Institute of Political Citizenship

Tufts Roundtable
Tisch College congratulates Tufts Roundtable for its
continued success in raising the civic dialogue at Tufts.
 

For information on civic engagement at Tufts, visit Tisch College at

activecitizen.tufts.edu.
 Contact Information
Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service
Lincoln Filene Hall
Tufts University
Medford, Massachusetts 02155

www.tuftsroundtable.org
roundtable@tuftsroundtable.org

FE ATUR ES
7 Mandate Obama Ian Hainline

13 A Demand for Bipartisanship Evan Chiacchiaro and Jan McCreary

LOC AL AN D C AM PUS ISSUES

4 Federalism and the Real America John Peter G. Kaytrosh

NATIO NAL
5 Buy American Alyssa Krag-Arnold

6 Judd Gregg’s Stand Michael Hawley

15 Inaugurations, Politics, and “Godiness” Professor Ellery Schempp

16 Vilsack: A Disappointment Chelsea Ongaro

17 A Flawed Amendment Aaron Zucker

INTE R NATIO NAL AFFAIR S

18 Not Over Yet Chas Morrison

19 The Afghan Failure Faris Islam

20 Mexico’s Brutal War on Drugs Aaron Cantu

March 2009 1
 STIMULATING DEBATE
HOW $787 BILLION WILL BE SPENT
Type Democratic Proposal
Tax Cuts for Individuals • $275 billion total, including:
• $500 per worker and $1,000
per family tax credit
• $2,500 tax credit for the first
four years of higher education
expenses
Tax Cuts for Businesses • Bonus depreciation
• Five year carryback of net
operating losses and increased
small business expensing
State and Local Fiscal Relief • $91 billion to states, including
a temporary increase in the
Medicare matching rate
• $141.6 billion on repairing and
modernizing schools, as well as
fiscal relief to states to prevent
cutbacks in services
Infrastructure • $90 billion for highway
construction, energy efficiency,
clean water and transit projects
• $54 billion for renewable energy
Unemployent, Health Benefits, and • $102 billion on unemployment
Food Stamps benefits, healthcare retention,
and increasing food stamp
benefits
Housing • Eliminate requirement to repay
a $7,500 tax credit for homes
Total $825 billion
2 Tufts Roundtable
Republican Proposal
• Reduce lowest individual tax
rate from 15 percent to ten
percent and from ten percent to
five percent
• Extend patch to the Alternative
Minimum Tax through 2010
• Allow businesses of less than 500 • $5 billion to allow businesses to
employees to take tax deduction
equal to 20 percent of their
income
• Extend depreciation rules
• Extend break to allow small
businesses to write off certain
capital expenditures
None mentioned
None mentioned
• Make unemployment benefits
tax free
• Extend temporary federal
extended unemployment
benefits program
• New tax deduction for people
who purchase private care
• Home buyer’s credit of
$7,500 for buyers who make a
minimum down payment of
five percent
$478 billion
Passed
• $288 billion total
• 6.2 percent of earned income
refundable tax credit
• Extend patch for Alternative
Minimum Tax
write off capital expenditures
• $1.6 billion to allow businesses
to defer taxes for five years to
restructure balance sheets
• Significant tax cuts for
infrastructure and energy
investment
• $53.6 billion to the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund, including to
local school districts
• $15.6 billion to increase
maximum Pell Grant
• 40.6 billion to balance
education budgets
• $27.5 billion for highway
investment
• $43 billion for energy
investment
• $14.2 billion for unemployment
• $20 billion for increases in food
stamps
• $59 billion for healthcare
• Almost $8 billion
towards public housing
improvements
$787 billion
from the editor tufts roundtable
Now that the stimulus has worked its way through Congress to the President’s Editor-in-Chief Samuel Wallis
desk, we think it is appropriate to look at how that legislation came to be and whether
it reflects the bipartisanship President Obama discussed during the campaign. In this Executive Content Evan Chiacchiaro
issue of the Roundtable writers take a look at “partisanship in a post-partisan world” Editors Austin Field
and whether the President has a mandate to push through his policies or must make
concessions to congressional Republicans. Editing Staff Asad Badruddin
As new economic data continues to surprise even those who made the gloomiest
Jan McCreary
predictions, perceptions of the future situation are more important than ever; when it
comes to the economy, hope or despair are often self-fulfilling prophecies. It is for this
Nick Perricone
reason that in this issue of the Roundtable we look at a variety of sources to break down Shayan Purkayastha
the more than 1000 page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to cut through Chris Walczyszyn
the rhetoric so readers can have a grasp of what the stimulus package does effectively
and what it leaves out. Executive
Production Charlotte Harrison
We believe that opinions should be based in fact, not passion, and that is why we Director
have included throughout the issue supplemental features: timelines, fact boxes, and
data. In this issue of the Roundtable we placed a premium on giving each reader the Executive Layout Leanne Brotsky
basic information to make his or her own informed judgments about current events Editor
and topics that are affecting us all. Our goal is to combine fact and opinion, and we are
proud that this issue works towards that goal. Senior Design Rebecca Goldberg
Staff John Peter Kaytrosh
Daniel Rosenblum

Executive Copy Brian Kato

Editor

Copy Editing Lydia Hochheimer

Samuel Wallis Staff Robin Wetherill

Business Manager Shabazz Stuart

Advertising Daniel Rosenblum

Manager

Web Managers Connor Gramazio
Richard Mondello
Contributors Aaron Cantu
Ian Hainline
Michael Hawley
Faris Islam
Alyssa Krag-Arnold
Chelsea Ongaro
Dr. Ellery Schempp
Aaron Zucker

Founders
Shabazz Stuart
Samuel Wallis
Chas Morrison
IOPC Student Board Members
Cartoons by Brian Kato Megan Dalton, Dean Ladin, Jarrod Niebloom, Matthew
Shapanka, and Shabazz Stuart

March 2009 3
 Federalism and the Real America
John Peter Kaytrosh ’12

In her well-written article, “The Growing Divide: Real Perhaps late to recognize the utility of states’ rights, but
America?” in the last issue of the Roundtable, Ms. Leslie Ogden certainly willing to flex its muscle in this area, Massachusetts
wonders if there could possibly be “two Americas.” This idea, to has benefited greatly from the concessions made to it by our
her, seems unfortunate; according to her, the idea that our coun- venerable Constitution. Even as former Governor Mitt Romney
try could be divided seems made our state the butt
dangerous and threatening of his jokes leading up to
to the stability of the Union. his 2008 Presidential bid,
I must inform her that there Massachusetts legalized
are more than two Americas and affirmed the right to
— there are, in fact, at least same-sex marriage. The
fifty. And, contrary to her same governor decided
belief that this is destructive to take the national lead
to our country, it is in fact and bring near-universal
where we find our strength. health care to Massachu-
America is not a monolithic setts. Neither of these
state, in which we have all things was done with the
decided to agree on a spe- permission, encourage-
cific set of policies to be ment, or approval of the
implemented by the federal other forty-nine states.
government. Our Found- The Big Dig, a project
ers wisely chose to allow which has undoubtedly
the states to “go their own revitalized transport and
way,” with good reason and life in Boston, and the fre-
generally successful results. quent expansions of pub-
Real detriment has resulted lic transit upon which our
when the federal govern- state embarks, are projects
ment has tried to turn the initiated by the Common-
constitutionally powerful wealth acting alone. The
states into subjugated bod- federal government only
ies to do its bidding. doles out funding because
Ms. Ogden and I gen- it has a greater “power of
erally agree on the issues, it the purse” than the state.
seems. She supports same- The true deficiency
sex marriage, as do I. Both with Ms. Ogden’s assump-
of us find the proposition tions lies in a lack of un-
of creationism, particularly derstanding of federalism.
as an academic theory, to I would ask her, “If all the
be ridiculous. And both of states and regions of the
us seem to be influenced by country are meant to act
the urban areas of this country. Our opinions diverge, however, the same, then why did we even bother dividing the country up
on what is to be done with our countrymen who do not share into states?” It strikes me as extraordinarily patronizing to the
our views. It appears that Ms. Ogden believes that national ac- rest of the nation to ask the states to simply come to a consensus
cession to policies should be decided by the federal government, and agree. This is subversive of the Constitution and insulting
with all states following the same policies. I, however am utterly to the states. When Massachusetts was maligned by much of the
unconcerned with what other states do, at least in a legal sense; rest of the country for instituting same-sex marriage in 2004, we
my only concern is that my own state is allowed to carry out the were being told by the people and politicians of those states to
policies it sees fit. I wonder if Ms. Ogden realizes that if many act against our will and to compromise the exercise of our rights
of the issues she discusses in her article were put up to a popular as a state. By asking us all to ignore our differences, Ms. Ogden,
vote, our side would lose. Federalism keeps us free to do what we even with good intentions, is doing the same thing fifty times
believe is right and rational. over.

