<Issue>
<Tag>CLEAN COAL TECH</Tag>
<Display>Clean Coal Technology</Display>
<Image>energy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Energy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Clean Coal Technology
Many Republicans and moderate Democrats [particularly if they are Blue Dog or coal state Democrats] endorse clean coal technology as a solution to getting carbon emissions down, energy dependence and the need for cleaner air. The theory goes that carbon capture and storage processes can mitigate the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions and smog pollution while allowing America to continue using [arguably] its most abundant energy resource, whilst maintaining jobs and even creating new ones through the deploying and foreign trading of the clean coal technologies to other countries.
Liberal Democrats aren’t convinced. Firstly, they point out that clean CCS processes haven’t been perfected and that there could be problems implementing it. Secondly, it is more fossil fuel use, is highly pollutant when dug up from mines, and doesn’t help break the national addiction. Thirdly, they point out that even the coal-based utility companies are not great fans of the technology because they are reluctant to spend money to invest in it, and they will see it as merely an extra cost they would rather not have. Moreover, some carbon-capture storage companies may threaten other vested interests in that they could use the captured gases to manufacture cement, greening another carbon-intensive industry, much to the chagrin of that lobby.
Aside from the vested interests, Republicans also pose a problem. Some conservative Republicans are climate change deniers, and therefore, say there is no need to invest in such processes, making coal more expensive and thereby leading to lost utility jobs and higher bills for consumers. Other Republicans, while they believe in climate change caused by man, are reluctant to endorse measures such as cap and trade and the carbon tax meant to encourage the energy market to adopt such technologies, preferring the idea that the free market would sort the problem out. </Description>
The emergence of vast reserves of natural gas also poses a problem. While it is a good idea to use a combined strategy of natural gas, energy conservation, ethanol, nuclear, renewables, oil, more research in game changers like hydrogen fuel cells and fusion, and clean coal, many say it is cheaper, cleaner and faster to convert turbines in coal fired power stations to natural gas burners than to invest in an unproven technology.|
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-7</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">9</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-1</Default_Party_Position>
</issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>GLOBALIZATION</Tag>
<Display>Globalization and The iEconomy</Display>
<Image>Economy</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_Economy_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Globalization and The New iEconomy.
The 21st century global economy is dramatically different from that of the mid-20th. In the words of the NYT columnist Thomas Friedman, the world has become “flat” in that the movement of goods, services, people, capital and ideas is both faster and more efficient than ever before. At the same time, the development and rapid economic growth of emerging markets such as that of China, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe and continuing technological gains have contributed to increased commerce, the middle class in many established economic powers, especially the US, have seen declines in income and wage growth as their jobs are undermined or at risk of being replaced or outsourced/offshored. The sense of American decline, terrorism, environmental degradation and the growth of immigration add further to the unease felt by Americans across the political spectrum regarding this topic. Liberals feel pressured to adopt protectionist rhetoric whilst Conservatives sometimes adopt nationalist and in some cases, isol ationist rhetoric. Ross Perot, a noted independent, for one, called NAFTA “a giant sucking sound” in which American jobs would disappear into.The growing elderly population means that Americans worry how the US economy could cope in this new age.
However, there is hope that the right mix of bipartisan policies and political courage would not only increase the enthusiasm for globalization amongst the voters, but ensure that America can maintain its edge as a dynamic economic superpower. Overhauling entitlements, defense spending, and making government more responsive and efficient frees up funds and human resources that could go into investing in infrastructure and helping the American workforce adapt. A more sensible tax code would cut bureaucratic wrangling on all sides and allow the US Federal Government to collect and distribute more effectively and equitably, and encourage American households, businesses and entrepreneurs to invest. A strong commitment to adequate reform of elementary and secondary education, along with support for higher education and community college, as well as anti-poverty and worker retraining programs, will ensure that the workforce possess the right combination of knowledge, innovative, entrepreneurial, technical and analytical skills to succeed in a changing environment. Measures to help communities adjust to some of the negative effects of creative destruction such as plant closures and job offshoring could provide resilience. Further reform of healthcare, adding in cost control measures [fee for outcome instead of fee for service] will further improve dynamism, as well as a smart energy policy. Keeping America open to immigrants and foreign talent will keep the workforce flexible and continue America’s comparative advantage. Trade agreements, if properly negotiated and enforced, and backed up with these policies, could provide Americans with better paying jobs.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>ISOLATIONISM</Tag>
<Display>Isolationism</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>
America has always had a strong tradition of isolationism in how it engages with the rest of the world, particularly in the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. However, isolationism officially ended upon the coming of WWII and FDR’s alliance with Churchill and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This isolationism was itself politically isolated in the aftermath of WWII when Democrat Truman and Republican Eisenhower worked to ensure that America would be in a strong position to uphold the position of that of herself and her allies to check the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War saw a minor resurgence, with Buchanan and other right wing populists arguing it is of no interest to America what takes place in other parts of the world.
