Teddy Roosevelt, The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine & South America

Teddy Roosevelt became president at the end of 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated. Roosevelt could not be pigeonholed to a single party ideology. He supported American Entrepreneurship, but sought to strengthen consumer protection and destroy monopolies. He was a fan of American ingenuity and self-reliance. He was often considered one of the more macho presidents, leading a charge of men up San Juan Hill during the Spanish American War and hunting elephants in Africa in his spare time. He was an outdoorsman, going on safaris in Africa and hikes in Yosemite with John Muir (Roosevelt was one of the first champions of land conservation and passed the National Parks Act).

One thing Roosevelt hated was instability. He was a avid reader of Alfred T Mahan's "Importance of Seapower Upon History." In the book, Mahan stressed that all super-powers (my characterization) needed a strong Navy in order to protect its overseas capital interests. McKinley set the expansion of American power (some might call American Imperialism) with the acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba after the Spanish-American war, and Roosevelt wanted to keep that influence stable.

In order to understand Roosevelt's hatred of instability, you would have to understand the domestic and international Progressive movement that grew out of the ideas of the Populist movement of the late 19th century. Domestic Progressivism was lead by white, middle class Catholics who wanted to create stability in social, physical and political arenas. The movement was fueled by the idea that if one beautifies and creates order in a chaotic space, like the five-points in NY city or the Bowery in San Francisco, then the people would naturally be reformed. Programs like the Settlement movement led by Jane Addams and the City Beautiful design used by Fredrick Law Olmstead all embodied the idea that stability breeds self reliance and instability creates dangerous dependence.

International Progressivism worked on the same premise, but with a more substantial foundation. During his first elected term, Roosevelt released his Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine was an edict by President James Monroe, released in 1823, which declared that the landmass that is currently the United States is a sovereign nation and no meddling by European power is allowed. When it was released, the doctrine was mostly symbolic, with no method of enforcement. It was a product of the Era of Good Feeling that followed the perception that the U.S. had defeated the British Empire a second time after the war of 1812.

The Roosevelt Corollary took advantage of the United States' presence on the world stage to declare that the entire Western Hemisphere was a U.S. "Sphere of Influence." He believed that instability and dependence worked hand-in-hand to create a prime environment for European interventionism. Once either force occurred in a region of the hemisphere (north or south), Europeans could establish a foothold and violate American sovereignty. He used this as a way to showcase the influence that America had during the new century (some would later dub the American Century) and justify interventionism in South America.

Roosevelt, like later president Woodrow Wilson, saw European colonialism and imperialism as a movement of the past and a driver of instability. While Wilson could point to the anachronistic and entangling alliances as the cause of the bloodbath of World War I, Roosevelt looked at German and British actions in Venezuela in 1902. After a bloody civil war in Venezuela, German and British nationals sustained heavy property losses and their respective governments sent a joint force to South America. Once Venezuela reneged on their debt obligations, Germany and Britain sent warships to shell the coast. Roosevelt forced the warships to withdraw and moderated a debt repayment between Venezuela and the two European nations.

Roosevelt also saw European and colonial interventionism as stymieing American commercial growth overseas. There were key goals that had to be fulfilled in order to expand American goods to overseas markets (especially with the opening up of Japan). These were: Trading bases overseas, a strong navy and a canal that would allow ships access to markets without having go around the cape of South America. The acquisition of the land to build the Panama Canal showed that expanding US commercial interests often trumped Roosevelt's hatred of preventing instability. When the Senate of Colombia refused to ratify a treaty giving the US rights to land to build the canal through Panama, Roosevelt chose to support an independence revolution of Panamanians. He ordered US ships to blockade Panama and send envoys to Colombia to tell the president to surrender the territory. America soon recognized the sovereign nation of Panama, offered $40 million for the land and started construction of the canal. Whether Roosevelt let his commercial endeavors trump his ideologies on global security or if he justified the support of a very unstable revolution over the backing of a colonial power, the fact remains that the creation of the Panama Canal helped facilitate the growth of American goods and influence in the world market.

Wasting my Time and Money: Rand Paul's Budget Proposal

Republicans have been looking to the administration to shrink the size of government, reduce the deficit by cutting services and encourage hiring by cutting taxes. Soon, the president will release the budget, and we are expected to see scalpel-like precision in how he will cut spending by reducing redundancies and waste. For the president, who is desperately trying to move right of center, and the Republicans who are looking to starve the government into submission, nothing is sacred (except maybe Medicare, Social Security and Defense).

The contentious relationship that both parties had leading up the Midterm elections created a lot of DOA Bills (my characterization) that would face a united Republican opposition on the floor of the Senate. The Senate was where Bills would go to die. While the lame-duck session showed that pre-election stubbornness may lead to cooperation, the new Congress has not shown signs of improving. Party line votes continue in the house, where the Republicans have symbolically voted to repeal Obamacare. Senate majority leader Reid has already ensured that the bill will not be introduced to the floor. Same game, different party. They get $174,000/yr to essentially ensure that they get that same paycheck 2-6 yrs later. Waste of my money and time.