4 Tufts Roundtable
 Buy American
Alyssa Krag-Arnold ’11

In the face of such a dramatic economic downturn, many cal and economic impact. As Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey
politicians and commentators have argued that both American J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics
politicians and consumers should do more to support domestic note, “Even a small echo of that experience would be a disas-
businesses. The claim that “buying American” will save Ameri- ter.” Protectionism and tariffs will benefit American producers
can jobs and prop up the weak manufacturing industry is both only in the short run, and America cannot afford to have such
exaggerated and unfounded, and will only lead to the loss of an irresponsible strategy.
future innovation and the creation of unnecessary tensions with Since a buy-American proposal will only hurt the American
trade partners. economy in the future, there is the implication that it must at
By guaranteeing business to comparatively inefficient do- least benefit the American economy at present. Regrettably, this
mestic producers, America is simply removing the incentive for is not the case. According to Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior fel-
domestic manufacturers to generate the innovation necessary to low at the Peterson Institution for International Economics, a
remain competitive with foreign rivals once we eventually re- buy-American proposal would create fewer than 9,000 American
move this protectionist measure. Although it is tempting, and jobs—a virtually insignificant number in the face of the nearly
perhaps politically expedient, to construct a temporary shield 600,000 jobs lost in the first month of 2009 alone. Furthermore,
around America’s economy, protectionist measures are a short- job loss from plummeting demand for American exports due to a
term “solution.” As inconceivable as it may seem now, the Amer- protectionism-imposed trade war could quickly surpass 9,000.
ican economy and the world economy will eventually spring Finally, it is important to remember that economic decisions
back. America will find it necessary to repeal its existing protec- have political implications. Quite simply, America cannot afford
tionist measures, however unjustified they were in the first place. to be viewed as a selfish hypocrite. Though it is oft stated, the
Without foreign competition, American manufacturers will have refrain that globalization is a very real phenomenon rings truer
had little incentive to innovate and become more efficient, and than ever, especially in light of this worldwide financial crisis.
will be at a disadvantage in the long run. America faces threats that it cannot possibly confront alone,
To be certain, protectionism isn’t always bad. It can be ben- and it cannot afford to antagonize allies and create unnecessary
eficial for burgeoning industries in developing countries that ill-will. It is unwise to sacrifice innovation and create needless
would otherwise be crushed by international competition. The animosity for the unfounded prospect of a trivial level of short-
United States, however, occupies a vastly different place in the term growth.
world than these hypothetical
developing nations.
If we impose “buy Amer-
ica” measures on imports,
other countries, most notably
China, will refuse to buy our
exports, launch a retaliatory
battle, and cause our export
market to collapse. America
experienced this during the
Great Depression when the
Hawley-Smoot Tariff, which
imposed import tariffs on
thousands of goods, was
passed in 1930. The Tariff
launched a trade war, wors-
ening the Depression and
triggering a weakening of
American manufacturing.
A potential buy-American
provision is clearly not on
the same scale as the Smoot-
Hawley Tariff, but it still has
the potential to make a politi-

March 2009 5
 N AT I O N A L

Judd Gregg’s Stand

Michael Hawley ’11

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire surprised much of firm commitment to limited government. Many expressed an
the nation on February 12, when he withdrew his name from honest willingness to work with Democrats, but they would not
nomination to be President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce. give their unconditional approval to liberal policies in order to
His action, though sudden, actually represents a natural and nec- provide those policies the appearance of bipartisan compromise.
essary evolution of thought and is emblematic of the transforma- Gregg, too, after finding out that he would be merely a conserva-
tion taking place in the Republican Party as a whole. Offered the tive rubber stamp on Obama’s policies, refused to play a part in
chance to be a conservative instrument of liberal policy, Gregg the charade. The Obama administration’s handling of the stimu-
chose instead to cleave to principle, knowing full well that the lus and the Census foreshadowed its likely strategy for future
decision would cost him influence and damage his reputation. debates over union card-check, illegal immigration, and taxes.
Citing “irreconcilable differences,” Gregg insisted that while Faced with four years of giving conservative political cover to
he respected the President and wished him well, he could not ac- radically liberal policies, Judd Gregg turned Obama down.
cept the opportunity to serve in his cabinet. While speculation Thus, after eight years of wandering in an ideological wil-
abounds as to the true cause of Gregg’s decision, it seems that derness, the Republican Party is finding itself again. Both Judd
he felt that his presence in the cabinet would be more as a token Gregg’s rejection of the Department of Commerce’s offer and
Republican than a true policymaker. the Republican Congressional delegation’s overwhelming rejec-
In the context of President Obama’s loud and repeated calls tion of the “stimulus” hint at a party that has begun to remem-
for a renewed spirit of bipartisanship, Gregg’s choice was par- ber what “small government conservatism” really means. That’s a
ticularly politically costly—and courageous. Though it seems good sign for the future of the party—and the country.
clear that Gregg truly was ready to put partisanship
aside to serve the good of the country, the Obama
administration’s actions served to demonstrate that
he would also have to sacrifice his principles in or-
der to serve in the Cabinet. The administration’s
attempt to place the Census (a responsibilty of the
Departmet of Commerce) under the direct control
of the White House and its advocacy of a pork-
laden, irresponsible “stimulus package” would have
forced Gregg to be the instrument of policies that
he opposes on principle. So, Gregg turned down • Tom Daschle Health and Human Services
the offer to serve, knowing that his reputation
among voters would suffer for refusing to join in Withdrew nomination because he had failed to
Obama’s “bipartisanship.” pay more than $128,000 in taxes.
The Republican Party is now coming to the re-
alization that it faces the same choice that Gregg • Judd Gregg Commerce Secretary Withdrew
did. Though the President makes the appearance nomination because of “irresolvable conflicts’’
of bipartisanship a high priority, his actual policies
reveal a staunch, uncompromising liberal agenda. with the Obama administration.
Thus, while he invited many top Congressional • Bill Richardson Secretary of Commerce
Republicans to his Super Bowl party and dined at
George Will’s house, Obama and his legislative al- Withdrew nomination because of an ongoing
lies virtually shut Republicans out of the crafting
of the recently passed stimulus package. This forces
investigation over “pay-to-play” contracting. •
members of the GOP to choose either to “go along • Nancy Killefer Chief Performance Officer
to get along” or to appear as bitter, petty obstruc-
tionists.
Withdrew nomination because of tax troubles.
In the vote over the stimulus, for which not a • Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary
single House Republican voted in favor, the par-
ty decided to take a stand much in the way that
Confirmed despite disclosure that he did not
Gregg did. It argued that its positions are not mere pay $34,000 in federal taxes.
convenient political posturing but are based on a