This resurgence was itself left isolated by the advent of 9/11, when it became clear that America’s national security is indeed impacted by the workings of other countries present states and their pasts.
However, the botched handling of the Afghan War, the excesses of the War on Terror, the misjudged invasion of Iraq and the contribution of it all to America’s fiscal crisis has led to renewed calls for isolationism.
Some liberal Democrats, although they are instinctively not isolationists, see American foreign policy, particularly its use of military force and the perceived arrogance and insensitivity it implies, as a major source of the country’s problems as it encourages accusations of imperialism and hegemonic ambitions. Traditionalist conservative Republicans like Buchanan re-iterate that the world’s problems are not America’s and that only threats come from engagement, while Libertarian Conservative Republicans like Ron Paul, as well as claiming that isolationism is the way to re-claim national sovereignty, also endorse the Democratic arguments and further enhance it by saying, that by getting involved in costly problems abroad, it infringes upon individual American liberties at home.
Buchananites, Donald Trump and independents like Perot, and populist rustbelt state Democrats also express economic isolationism in varying degrees, when they condemn free trade and outsourcing.
However, it is unlikely that the isolationists can overwhelm the realists-pragmatists, liberal internationalists, humanitarian interventionists, and neoconservatives, who despite their differences, agree that isolationism is a threat to national security. Whichever route is best, however, can’t be agreed upon, possibly strengthening the isolationist cause.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">-8</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">-4</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">-3</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>COIN</Tag>
<Display>Counterinsurgency</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description> Counterinsurgency is a method of warfare that has been developed to deal with wars fought in less developed countries against asymmetric opponents, i.e. insurgents or guerillas. The doctrine’s origins can be traced to studies by military leaders and political science scholars that took place in the aftermath of the lost war in Vietnam, and various campaigns [successful and unsuccessful] waged by the British during the dying days of empire, as well as the US occupation of the Philippines.
The theory states that to win wars in countries and regions that lack a strong central authority, such as failed states in the middle of a civil war, the occupying power should not just be focused on fighting the enemy in the military spheres, but also in the social-economic and political spheres. If the general population experiences tangible improvements in areas such as economic growth, the rule of law, security, human rights, and the provision of services such as education and health, then, they will recognize their leaders as legitimate actors deserving of their support, and, will therefore endorse American backing of these leaders [in the form of a temporary occupation] until the concerned country can stand on its own two feet.
Eventually, so the theory goes, the insurgents fighting the new government and the US and Allied forces will become demoralized, divided and weaker, as not only more of their attacks will be thwarted by effective indigenous fighting forces, but the people will demonstrate their opposition to the guerillas by openly acknowledging that they are safer under the new US backed leadership and by cooperating with it. Insurgent groups then stand a risk of breaking up, as more ‘moderate’ elements seek political reconciliation and lower ranked fighters who are involved purely because of economic needs defect because they are confident that they will be protected from reprisals.
The gradually growing isolation faced by the insurgency leaders will in the end lead to their defeat as the new state is able to command the mobilization of expanding resources in population support, political stability, economic development, improved military proficiency and law and order delivery.
Counterinsurgency today is often seen as an extension of the theory of state-building, in that both center on creating institutions that have the authority to act within a territory.
For counterinsurgency to succeed, America and her allies, such as Britain need a lot of resources at their disposal. Good intelligence, knowledge of the local languages, history and culture, academic and technocratic expertise, excellent communication between diplomats and soldiers, and the willingness to spend a lot of time, money and lives to achieve this goal in the long term. Moreover, training of the host nation’s security forces is vital so that eventually, they could sustain the counterinsurgency campaign on their own.
