeded in ending extreme poverty among the elderly, the disabled and orphans, where destitution was a reality before Social Security.

At its inception in the 1960s, Republicans bitterly opposed Medicare. They labeled LBJ a socialist. Republicans used Medicare as a rallying call to win 47 House seats in the 1966 election. Democrats argued that although optional insurance was available, people simply didn’t buy it. Society was left to cope with all the problems posed by impoverished seniors needing medical care. A government mandate was the only realistic solution.

In the end, our parents devised a government-imposed solution that required every American to “buy” medical insurance for the aged. Medicare is expensive, drawing 2.9% off the top of every paycheck (with no cap). No one can choose whether or not to buy this insurance.

Today, Medicare is effective and popular. Its mandate has succeeded in extending the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans who either died or bankrupted their children before Medicare.

Fast-forward to Obamacare.

America’s healthcare system is broken. We pay far too much for substandard results. 16% of US GDP goes for healthcare. Our economic competitors in the developed world average 11% of GDP for healthcare -- and get higher life expectancies. In America, insurance companies, lawyers, Big Pharma and hospital corporations scrape off the cream from our healthcare dollars. Our generation needs to fix America’s broken healthcare system.

From its inception as a Democratic program (although not when it was a Republican program), Republicans have bitterly opposed Obamacare. They label Obama a socialist. Republicans used Obamacare as a rallying call to win 63 House seats in the 2010 election. Democrats argued that although optional insurance is available, people simply don’t buy it. Society is left to cope with all the problems posed by people either bankrupted by healthcare, frozen in their jobs or showing up at emergency rooms with no means to pay for life-saving treatment. A government mandate is the only realistic solution.

In the end, our generation devised a government-imposed solution that required every American to “buy” healthcare insurance. Obamacare is expensive, despite the claims of agencies and think tanks. No one can choose whether or not to buy this insurance.

Today, aspects of Obamacare are popular, especially the crucial ability to buy healthcare insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, an ability that is only workable if everyone is already in the insurance pool. In the end, Americans will judge Obamacare by its success in lowering the overall cost of healthcare in America.

Republican claims that Obamacare is socialism and government overreach are only as credible as historic and parallel Republican charges over Social Security and Medicare.

Name 3 Ukrainians

If you can’t name 3 Ukrainians, it’s tough to argue that Ukraine is vital to the United States. Should Ukraine and Russia go to war over the Crimea, the United States does not have a dog in that fight -- unless you believe every fight in every part of the world demands US intervention.

Such thinking runs counter to American history. Jefferson did nothing while Napoleon ran wild in Europe. Theodore Roosevelt did nothing when Japan swallowed Korea. Wilson kept America neutral in World War I until 1917. Franklin Roosevelt did the same in World War II until Japan and Germany declared war on us. Truman did nothing when Soviet Forces crushed a political uprising in East Germany. Same for Eisenhower with Hungary. Same for Johnson with Czechoslovakia. Leaders across American history understood that war is a constant component of human society. Unless the United States wishes to be constantly at war, we must pick and choose which fights are necessary to engage and which others are simply to be deplored.

If we want to get Moscow’s attention over the Crimea, forget troops – send weapons. Massively arm the Ukrainians. Write Kiev a check for $10 billion (that would cost each American $32.90) and ship them Abrams tanks, Patriot surface-to-air missiles, drones, command & control, and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. These would be tangible “consequences” that President Obama threatened in the event of Moscow’s aggression. A western-armed Ukraine would pose a constant threat to Russia along their 1000 miles of common border. This would be a foreign policy disaster for Vladimir Putin, one he would have a hard time explaining to his political backers.

This is not to say America must or should help Ukraine. According to BusinessWeek, Ukraine is “poorer than Paraguay and more corrupt than Iran.” Just because Russia is not on our dance card, we don’t need to marry Ukraine. They have a dispute to iron out with Russia. Whether they or the Russians like the final answer is not America’s problem. If it was, the average American could name at least 3 Ukrainians.