6 Tufts Roundtable
 Mandate Obama
Ian Hainline ’11
Although the façade of American he-
gemony across the world may be crum-
bling, the President of the United States
remains the most powerful man in the
world. The Obama administration has
only just now entered into the game,
so to speak, but must already face chal-
lenges that could easily render the next
four (or eight) years moot. In seeking
to pass an economic stimulus package,
President Obama’s promise to change the
way Washington does business has been
severely tested, as the White House’s
best efforts to reach across the aisle were
turned away, with all 178 Republican
members of the House of Representatives
voting against the stimulus package. This
sort of repudiation may well represent
Washington politics for the next several
years, for if the Republican party is un-
willing to take the hand that has been
extended to them, then President Obama
will, and rightfully so, turn to the over-
whelming mandate that was handed to
him in this past fall’s election.
November 4, 2008 was a historic
night, regardless of one’s political be-
liefs, but it was an especially sweet night
for Democrats everywhere, as a surge of
Democratic candidates, not just Obama,
claimed victory. The strong Democratic
showings in the House and Senate elec-
tions certainly indicated a rising tide of
support for the Democratic party across
America. Yet any discussion of a Presi-
dential mandate must first consider the
race for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a
race that Barack Obama won soundly.
The margin of 53 percent to 46 percent
in favor of Barack Obama represented a
victory much larger than the two previ-
ous elections.
Mere size, however, does not create
a mandate, but the composition of the
coalition that was forged does paint a
bright picture for President Obama. In a
tour de force for get-out-the vote efforts,
President Obama won a majority of both
male and female votes nationally, as well
as unheard-of margins of victory among
minorities, especially among African-
American voters, whom Obama carried
by a margin of 95 percent to 4 percent.
Other minority groups that comprise a
notable share of the electorate, such as
Latinos and Asians, were carried by well
over 60 percent. Although these num-
bers are encouraging, a coalition formed
of women and minority voters has long
been a mainstay for Democratic politics.
March 2009 7
 F eature

What made the Obama campaign so special, Barack Obama, fulfilled another of his campaign promises—
however, was the spread of voters that he was Just as significant was the platform that to change the way Washington works—and
able to attract across all levels of the income President Obama campaigned on in the gen- met with members of the Republican Party in
spread. Obama won the bloc of voters who eral election. Beyond a doubt, the positions what many have described as a sincere effort
made less than $50,000 a year by a signifi- espoused by Obama during the campaign pre- to work in a truly bipartisan manner to help
cant margin, but also captured victories in the sented a marked contrast to the policies of the right America’s economy. Despite this rare ges-
$75-100,000 and $200,000+ brackets. When administration of George W. Bush. Obama’s ture, the hand that was extended was soundly
taken in total, the traditional Democratic co- proposals for vast increases in health care cov- slapped away, as not a single House Republi-
alition was augmented by members from all erage, alongside his calls for open dialogue can voted in favor of the stimulus package.
classes in society, creating a margin that helped with Iran and Syria, are decidedly liberal posi- Given the stark lines that were publicly
win the White House race. tions, making his capture of such a vast share drawn around the stimulus, with President
Obama also managed to take his message of the electorate all the more impressive. Posi- Obama and Congressional Democrats on one
of change to the entire nation, in a reversal tions that are clearly to one side of the politi- side and the Republican Party strongly op-
of much of the conventional wisdom about cal spectrum do not always win a significant posed, the mandate bestowed upon Obama
presidential campaigning. The coalition the majority of the electorate, making President and the Democrats was strongly put to the
Obama campaign formed test. Although the exam was
displayed tremendous geo- difficult, those in blue seem to
graphical diversity, captur- have come out ahead. A poll
ing states across the Union: recently conducted by the New
North Carolina and Virginia York Times shows that some 79
in the South, Ohio, Indiana, percent of Americans believe
and Iowa in the Midwest, that the Republican Party needs
and Colorado and New to work in a bipartisan manner,
Mexico out in the South- while the same poll shows that
west, are all states which • Real GDP 2008 Q4: -6.8% three-quarters of Americans be-
Obama carried that had not • Unemployment: 7.6% lieve that President Obama is
seen a Democratic majority making good on his campaign
• Industrial Production: -1.8% in January
in years. promise to work in a bipartisan
Alongside this impres- • Consumer Spending: -1.0% in December fashion. Americans appear to
sive geographic diversity • Consumer Confidence: 25.0 (1985=100) see the GOP as an obstacle to
came a general tide of sup- • Inflation: economic improvement, hin-
port for Democratic candi- • Consumer Prices: .30% in January dering the work of the Obama
dates, in both congressional administration.
• Producer Prices: .80% in January
and gubernatorial positions. Another poll, conducted
Minnesota aside, where the • Case-Schiller Home Index: 139.14 by CNN, found that six in ten
outcome is still in dispute, • New Homes Sales: -10.2% in January Americans support the stimu-
the Democrats won 19 Sen- • Existing Home Sales: -5.3% in January lus package, while the approval
atorial races, including seven • Trade Deficit: -28.7% from Nov. to Dec. rating for President Obama is
seats that changed party an elevated 67 percent. After an
• Foreclosure Rate: +17.8% over Jan.’08
hands, and in the House, a extraordinarily partisan fight,
strong majority of 257-178 • Crude Oil: $44.11/barrel with the two parties clearly dia-
Democratic congressmen • Gold: $947.80/troy ounce metrically opposed, the public
was installed in power. In *All indicators as of March 1 remains in resounding support
states like Missouri and of the Obama administration
North Carolina, Democrats on an issue that for many was
came to power in the gover- the most important in the fall
nor’s mansion as well. Obama’s victory a true mandate. campaign. Americans support Barack Obama,
To capture the White House is no small Since Inauguration Day, most all of the and he clearly has a mandate from the Ameri-
feat, to be sure, but one cannot possibly deny policy focus of the White House has been on can people. The coalition formed in the fall
the surge of Democratic victories at all levels the economic stimulus package, a plan that swept a tide of Democrats into office, offer-
of government, from Capitol Hill to City has been largely contested by the Republican ing a sound public endorsement of Barack
Hall. When so many Democratic candidates delegation in Congress. The saga of the stimu- Obama, an endorsement that was validated
come to the fore, led by a victory in the White lus package has just recently ended, but the by the passage and approval of Obama’s eco-
House, it seems at best farcical to deny that a lessons that can be drawn from the concluding nomic policies and work in his first days in
national mandate was given to the Democrat- acts of the fight to pass the stimulus are rather office. It is Americans, then, not only Demo-
ic Party, and by little extension, to President telling. At the outset, President Obama has crats, who have proclaimed; “Yes, we can.”

8 Tufts Roundtable
March 2009 9
 TREASURY: TIMOTHY GEITHNER
Born August 18, 1961 CHIEF OF STA
Dartmouth College (BA), Born November 29, 1959
Johns Hopkins University (MBA) Sarah Lawrence College (B
• Has worked in the U.S. Treasury department since 1988 • Served as the national campa
• Undersecretary for International Affairs under Treasury Secretaries Committee
Robert Rubin and Larry Summers • Senior adviser and fundraiser
• Influential in fiscal bailouts of Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Brazil, and Chicago
Thailand • Directed the finance committ
• Council on Foreign Relations and International Monetary Fund • Served on the board of the Fe
• President of the New York Federal Reserve since 2003 • Illinois Congressman since 20
• Heavily involved in decision to extend government bailouts to Wall • Chairman of the Democratic C
Street firms, including Bear Stearns and American International Democratic sweep, and as the
Group (AIG), as well as allowing Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt • Reputation as an aggressive a
• Will have authority over how the second $350 billion of the appointment as White House
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will be dispersed expressing disapproval.