"Political, social, and economic programs are usually more valuable than conventional military operations in address the root causes of the conflict and undermining the insurgency." As quoted in the Counterinsurgency field manual by David H Petraeus.
However, counterinsurgency operations may very well be unwinnable in certain, if not ultimately all circumstances. The Bush Administration, [like administrations dealing with Vietnam] failed to apply effective counterinsurgency strategies until well into the Iraq War and counterinsurgency was only seriously tried in the Afghan theatre under Obama. However, the sheer length of the conflicts and the human and economic toll have been hugely damaging to American power and prestige. Many liberals, as in Vietnam believe that the trust of the host nation’s peoples has long evaporated and that a lighter footprint is needed, alongside a speedier withdrawal. NGO’s could take over the humanitarian aspects. More resources could therefore be focused on intelligence, military training and counterterror operations. Moreover, both liberal Democrats and foreign policy realists among the Republicans believe that the Afghan government is not a reliable partner in that it tolerates corrupt officials and warlords in its ranks and is headed by a weak leader in Hamid Karzai. Without the support of a credible government ready to take full responsibility, counterinsurgency operations are doomed to fail and only further damage America’s reputation.
Obama has partially shifted to a counterterror approach since he announced the timetable for Afghan withdrawal.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">6</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">8</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">2</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">4</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>USEDUCATION</Tag>
<Display>Transforming America's Schools</Display>
<Image>School</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_School_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Reviving US Education
The US has struggled in recent years to maintain a leadership role in the opportunities available to its children and teenagers through educational achievement. Consistent international standardized test scores show that the mathematical, scientific and literacy and literary skills amongst American youngsters are slipping relative to their peers in other countries. College and university attendance is also slipping as a result. Aside from the fact that this prolongs the existence of poverty, it makes the American workforce uncompetitive in the long run, especially given the fact that other countries, particularly China are making major investments. That means that America will slip behind in the jobs and the innovation race.
There are obvious reforms that could fix the problem. First, a renewed focus on early childhood intervention, parental counseling, healthcare and education, coupled with sustained funding could better prepare children for elementary and, eventually secondary school in that it would boost cognitive development. Second, there has to be recognition in both parties that the inequitable funding system is a problem. Schools in prosperous, upper middle to high income neighborhoods [largely white] are bound to have an advantage in that they have more resources than schools located in places of high poverty and high unemployment, because of property tax revenue. Schools that have been in bad situations like this for decades are harder to rescue due to an atmosphere of hopelessness and neglect. Therefore more funding would help. Thirdly, teachers’ unions pose a problem in that their tenure system and their collective bargaining mean that new teachers, with new ideas that can actually help students, backed by new leaders, are often stymied. Reforms would have to address the inability to remove ineffective or bad teachers and to reward exceptionally gifted teachers through merit pay, leading to greater prestige for the profession and the attraction of university graduates of the highest caliber to the profession. Fourth, the voluntary and private sector could play a role, in that failing schools could be taken over or replaced with charter schools operated by charities and social enterprises. Even universities, both private and public, like Stanford and Berkeley, as well as established private and public schools like Boston Latin and Bronx Science could play positive roles in guidance. Corporations that have an interest in sustaining and advancing an innovative and entrepreneurial society could be encouraged. Fifth, parents and students should have greater choice, whether through limited use of vouchers or through the ability of students to attend schools away from their deprived areas. Finally, the right balance between integrating technology, pediatric neuroscience and psychology, new methods of teaching and learning and evaluating students’ needs to be found, with the understanding that experimentation could lead to results.