On the topic of waste of time and money, the TEA party caucus poster boy, Rand Paul (R-KY) has released his budget proposal. While the Republicans have promised to cut $60-100 billion this year, Paul wants to cut $500 billion. And he's totally serious, especially because he has a monopoly on support from really angry people who think emotion, god and guns are the way to govern. But, his proposal is not based in reality. There is a big, fat, obvious line between starving the government and taking it out back and pulling an "old yeller" as Paul is suggesting. So, this budget, which he spent so much wasted time on will not budge beyond the paper it was written on.

The following numbers come from a Washington Examiner article:

Legislative Branch: $1.283 billion (23%)
Judicial Branch: $2.434 billion (32%)
Agriculture: $42.542 billion (30%)
Commerce: $5.322 billion (54%)
Defense: $47.5 billion (6.5% - WOW...that means our Def budget is over $730 billion!)
Education: $78 billion (83%)
Energy: $44.2 billion (100% - Nuclear is shifted to DOD)
Health and Human Service: $26.51 billion (26%)
Homeland Security: $23.765 billion (43%)
Housing and Urban Development: $53.1 billion (100%)
Interior: $10.934 billion (78%)
Justice: $9.057 billion (28%)
Labor: $2.803 billion (2%)
State: $20.321 billion (71%)
Transportation: $42.81 billion (49%)
Veterans: No Cuts
Corps of Engineers: $1.854 billion (27%)
EPA: $3.238 billion (29%)
General Services: $1.936 billion (85%)
International Assistance: $24.3 billion (100%)
NASA: $4.5 billion (25%)
National Science Foundation: $4.723 billion (62%)
Office of Personnel Management: $9.07 billion
Social Security Admin: No Cuts
FCC: $2.15 billion (22%)
ABOLISH: Affordable Housing, Consumer on Fine Arts, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for Arts, National Endowment for Humanities and State Justice Institute - $2.05 billion
Misc: $44.581 billion

I respect Paul for his ideological orthodoxy. But symbolic gestures like Paul's budget waste time. A lot of his proposed cuts are political nonstarters (cuts in Homeland Security, Defense, Energy, International Assistance, State Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Commerce) because they are linked to long term strategic goals accepted by a majority of both parties. Cuts in Agriculture will stymie economic recovery in rural states, cuts in Homeland Security, Defense, State and International Assistance will hugely affect creating stability in Afghanistan and the Middle East, abolishing Housing completely will create a larger population of homeless and any cuts in Commerce will slow down our economic recovery. Straight abolition of departments in the government, like Energy, Housing and Education, are still considered politically taboo and part of a fringe element.

Rand - If you want to seriously reduce the deficit and government spending, please introduce some common-sense budgets. If not, relegate yourself to the side, give up your salary and stop wasting my time. Then, Congress can get back to business (whatever it does...) and agree (pending a party-line vote) to accept two irrelevant members from the Paul family.

Michael Steele's False Sense of Entitlement

Michael Steele was elected as Chairman of the Republican National Committee less than a week after Barak Obama was elected president. The former Maryland Lieutenant governor was picked as an outsider to distance the Republic Party from the Bush Administration and its catastrophic defeats in the midterm elections of 2006 and the presidential election of 2008. Republicans wanted to reshape their image as a party that could elect a diverse group of internal directors while keeping to its conservative ideologies.

In the months leading up to the 2010 Midterm elections, Steele made some public gaffes that angered the base. His biggest mistake was calling the Afghan war "a War of Obama's choosing." On the face of it, the statement is true. But, its implications were much bigger: a declaration by the representative of the Republican Party showing that opposition to the administration was fair game even when it came to matters of National Security, Terrorism and the War on Terror not because it was inefficient, but because it had the Obama name to it. The use of a "surge" tactic by the Administration was supported by Republican Congressman, and this message showed an ignorance to the origins of the Afghan War (Bush Admin) and the implications of the Afghan War (National Security). Most importantly, it gave the perception that the Republican Party might value political partisanship over something as important as National Security.

His also had management and fiscal mistakes. His chief of staff and other aides were fired after using $2,000 of RNC money at a nightclub in West Hollywood. He also accumulated $20 million in debt with the RNC and lost many donors, catching the ire of the Republican base.

But, on the positive side he engineered the capture of the House of Representatives and major gains in gubernatorial races all over the country. And, he created a Republican 50-state strategy, including Democrat bulwarks that barely held or lost their seats.

Or did he?

While he can take credit for returning the House to Republican control, it was not his strategy that created such a result. Republican congressman like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Paul Ryan took the helm in creating strategic language to show a massive divide between the goals of the Democratic-controlled Congress, the Administration and the Public. With the help of extremists like Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and Dick Armey, the TEA Party arose as a standard bearer for conservative orthodoxy. The administrations fight over the healthcare bill and the perceived notion that they were ignoring the flailing economy worked well for Republicans in the midterm elections. Armed with filibuster, death panels, Obamacare, socialism, mounting debts, bailouts and Government Motors the Republicans Party took back the House from the Democrats and seriously reduced their majority in the Senate. Whether it was grassroots or astroturf, it did not happen because of the leadership of Micheal Steele.