HOMELAND SECURITY: ENERGY: STEVEN CHU

JANET NAPOLITANO
Born November 29, 1957
Santa Clara University (BA),
University of Virginia (JD)
• Served as attorney for Anita Hill, the woman
who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas of sexual harassment during his
confirmation hearings
• United States Attorney for Arizona
• Involved in investigation of Oklahoma City
bombing of 1995
• Twice-elected Governor of Arizona
• Has served as Chair of both Western Governors
Association and National Governors Association
• Advocated revamp of Airzona immigration
regulations increased enforcement
Born February 28, 1948
University of Rochester (BA, BS),
University of California, Berkeley (Ph. D.)
• Career physicist Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1997
Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Labora-
tory since 2004
• Strong opponent of continued reliance on coal
power
• Believes that investing in renewable energy
as well as nuclear power is the best course for
America’s energy policy to take

HOUSING & URBAN

DEVELOPMENT:
SHAUN DONOVAN
Born January 24, 1966
Harvard University (BA, MA, MPA)

TEAM
• Served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Multi-family Housing at HUD during the
Clinton administration, as well as acting
Commissioner of the Federal Housing

RIVA
Administration
• Commissioner of the New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and
Development
• Has spoken out against mortgage assistance
for “investor owners,” or people who bought Here, we’ve chosen to highlight some o
properties they never intended to live in.
We chose these particular members b
challenges confronting the administra
issues that President Obama pr

AFF: RAHM EMANUEL
BA), Northwestern University (MA)
aign director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign
r in Richard Daley’s successful campaign for mayor of
tee of Bill Clinton’s first presidential primary campaign
ederal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
002
Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006
e chairman of the House Democratic Caucus
and effective Democratic partisan. Reaction to his
Chief of Staff was mixed, with some Republicans
STATE: HILLARY CLINTON
Born October 26, 1947
Wellesley College (BA), Yale University (JD)
• Spearheaded failed healthcare reform initiative while
First Lady
• Twice-elected junior Senator from New York
• Supported 2001 military strike in Afghanistan
• Voted for 2002 Iraq war authorization
• Opposed the troop surge in Iraq in 2007
• Extremely strong pro-Israel record
• Considered to be more hawkish on issues relating to
Iran
• Drawn-out and contentious primary campaign with
Pres. Obama

VETERANS: ERIC SHINSEKI DEFENSE: ROBERT GATES

Born November 28, 1942
United States Military Academy (BS),
Duke University (MA)
• United States Army, Four Star General
• Commander, NATO Stabilizing Force in Bosnia
and Herzegovina
• Army Chief of Staff
• Critical of the Bush Administration’s conduct of
the War in Iraq
• Famously quoted for arguing, before the
Senate Armed Services Committee on February
25, 2003 (weeks before the invasion), that
the United States would require a far greater
number of troops to stem sectarian violence.
Born September 25, 1943
The College of William & Mary (BA), Indiana
University (MA), Georgetown University (Ph. D.)
• Second Lieutenant intelligence officer in the US
Air Force
• National Security Advisor to Pres. George H. W.
Bush
• 27-year career officer in the Central
Intelligenece Agency
• Director of Central Intelligence from 1991-1993
• President of Texas A&M University
• Secretary of Defense in Pres. George W. Bush’s
administration
• Strong supporter of Afghanistan troop buildup,
estimated at more than 20,000 in eighteen
months

ATTORNEY GENERAL:
ERIC HOLDER
Born January 21, 1951
Columbia University (BA, JD)
• Appointed a federal judge by Pres. Regan

M OF
• Named United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia in 1993
• First African-American named Deputy Attorney General
• Embroiled in controversy surrounding Pres. Clinton’s
pardon of commodities trader Marc Rich

ALS?
• Vocal critic of many of the Bush Administration’s tactics
in the War on Terror
• Favors closing the military detention center at
Guantanamo Bay and opposes the Patriot Act
• Declared that waterboarding, an interrogation tactic
of the members of the Obama Cabinet. the Bush Administration approved for use on some
because of their importance to policy detainees, constitutes torture.

ation and their impact on some of the

rioritized during the campaign.
12
 A Demand for Bipartisanship
Evan Chiacchiaro ’11 Jan McCreary ’11

Since the days of our Founding Fathers,
Americans have debated the responsibili-
ties public officials have to the voters who
elected them. However, in today’s world of
omnipresent polling, public opinion and the
approval of American citizens have become
critical to the success of any politician, espe-
cially the president. The 21st Century has seen
the president become all the more dependent
on public support to help push proposals
through Congress and enact his or her agen-
da. As seen in the last few years of George
W. Bush’s presidency, low public approval
ratings can contribute to bad press, waning
respect on Capitol Hill, and legislative dead-
locks. Presidents
need to follow the
will of those who
elected them, or
otherwise risk an
unsuccessful, un-
productive presi-
dency.
For this rea-
son, the assertion
that President
Barack Obama
has been given a
mandate to pur-
sue an exclusively
Democratic agen-
da is problematic.
While his historic
victory, pegged by
many as a land-
slide, may entitle
President Obama
to act according
to the platform that won him election, his
candidacy was built on bipartisanship. There-
fore, acting without Republican consultation
would leave President Obama acting contrary
to the image he presented on the campaign
trail, and without the full support of those
who voted for him based on that image. In-
deed, even if one were to argue that President
Obama was elected based on his progressive
policies, from the beginning of his campaign
he stressed that even traditionally Democrat-
ic policies would be implemented with input
from across the aisle. After his victory in Iowa
on January 3, 2008, the then-senator from
Illinois used his achievements in healthcare
as a state senator to prove his commitment
to bipartisanship, stating, “I’ll be a president
who finally makes health care affordable and
available to every single American the same
way I expanded health care in Illinois—by
bringing Democrats and Republicans to-
gether to get the job done.”
Throughout the course of his presiden-
tial campaign, the former senator deepened
his resolve to distinguish himself among his
competition as a unifier, and resisted being
pegged as a typical tax-and-spend liberal, de-
spite acquiring the National Journal’s title of
the most liberal senator of 2007. President
Obama’s commitment to pursuing biparti-
sanship on Capitol Hill was best illustrated
by the expectations he outlined for his party,
his presidency, and all Americans in his No-
vember 4th victory speech, when he declared,
“Let us resist the temptation to fall back on
the same partisanship and pettiness and im-
maturity that has poisoned our politics for so
long... While the Democratic Party has won
a great victory tonight, we do so with a mea-
sure of humility and determination to heal
the divides that have held back our progress.”
In other words, the results of the 2008 elec-
tion were a mandate for the pursuit of the
bipartisan politics President Obama empha-
sized throughout his campaign, rather than
a rigid endorsement of the party he happens
to represent.
Voter statistics from the 2008 election
seem to support President Obama’s own asser-
tions about his victory. Obama drew support
from those that may not have agreed with all
of his party’s liberal platform, but were con-
vinced by his resolution to reach across the
aisle. For example, according to CNN’s exit
poll, 52 percent of
all independent vot-
ers voted for Obama,
as well as 60 percent
of all voters identi-
fying as moderates
and 20 percent of all
voters identifying as
conservative. Voter
registration statistics
from swing states
such as Pennsylvania
also suggest that al-
though 89 percent of
registered Democrats
voted for Obama,
many may have been
less than fully com-
mitted to the party’s
beliefs. In March of
2008, almost 60,000
Pennsylvanian voters
switched their regis-
tration from Republican to Democrat. While
it’s possible that these former Republicans
suddenly became enamored by Democratic
policies, it’s more probable that they crossed
party lines because of the excitement of the
Democratic primary and Obama’s message of
bipartisan change.
The opinions of Republican Party lead-
ers prior to the 2008 election help explain
why many non-Democrats were swayed
by Obama’s call for political unity. Chuck
Hagel, former Senate Republican from Ne-