The problems are many: Conservatives and states’ rights advocates say that it is entrusting too much power to the federal government. Many Republicans also want to concentrate on vouchers. Teachers and their unions often feel vilified unfairly and underappreciated by reformers from both parties and could wreak havoc with Democratic Party politics. New and eager teachers could easily get demoralized by the conflicts. For all of the talk of experimentation, there is always the risk that experiments fail, wasting valuable time and money, whilst the answer-more government guidance- could limit flexibility and end up penalizing schools that don’t make up ground quickly. Also, the lack of interaction between the different Americas’ [affluent regarding middle class regarding poor and whites regarding minorities] mean that people may resent having to pay taxes to fix other people’s problems.</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">9</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">7</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">10</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">5</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
<Issue>
<Tag>HUMANITARIANINTERV</Tag>
<Display>Humanitarian Intervention</Display>
<Image>War</Image>
<Icon>gfx\Issue_Images\Issue_War_Pos.png</Icon>
<Description>Humanitarian Intervention
The doctrine of the right to protect [R2P] states that as members of the international community, it is the duty of countries to intervene diplomatically, and often, militarily in the sovereignty of other states so as to halt ongoing crimes against humanity, such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, for America and her allies to be seen as credible in this policy, they must be prepared to act consistently, and to be prepared for open-ended commitments, especially in the aftermath. While America has had some successes, such as the operation to stop Gaddafi from massacring Benghazi, the forcing of the Sudanese belligerents to peace talks to end their civil war, and interventions in the Balkans, there have been more than a few failures dating from WWI onwards. Prominent examples of have been the American response [a rapid rush for the exits] in the aftermath of the failed operation to capture a warlord in Somalia, the initial reluctance to get involved in the Balkans [by which time many have died], the genocide in Rwanda and the on again, off again Sudanese conflicts in that country’s borderlands. The earliest failures are said to be the failure to bomb the tracks to Auschwitz and the initially slow relief efforts for the Greek and Armenian inhabitants during the genocide perpetrated by the Young Turks. Other failures involve the lack of protection offered to Kurds and Shiites in Saddam’s Iraq while the Syrian and Lebanese conflicts are prominent examples.
The reasons why American leaders, even those who are strongly idealist and liberal in outlook, are reluctant to engage in such conflicts are many: Cases involving a civil war and atrocities are rarely clear cut. Although governments such as those of Sudan’s Omar Al Bashir and Assad’s Syria are clear perpetrators in that they seek to encourage sectarian conflict, many in the opposition could be just as vicious and as dismissive of human rights, if given the opportunity. Among the persecuted peoples, there is often a myriad of rebel groups, making it unclear as to who the international community would be empowering should it intervene to stop a conflict.
There is always the inherent risk of double standards.
Moreover, American voters may not approve of such operations, especially in the aftermath of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, because of war weariness. This is especially true, as pointed out by realist policy makers, if there isn’t a clearly discernible interest to US national security or to that of its allies.
If there isn’t a clearly discernible national security interest, then, so realists argue, there is a risk that America will be distracted from actual strategic threats.
Aside from the risks of open-ended conflicts, there is a risk that America’s rivals would use such operations as an opportunity to bog America down in quagmires and inflict damage. The evidence of this lies in the aftermath of America’s intervention in Lebanon under Reagan, where Iran [and possibly Syria] possibly sponsored the Hezbollah militia in its bombing of the US Embassy and Marine barracks, leading to hundreds of lives lost amongst diplomatic and military personnel. Other examples where external actors took advantage of foreign wars to bleed America white include the occupation of Iraq [links between Shiite militias and the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis] and the War in Afghanistan [members of the Pakistani secret services arming the Taliban].
Moreover, good intentions could be construed and manipulated by America-skeptics and anti-Americans as “imperialism”, serving to sow discord at home [amongst pro and anti-war groups] and fear and hatred of America abroad. The lack of cooperation with veto-wielding Security Council Members such as Russia and China mean that quite often, although interventions may be morally right, paradoxically, they are illegal for violating the sovereignty of another country without UN blessing. This leaves American leaders open to charges of war crimes themselves in the event of collateral damage. At the same time, geopolitical competitors are always eager to take advantage of anything that could sap American diplomatic credibility.
Yet, despite all of the arguments, American leaders often like to think that America must practice American exceptionalism in defending her core values of freedom, particularly the freedom from fear. Neglecting to uphold freedom from fear and the rule of law on the world stage would be going against America’s responsibilities-and interests- in maintaining international security as the world’s leading power.
</Description>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Left">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Left">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Right">3</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Right">1</Default_Party_Position>
<Default_Party_Importance PartyID="Indy">2</Default_Party_Importance>
<Default_Party_Position PartyID="Indy">1</Default_Party_Position>
</Issue>
</XMLBody>