Obama's Speech at Arizona Memorial Service

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Montana Pushes Coal Exports through Washington to China

This creates a zero sum game in regards to global greenhouse gas reduction goals. Here are some misconceptions put in recent articles about Montana coal and Washington:

Seattle gets most of its power from hydro and the rest from a mix of solar, wind and natural gas. In fact, the entire state of WA only get 17% of its electricity from coal. Seattle does not get coal power from Montana, as Gov Schweitzer says.

Millennium Logistics, a subsidiary of Ambre Energy: "there will be no net increase in GHG emissions in the state of WA." False. You might not be burning the coal, but you will have to increase rail traffic. And, unless they cover the cars (which they won't) you will have a dramatic increase in particulate pollution. While it is not GHG technically, particulates are a public health risk (respiratory illness, etc).

Gov. Schweitzer also said that Montana has "relatively clean coal." False. Montana coal is low-sulfur sub-bituminous, which is one step above lignite. Lignite is practically caked detritus and is terrible in quality. Sub-bituminous PRB coal from Montana burns at around 8,000 BTU, which is much lower than bituminous coal from Illinois Basin or Appalachia. This means they need to burn more of it to achieve the same power output. PRB coal also tends to catch fire when sitting in piles, unless properly stored. The dust from the coal also tends to create secondary combustion, which could cause damage in transport or at the facility. None of that can be remotely characterized as "clean."

Mitch McConnell and START Political Posturing

START is the new nuclear weapons reduction treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Here is what Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had to say about trying to put it to vote in the Senate:

“No senator should be forced to make decisions like this so we can tick off another item on someone's political check list before the end of the year”

I'm sorry, but this takes the cake. Political check list?!?!? I'm sorry, wasn't it you and your party that was checking off its "political checklist" when it made a policy to oppose everything the administration offered? Wasn't it your party who opposed unemployment benefits, an energy bill, healthcare bill, independent contract oversight, rape prevention clauses in contractor agreements, financial overhaul in the worst recession and a whole host of other issues so you could score political points for November?

When was this treaty signed? I think it was....APRIL! So your party has had over 8 months to read over this treaty. You could have offered amendments, points of contention, concerns or any other comment you wanted. But...you chose to wait, filibuster, block, obfuscate, dilly-dally, kick-the-can and sit back on your laurels until the last minute. Then, without taking responsibility for being an obstructionist imbecile, you complain that it is fact...the last minute. Arms reductions treaties have always been bipartisan ideas. Wasn't it your party that has daily prayer sessions to the almighty Ronald Reagan? Yah...that same Reagan who went to Iceland to have arms reductions talks with Russian Premiere Gorbachev? Where do you get the idea that arms reductions are political posturing?!?!

These weapons are tools of a bygone era. This was an era of gunboat diplomacy, brinkmanship, secrecy, containment and war by proxy. Now, we strive for transparency and negotiation over saber rattling. But, this kind of political posturing gets us nowhere. And, I've had enough of the retrogressive politics of the last 2 years.

This should be your new quote, Mitch McConnell. It would make much more sense:

"No senator should be forced to make decisions"

Compromise

In order to understand national politics, you have to divorce yourself from reality. Politics is a game. This is why we study political science. But, those who don't understand the dynamics of national politics might feel a bit disenfranchised.

It is very understandable to be angry when middle class citizens are having trouble putting food on the table or getting necessary medication when well-off Congressman make seething diatribes, polemics and jeremiads about the principles of fiscal responsibility. Or, when 99ers (those who have exhausted their 99 weeks of unemployment) hear about cutting services to reduce the deficit when they can barely afford to eat. Or maybe when Congressman from states with less people than livestock block much needed money for those who are starving because of their financial principles. For them, damning the ship is fine, if they're already on a lifeboat. There is a definite disconnect between the Hill and the reality in the valley below.

Current national politics are anathema to progress. They have been for the last 1-2 years. For most, this elicited anger towards the Administration and the government. Obama came into office in the Hope that he would Change the course of Washington, as most have tried. He compromised, accommodated, appeased and adjusted. He gave, and they took. And, in November, 2010, they took even more.

Now, what will the Administration do? Do what it does best: Compromise. Republicans took the most vulnerable as hostages by threatening to vote down any unemployment extension, and Obama paid the ransom. Keep the ship afloat if it means negotiating with the pirates. So, he crafted a very Clintonian proposal to cut taxes for those who are making over $250,000/yr for two years, keeping a permanent tax cut for those who are making less than $250,000/yr and increasing the limit on the estate tax from $1 million to $5 million. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says that most Republicans will fall in line in support of the tax cut. Even the senior fellow at the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute has supported the measure. The price-tag: $900 billion over 2 years, of which $300 billion is offset by the stimulus.

In 1996, President Clinton won a second term in a near landslide. He had lost the House and Senate to a Republican insurgency in 1994, led by Newt Gingrich. He cut services, reformed welfare, deregulated the housing industry and compromised to show that he valued progress over principle. Obama is searching for his inner-Clinton.