March 2009 13
 F eature
braska, said in a March 2008 interview that he
believed Obama was the candidate most likely to
bring the United States together. Although Hagel
never endorsed Obama, his waning support for
the Bush Administration and disenchantment
with Republican politics left few speculating why
a McCain endorsement failed to materialize. Fed
up with their party but not Republican principles,
many right-leaning voters and politicians viewed
electing a bipartisan Obama as the best way to
ensure that Republican ideals were respected and
Bush-style politics of divisiveness discontinued.
But even if one were to argue that President
Obama’s willingness to work with Republicans
played no role in his election, it still stands that
almost half of all Americans didn’t even vote for
him. While the final electoral collage tally, 365
to 173 votes, made the election look like a huge
landslide, John McCain still won 46 percent of
the popular vote. While this portion of the popu-
lation disagreed with Barack Obama enough to
vote against him, as president, he represents all
Americans. For this reason, Obama is obligated
to work with Republicans in an effort to better
represent the 58 million Americans who voted
Republican.
However, almost immediately after being
elected, Obama appeared to start sliding back-
wards from his lofty promises of reaching across
the aisle and changing how Washington works.
On November 6, a mere two days after being
elected, Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel as
his chief of staff, a hard-charging, intensely par-
tisan career politician whose nickname of “Rah-
mbo” needs no explanation. The appointment of
Emanuel, who may be best known for mailing
a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, did
not offer much promise for bipartisan coopera-
tion from the Obama White House. Rather, it
signaled that Obama intended to use Emanuel’s
strong personality to force issues through Con-
gress. Yet, despite this initial appointment, there
were positive signs that Obama intended to
make good on his promises. Obama’s decision to
retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense was
prudent both politically and practically; it mol-
lified the right wing by putting a Republican in
a major Cabinet position, while simultaneously
ensuring some continuation in the military chain
of command during a time of war. Similarly, the
appointment of Marine Corps General James L.
Jones was an extremely wise choice. The career
military officer had been approached by Condo-
leeza Rice for the deputy Secretary of State posi-
tion, twice turning it down, and from November
2007 until the end of the Bush administration,
14 Tufts Roundtable
Jones served as a special envoy to the Middle East
for security concerns. It was another move that
could be whole heartedly endorsed by both sides
of the aisle, and with Obama frequently hinting
that another Cabinet post would be filled by a
Republican, for a period of time it seemed that
Obama was serious about his bipartisan aspira-
tions. And then, with his inauguration, came the
debate over the stimulus.
Presidents need to
follow the will of those who elected
them, or
otherwise risk an
unsuccessful, unproductive
presidency.
From day one, Obama made it clear that
creating an economic stimulus package to revive
the flailing American economy was his first prior-
ity. Even before taking office, Obama was pres-
suring lawmakers to act quickly, and for a period
of time was pushing for a bill to be ready for him
to sign the day he was inaugurated. While news
of Obama’s plans faced the normal griping from
hard-line economic conservatives opposed to any
and all government intervention, initially the
prospect of a stimulus bill faced wide-spread sup-
port from both parties. Aware that the American
economy was in dire straits and facing a growing
sense among constituents that something needed
to be done to stem the tide, senators and con-
gressmen from across the political spectrum were
prepared to hammer out a deal. It appeared to be
a shining moment for Obama to flash his biparti-
san credentials, work with both party leaders, and
come out with a bill that nearly everyone could
support. Instead, America got the same party-line
wrangling that has been plaguing American poli-
tics for decades. And in the mess that followed,
it became clear that Obama should work with
Republicans not only for political and popularity
reasons, but for practical ones as well.
Instead of pursuing a bipartisan coalition to
author the bill, Obama turned to his Democrat-
ic colleagues to singlehandedly craft the stimulus
package. The initial version was introduced as
legislation in the Senate on January 6, 2009, by
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV),
and co-sponsored by 16 other Democratic sena-
tors and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)—clearly
not a group that encompasses both sides of the
debate. And yet, despite the obvious contradic-
tions between Obama’s campaign rhetoric and
his first major action upon being elected, it was
not the decision to have the Democrats write the
bill that was most incongruous with Obama’s
platform of post-partisan politics. Rather, what
was troubling was the response from Obama
and the Democrats when the Republican Party
chose to raise its objections to the bill. On Janu-
ary 23, President Obama met with a group of
Republican congressional leaders to hear their
concerns about the recently proposed bill, a
move ostensibly designed to reach out and work
through their differences. However, according
to an article on Politico.com, numerous sources
reported that Obama flatly told the Republicans,
“I won.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
echoed Obama’s words when dealing with Re-
publican complains about the House version of
the bill, stating at a news conference, “We won
the election. We wrote the bill.”
Obama’s attempts to ram the stimulus pack-
age through Congress without the consent of
Republicans largely went up in flames. While
Obama had wanted to sign the bill the day he
took office, it took almost a month of wrangling
before a deal could be struck to pass it in the Sen-
ate. Only the strong bipartisan efforts of moder-
ate Republicans Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia
Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME)
managed to salvage the package, and the com-
promise they reached showed what could have
been accomplished if Obama had engaged the
Republicans from the beginning. Bipartisanship
fared even worse in the House—all Republican
attempts to introduce amendments to the bill
were voted down, and as a result not a single Re-
publican voted to pass it. While this may have
shown that in the House Obama doesn’t need
Republican support to pursue his agenda, it also
leaves him politically vulnerable; if the stimulus
package does not work, the Republican Party is
set to say, “I told you so.”
In the wake of the fight over the stimulus
package, commentators such as the Washington
Post’s Richard Cohen have declared Obama’s
dreams of changing Washington to be dead, and
called for Obama to use the Democrat majority
in Congress to pursue his goals without Republi-
can support. The Republicans have been labeled
obstructionists and accused of putting partisan
politics before the people, and Obama is facing
calls to fight fire with fire. This is the wrong
lesson to learn. Rather, the example of Specter,
Snowe, and Collins should be seen as what can
be accomplished when parties sit down in good
faith to work out an agreement. This is not only
what is politically and practically expedient for
President Obama—it is what the American peo-
ple demanded in November.
 N ational

Inaugurations, Politics, and Godiness

Dr. Ellery Schempp ‘62

Over the last months we have heard a lot about desires for “God’s
blessings and help.” Every speech in the United States seems to end with
“God bless America.” But is this a good practice? Will such invocations
really help us? Will they help God?
In laying out policy concepts, legislative agendas, foreign policy pro-
grams, or economic plans, it seems improvident to demand that some
god approve it also. There are several good reasons to avoid getting a god
tangled up in these matters, and there are thus some problems with the
frequent use of “God bless America” and all that it implies.
First of all, “God”
or gods are notoriously
subject to human inter-
pretation when we are
told of “His” or their
wishes. There are thou-
sands of priests, pastors,
ministers, televangelists,
and quite ordinary peo-
ple who claim to know
“God’s Will.” Most of
them probably intend
to do the “right” thing
by appealing to some
notion about what is
“god-given,” although
there are a good many
charlatans who prey on
believers in exchange
for one-way tickets to
heaven. However, the
frequent contradictions
in their interpretations leave “God’s Will” as an unreliable place to find
policy prescriptions or guidance.
Second, it is important to notice that the Constitution of the United
States never once mentions any god or “divine providence.” Our Found-
ing Fathers wrote a Constitution that entirely omits any reliance upon
a god. The Preamble states, “We the people...do ordain and establish,”
declaring people, not a god, to be the founders of our nation and the
masters of our futures. In fact, the Constitution mentions religion just
twice, in Article VI and the First Amendment, and each time the word
“no” is attached. It could not be clearer.
Furthermore, the god of the Bible is never once recorded as pro-
moting American Constitutional values. The rights of freedom of speech,
freedom of religious belief, freedom to vote in a democracy, or inalienable
rights are not in any Scripture or Commandments. Thus, the Bible is
hardly the place to look when determining America’s future path.
It is also problematic to imagine that there is a god who singularly
selects the United States for special blessings over all the other peoples
of the Earth. Calling on some Almighty to “bless America” and to give
Americans preference over Europeans, Asians, Africans, and others is a
ludicrous hubris. It is unworthy of us.
President Obama included a wonderful thought in his inauguration
speech: “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a
weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hin-
dus- and non-believers.” This may be the first time in American history
that “non-believers” were recognized, and hopefully signals that the many
forms of non-belief, disbelief, and skepticism are becoming respected.
Well-regarded polls indicate that about 14% of Americans are non-theists.
This means that about 42 million persons, which is four times larger than
the 9.5 million votes by which
Obama defeated McCain, do
not believe in the idea of god
which is frequently invoked
by our nation’s politicians.
Of course, a great many
people have a god-belief,
and an appeal to a common
God might be seen as unify-
ing for our nation. However,
this is not the case in America
today. There are more than
200 different denomina-
tions, sects, and cults just
under the Christian awning,
and uncountable more from
other traditions and personal
beliefs. The notion of a single
God that can unify our coun-
try is long past.
Governmental and po-
litical “Godiness” is not good
for human societies. It cheapens religious faith and cheapens thoughtful
discourse. Mixing up patriotic and social thinking with gods and religion
has never proved wise. We do not need to pledge “under God” or to swear
“so help me God.” We do not need “God bless America.” We do not need
“in God we trust.” Depending on “divine blessings” is merely supersti-
tion, and ritual incantations to socially acceptable gods have no policy or
pragmatic merit. This sort of magical thinking benefits neither persons
nor government, and we might think the gods themselves, if any exist,
must find these constant entreaties rather tiresome. Ye gods! It really is up
to us, “We the people,” with all our loves and joys, feelings and intellects,
fears and insecurities, and social relationships, to try on our own to follow
a Golden Rule that transcends religion.
Ellery Schempp ‘62 and his family brought the landmark
Supreme Court case Abington School District v. Schempp, which
brought to an end school-mandated prayer in American public schools.
He went on to become a distinguished physicist and educator, most
recently teaching a course in the Tufts University Experimental College
entitled “Separation of Church and State in American Life.”

March 2009 15
 N AT I O N A L

Vilsack: A Disappointment
Chelsea Ongaro ’12

Throughout his campaign, President Obama main-

tained that one of his priorities as president would be
address to the energy crisis. In the quest to achieve an
energy-independent nation in the near future, the selec-
tion of the Secretary of Agriculture was a rather critical
one. The search for alternative sources of energy has led
to increased production of biofuels, or sources of energy
derived from plant sources, such as ethanol. This closely
links the fields of energy and agriculture, making the De-
partment of Agriculture a key part of the Obama admin-
istration’s efforts to solve the energy crisis. In the former
governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has
found someone closely tied to the Grain Belt who will
help him realize his goals. Both men have a passion for
pursuing alternative fuels for environmental sustainabil-
ity and self-reliance.
Although Vilsack has received praise and support
from various environmental and energy-conscious groups,
such as the Corn Refiners Association and the Environ-
mental Defense Fund, his nomination has also been met
with sharp criticism. The organic food movement that has
swept across our nation is less than pleased with Vilsack,
as he seems indifferent to their cause. Vilsack, however,
cannot be fully blamed for his lack of attention to the
organic issue, as this item seems to be missing from Presi-
dent Obama’s agenda as well.
Almost immediately following Obama’s election, a
petition sprang out of the folds of the organic and en-
vironmental fronts, offering him an array of options for he perhaps does not have the best interests of the environment and
Secretary of Agriculture that the movement would support. Vilsack fuel independence in mind. In fact, biofuels themselves often receive
was not among their recommendations. Known as Food Democracy criticism because of the amount of energy required to produce them
Now, this movement acquired electronic signatures by means of an and their impact on food prices and starvation issues across the globe,
online petition, collecting almost 85,000 in all. This number may making Vilsack’s support of their production even more of a concern.
seem small, but the movement extends much further than this on- The rest of his expertise surrounding agriculture further conflicts with
line petition. Other websites and organizations have circulated similar the goals of proponents of an organic lifestyle, as Vilsack supports
petitions, including the Organic Consumers Association. America’s genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops and the cloning of live-
interest in the organic food movement is also demonstrated by the stock.
success of critically acclaimed journalist and author Michael Pollan. Vilsack’s nomination, while representing the immediate needs of
Pollan addresses the problems associated with big agribusiness and the President Obama’s energy goals, does not promote the needs of a large
advantages of small organic farming in his two books, The Omnivore’s segment of our population. Concern for a sustainable future and the
Dilemma and In Defense of Food. The sheer number of these books that health of our nation fuels the organic movement, and unfortunately,
have been purchased indicates widespread interest in organic culture. the time has come for politics to get involved. Even Michelle Obama
Vilsack’s lack of attention to the organic industry is not the only has been rumored to have switched to a partially organic household
thing that has created such an uproar. He has a somewhat lengthy in the interest of protecting her children’s health. The future of our
list of issues that has led to numerous requests by organic consumers health and our environment depends greatly on how we handle food
and farmers to halt Vilsack’s confirmation. Vilsack’s general mission to and who represents our interests in the political arena. Currently, there
combat global warming certainly receives support, but his close ties to is another petition circulating through the Internet at www.foodde-
giant corn conglomerates and the politics of government subsidiza- mocracynow.org, with recommendations for USDA undersecretary
tion raise a great deal of concern. Biofuels and ethanol production will positions. I urge you to consult this website to offer a voice in the
greatly benefit the farmers in the state of his former governorship, and USDA that will be able to counter Vilsack.
16 Tufts Roundtable
 N ational

A Flawed Amendment
Aaron Zucker ’11

The 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution has never appointment of Roland Burris, Burris did not seize the media’s attention
been one of America’s sexier laws. Few Americans are familiar with the and articulate his views on national issues, but simply continued to claim
ways in which their Senate seats are filled following a vacancy, yet millions ownership of the seat, and even stated that it was God’s will that he be
of lives can be affected by a single Senator appointed by his state’s single seated. A directly elected senator must prove his worth to those he repre-
governor. Now that the media has dissected the mishaps and embarrass- sents, and must express passion for America instead of interest in personal
ments regarding Senate appointments in New York and Illinois, people advancement.
are starting to pay attention. However, problems surrounding these ap- So then, what benefit is there in appointing these senators? Nate Sil-
pointments are not limited to the corruption of Rod Blagojevich or the ver of fivethirtyeight.com points out that appointed senators rarely win
ineptitude of David Paterson. These incidents are finally highlighting a re-election. Only 40 percent have been elected to serve a second term,
serious and often overlooked flaw in our and only 80 percent even choose to run for
democracy which must be fixed. re-election, indicating their lack of passion for
When the 17th Amendment was the job in the first place.
ratified by the states in 1913, the power Amending the Anachronism
to choose United States Senators was Senator Russ Feingold has been the first
transferred from the state legislatures to congressperson to propose a realistic solution
popular vote by the state’s citizens, who “The Senate of the United States shall to this issue, and his constitutional amend-
had already been directly electing House be composed of two Senators from each ment, cosponsored by Senators John McCain
members for a century. Today, the prob- State, elected by the people thereof, for and Mark Begich, will be debated by this new
lem lies not in the amendment itself, but six years; and each Senator shall have one congress. Feingold is exactly right to describe
in what it is missing. Filling a Senate vote. The electors in each State shall have senatorial appointments as “an anachronism,”
seat in the case of a vacancy was largely the qualifications requisite for electors of and there have already been measures to re-
ignored by Congress, and the power to the most numerous branch of the State place it with fairer democracy. Massachusetts,
appoint interim Senators was placed in legislatures. Oklahoma, Oregon, and Feingold’s state of
the hands of State Governors. When vacancies happen in the Wisconsin already allow for fast special elec-
Politics Instead of People representation of any State in the Senate, tions, while Washington, Texas, Arkansas,
It goes without saying that this gives the executive authority of each State shall Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Ver-
governors enormous power. Former Il- issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: mont allow for an interim gubernatorial ap-
linois Governor Blagojevich, who saw Provided, That the legislature of any State pointment to fill the position before the quick
the opportunity as “f-ing golden,” went may empower the executive thereof to make election. California and New Jersey allow
so far as to abuse this power and use it temporary appointments until the people fill governors to call for a special election, but do
for political gain by attempting to sell the vacancies by election as the legislature not require it.
the Senate seat vacated by Obama to the may direct. This may be the perfect time to pass this
highest bidder. Blagojevich’s corruption This amendment shall not be so amendment, and nothing is gained from
was unusual, but made far too possible construed as to affect the election or term of delays. Currently there are fourteen Repub-
any Senator chosen before it becomes valid
by the new power invested in him. lican senators whose replacements would be
as part of the Constitution.”
In the usual case, even without appointed by Democratic governors, and
abuse of power, the selection of a replace- 14 Democratic senators whose replacements
ment involves more political maneuver- would be appointed by Republican gover-
ing than concern for citizens’ representation. After weeks of deliberation, nors. There are no obvious ways in which either party stands to gain any-
New York Governor Paterson ultimately chose freshman congresswoman thing over the other.
Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacated seat. Gillibrand, a conservative Dem- The cost of reform is also inconsequential; special elections are ex-
ocrat who became immediately unpopular throughout her state, is be- pensive, but well worth the realization of good government. States have
lieved to have been chosen to appease conservatives in upstate New York always funded special elections for House seats, and to deny the same
and assist Paterson’s re-election. In this way, appointed Senators become for Senate seats would undermine our commitment to democracy. When
mere extensions of a governor’s political whims. he introduced the amendment, Feingold emphasized that “weighing the
Those who do seek to fill a vacated seat have every incentive to lobby costs associated with the most basic tenet of our democracy-—the election
their governor and none to appeal to the people. During Caroline Ken- of the government by the governed —sets us on a dangerous path.”
nedy’s short-lived candidacy, she made her interest in the position clear, We pay a much higher price if we allow this wound in our constitu-
but made little effort to articulate her vision for the future of New York. tion to exist unaddressed. Now is the time to reform our constitution and
She simply felt entitled to the position. After Blagojevich’s controversial finally remove the chains on our unfinished democracy.

March 2009 17
 Not Over Yet
Chas Morrison ’11
While it was heartening to see Iraqis flock to the polls to
vote in provincial elections last month, Iraq’s struggle for stabil-
ity is far from over. The elections were an important milestone
and took place largely removed from the violence and intimida-
tion which have for so long stood over this troubled country,
but they also revealed the many fractures within Iraqi society
and demonstrated the dangers of assuming that the country is
fully stable.
The provincial elections were important because they of-
fered a chance for the Sunnis to get back into the political game
after their boycott of elections in 2005. Especially important
was the outcome in Anbar province, where the tribal Awakening
leaders who played a decisive role in defeating al Qaeda in Iraq
ran against their more institutionalized Sunni rival, the Iraqi
Islamic Party (IIP). After initial results that showed that the IIP
won Anbar, the tribes threatened mass violence and claimed sys-
temic voter fraud. Later results surprisingly showed that a third
party, led by the secular nationalist Saleh al-Mutlaq, won Anbar
with the Awakening groups in a close second. Although Mutlaq
seems to be acceptable to both the Awakening tribes and the
18 Tufts Roundtable
IIP, the true test of Iraqi democracy will come over the ensuing
months as the tribes either embrace or reject a more limited role
in government than they had envisioned.
To the south, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s State of Law
list did extraordinarily well, shattering the traditional popular-
ity of its rival Shia party, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq
(ISCI). However, Moqtada al Sadr refuses to go away, and while
his preferred candidates encouragingly finished a distant fourth
in Basra, the Sadrist block came in second in Baghdad, Dhi Qar,
and Maysan provinces. The lesson from the south is that Maliki
and the nationalists are a strong position, but challenges remain
and it is impossible to determine how much of Maliki’s electoral
victory came out of genuine popularity and how much came out
of the abuse of state resources.
As the United States looks to draw down its force levels in
Iraq and shift resources to Afghanistan, it would do well to con-
sider that Iraq is likely to get worse before it gets better. With
two more elections on the way in 2009, a crucial oil-sharing
agreement between its ethnic groups unsigned, American forces
withdrawing from population centers, and payment of the Sun-
ni Sons of Iraq militias being transferred
over to the Shia government in Baghdad,
there is plenty of room for things to go
wrong. The United States must continue
to push for political reconciliation not
only between ethnic groups, but between
political factions. If Iraq descends once
more into violence, it will be because of
conflicts between Baghdad, as represent-
ed by Maliki and the IIP, and the prov-
inces, as personified by the Awakening
Councils and the Sadrists—not because
of sectarian violence.
While the United States must con-
tinue to transfer control to the Iraqi
government, it must condition all troop
withdrawals upon continued political
reconciliation. The United States must
use Maliki’s desire to be the Iraqi leader
who fully restored Iraqi sovereignty to its
advantage in order to press for further
political concessions and to help foster
genuine peace. Glossing over Iraq’s com-
plicated and fragmented politics in an at-
tempt to shift resources to Afghanistan
will result in a return to violent chaos,
and the United States will be faced with
strategic disaster after being so close to
victory in its most important and most
winnable war.

The Afghan Failure
Faris Islam ’11
As President Obama prepares the deployment of an additional
17,000 American troops to war-ravaged Afghanistan, a revision of the
Afghan policies of the last administration is emerging. With Secretary
Clinton admitting that Afghanistan today is a “narco-state,” admit-
ting failure to date in Afghanistan is not a considerable leap. President
Karzai and the Afghan people are furious at a dramatic jump in civil-
ian casualties and the resurgence of the Taliban. While the Obama
administration reviews the
decisions, commitments,
and tactics that got it into its
current quagmire, a broader
look at the failings of post-
invasion policies in Afghani-
stan may help illuminate the
way forward for both Ameri-
cans and Afghans.
Following the overthrow
of the Taliban government,
there were many rhetorical
calls for a “Marshall Plan”
to rebuild one of the poor-
est nations in the world as it
lay devastated from decades
of bloodshed, civil war, and
destruction. Indeed, Af-
ghanis and so many others
hoped for the formation of a prosperous, peaceful polity so hyped
up and promised by NATO and Afghan leaders. What the Afghanis
got, however, was a return to many of the problems that originated
in pre-Taliban times. Chased out by the Taliban, the oppressive war-
lords who ruled so much of the country were brought back in the
new government and given governorships, privileges, and weapons to
run their parts of the country as they wished. Indeed in some cases,
Afghan warlords have reportedly been receiving Viagra from the CIA
to help entice them to stay loyal to the Americans. While bribing
these warlords may have kept them superficially loyal to US interests,
it has done little to ensure that they develop their provinces or treat
their people with justice.
Despite empowering the warlords who continue to oppress so
many Afghans, as late as 2005, the BBC reported that Afghani per-
ceptions of US performance remained positive (by a ratio of roughly
70 percent to 30 percent) yet have now dramatically shifted to 70
percent disapproving of the US with only 30 percent remaining in
favor. Additionally, fewer than 20 percent of Afghanis say they would
like to see more US troops in the country at the moment. Luckily,
even though the Taliban has shifted its rhetoric from its traditional
orthodox Wahabism to incorporate nationalism, the BBC also points
out that “the decline in public support for the US has not given the
Taliban any perceptible boost.”
With elections approaching in August, President Karzai finds
I nternational A ffairs
himself in a tricky position as well, with more pressure from allies to
control narco-trafficking and the Taliban and more pressure from his
countrymen to take a firmer stand against civilian deaths in NATO
attacks. While President Karzai has recently asked NATO for new
rules governing foreign forces in the country, his proposed changes
would drastically change the role played by NATO troops. In addition
to dramatically changing the framework of NATO operation within
Afghanistan, recent moves
by Karzai also indicate his
attempts “to align the coun-
try with Russia,” according
to the BBC. He has publicly
warned the US that if it fails
to follow through on the lat-
est round of Afghan weap-
ons requests, it would look
to other countries—which
many claim is a veiled refer-
ence to Russia.
The fault for the on-
going rift between NATO
forces and the Afghanis does
not lie with President Karzai
alone, as NATO allies have
also made clear their dis-
pleasure with the Karzai ad-
ministration. Continued civilian death tolls, up 39 percent to 2,118
people killed this past year, make 2008 the deadliest year since the
ousting of the Taliban in 2001. A UN report goes on to say that of
these, 828 Afghanis were killed by pro-government forces with two-
thirds killed by allied air strikes targeting militants. With instances
such as the bombing of a wedding party in Nangahar that killed 41
people, another wedding party that killed ten in Kandahar, and many
other similar instances of civilian casualties, NATO forces run the
risk of continuing to erode their support base amongst the Afghani
people.
Stopping this dangerous trend of declining support presents a
formidable challenge for the Obama administration that requires ur-
gent attention. Renewed focus on economic development projects
throughout Afghanistan represents a vital opportunity for winning
back much of the lost Afghani support, as does expressing remorse
for civilian casualties caused by NATO troops. Through these small
steps of reorienting public diplomacy, large strides can be made to-
wards pacifying Afghanistan, winning over the Afghani people, and
completely eliminating the Taliban.
Faris Islam is the co-chair of the South Asian Political Action
Committee (SAPAC), a student group that focuses on socioeconomic
and political issues affecting South Asia. For more information on
SAPAC, contact faris.islam@tufts.edu.
March 2009 19
 I nternational affairs

Mexico’s Brutal War on Drugs

Aaron Cantu ’11

Because I grew up only fifteen minutes north of the US-Mexican Fortunately, the recent election of President Barack Obama allows
border, trips down into Mexico’s border towns were routine during my us a moment to reevaluate failed policies of the past and determine more
youth. However, in the past few years, many of these towns have trans- appropriate courses of action. If Obama really wants to usher in a pro-
formed from casual tourist locales into war zones, where military en- gressive era of change, as his campaign promised, it is paramount that he
voys manned by soldiers of Mexico’s war on drugs cruise down civilian begin to reform America’s drug laws and help Mexico and Latin America
streets. Such scenes were unimaginable only two years ago, before Presi- find a new way to confront the industry.
dent Felipe Calderón began a new campaign to wipe out the Mexican President Bush supported Calderón’s efforts generously when he
drug cartel for good. The escalated efforts, however, are not hindering signed over $400 million to Mexico’s drug-busting efforts in June—a
the drug business in the long run. Rather, the futile fight is only claiming down payment on $1.4 billion in planned American support, officially
countless lives, spreading police corruption, and exposing the wrath that called the Mérida Initiative. This is an absolute waste of our tax dollars.
drug prohibition can unleash on a nation’s civil society and economic We are throwing money at a policy that has proven to be a failure over
infrastructure. the last 30 years, and this latest com-
When Calderón assumed of- mitment to Calderón’s war is the ulti-
fice, years of prohibitionist drug mate illustration of our deluded pro-
policies in Mexico and other Latin hibitionist paradigm. No matter how
American countries had allowed the much money we give Calderón, two
drug-trafficking industry to develop facts remain unchanged: the US is the
into a powerful world market. The world’s largest consumer of Mexico’s
addictive nature of drugs keeps them • May 8, 2008: the Chief of Mexico’s national drugs, and we are also the largest sup-
in very high demand globally, and police was assassinated in front of his home by plier of illicit arms to Mexico. Clearly,
black-market entrepreneurs viciously drug cartel hitmen. a solution to the bloodshed must come
compete to supply this demand. In from bilateral and cooperative recon-
• July 16, 2008: the Mexican Navy intercepted a
illegal markets, suppliers are able to sideration of drug policies between the
ten meter-long submarine carrying 5.8 tons of
charge much higher prices for their US and Mexico.
cocaine.
goods than they would in legitimate Unfortunately, Obama has
markets because legal barriers limit • February 12, 2009: the Chief of Police of Cancún pledged to uphold the Mérida Initia-
supply and severely limit competi- was arrested in connection with the kidnapping, tive and keep American drug policy
tion. Thus, a combination of high torture, and murder of a high ranking retired relatively unchanged. Though his
demand and low supply has created military officer who was leading an anti-drug task stances on certain drug policies are
a worldwide $400 billion dollar-a- force. more progressive than those of his Re-
year drug trade—a business in which • February 21, 2009: the police chief of the major publican predecessor, Obama must go
Mexican cartels have come to play a northern city of Ciudad Juárez resigned after drug further and initiate a slow process of
dominant role. cartels threatened to kill one police officer for every decriminalization. If done in conjunc-
Whereas firms in normal markets 48 hours he remained in office. tion with new health care programs for
compete with each other by improv- drug abusers and a revolution in the
ing products, drug lords often com- way we educate the public on drug use,
pete with assault rifles and hand grenades. This fact is most illuminated we will likely see drug use in the US begin to fall in the long term. We
in the streets of Mexico. Since Calderón allocated roughly 40,000 troops could then reclaim capital—monetary and human—that has been lost
to battle cartels all over country, there have been nearly 8,000 people in the futile war on drugs.
killed, a severe deterioration of the Mexican people’s civil liberties, and a It is unrealistic to believe that sudden decriminalization in Mexico or
1 percent annual decline of Mexico’s GDP. anywhere in the world would instantaneously end the violence between
Calderón’s war has also exposed the depths of the relationship be- drug lords. Still, the only way to stamp out the brutal drug trade is to put
tween cartels and police, a bond long cultivated by prohibition. Mexican it out of business. The US must reform its drug laws and stop support-
drug expert Jorge Chabat insists that the cartels’ secret weapon is not ing disastrous prohibitionist policies in Mexico and elsewhere. Superficial
their firepower, but tightly-woven institutional corruption. Attracted by military endeavors to eradicate the business have failed and often wors-
bribes that far exceed their wages, police have been an integral part of the ened existing problems. Mexico’s current situation must serve as a water-
cartels’ fight against federal forces, informing the cartels of impending shed period in which we can begin to perceive illicit drug-trafficking as
busts and providing them with weaponry. For Calderón’s campaign to an ancient business that is ultimately here to stay and perhaps even begin
be successful, his army must also deal with 350,000 police forces whose to capitalize on it—just as we already have with alcohol, prescription
interests may lie in sabotaging federal efforts to combat the drug trade. drugs, and an array of other mind-altering substances.

20 Tufts Roundtable
 Tufts
Roundtable

Tufts Roundtable
The Journal of Political Discourse
www.tuftsroundtable.org

P.O. Box ## Tufts University Medford, MA 02155

Tuft
Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service
Institute for Political Citizenship