Election 2008

John McCain has not always been the Republican party’s sweetheart. He was George W. Bush’s adversary for the nomination in 2000, a fierce advocate against the use of torture practices of detainees, and one of the few Republican candidates to take a hard line on immigration in the 2008 primary season. But now, as the party’s anticipated nominee, he campaigns on behalf of the party and its legacy.

McCain is known for his “maverick,” and “straight-talking” ways, but from speech to speech McCain presses on, carrying the conservative moniker. On his recent fundraising trip to California, he received the endorsement of Nancy Reagan. A staunch supporter of the surge in Iraq, McCain’s Iraq policy has come under fire and his positions on domestic and economic affairs solidify McCain towards the right of the American political spectrum. At his core, however, he is a moderate–a label which his recent foreign policy address to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles solidifies.

In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone.

Is the era of Republican realism over?

[America] must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish.

When was the last time a high-level Republican politician advocated not just for the support, but for the creation of new international institutions? In just one speech, McCain has brought to an end any party notions of “with us or against us”:

Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

This is likely to be one of many foreign policy speeches the candidate gives as he seeks a win in November’s election, but its diversion from the Bush Republican mainstream is noteworthy. (Granted, he delivered the speech in California to an internationalist crowd, though) perhaps the maverick title holds, for McCain certainly seems to have chosen the Republican road less traveled.

Photo by Flickr user pingnews.com used under a Creative Commons license

LOS ANGELES – The sprawling coastal megapolis of Southern California continues to battle fires in its arid chaparral-filled hillsides, so for the moment the local focus is not on politics or elections but on disaster relief and providing shelter for a half million displaced residents. But Hurricane Katrina proved that a botched relief effort can have enormous repercussions on national politics and even international relations. As the President visits the disaster area tomorrow, accompanied by Governor Schwarzenegger, comparisons with Katrina will be hard to avoid. Both men are oddly in the background of the 2008 elections landscape – the unpopular Bush shunned by Republican candidates to replace him, Schwarzenegger a victim of his foreign birth. Amidst the natural tragedy, political ironies are inescapable: Schwarzenegger has a “Giuliani moment” but can’t run for higher office while President Bush, learning from Katrina, will be faulted for treating San Diego better than New Orleans.

A visitor to Los Angeles is struck by this region’s Hispanic character and complexion and, along with it, the salience of the Hispanic vote in next year’s election. Bush did well with the Hispanic voters in 2000 and 2004, but this is one part of the electorate whose sympathies next year are hard to predict. The first Hispanic candidate, Bill Richardson, has run an oddly listless race. Non-Hispanic politicians tread carefully while, behind the scenes, many are preoccupied with the immigration issue. The Internet was awash yesterday with warnings about Senator Reid’s maneuvers in the Senate on the so-called “DREAM” legislation to grant citizenship to the younger generation of foreign born (illegal) residents. Lou Dobbs, on CNN last night, was particularly strident, accusing both parties of “pandering” to the Hispanic community.

Immigration, of course, has a foreign policy dimension, as President Bush’s speech on Cuba today in Washington illustrates. A Cuban reaching Florida’s shores gets legal sanctuary, a Mexican fleeing poverty and chaos becomes an illegal immigrant in California. Austrian-born immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger, watching from the election sidelines, probably has more than a few thoughts on the subject, as he ponders the Constitutional provision that keeps him out of the race.

Congress has not been very surefooted of late when it comes to declaring foreign policy by means of Congressional Resolution. The latest example comes in the form of H. Res. 106, passed last week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which condemns the Ottoman Empire’s murderous behavior in 1915, when the Armenian population of eastern Anatolia was nearly extinguished.

After several days of repercussions that included Turkey recalling its ambassador and threatening to end bilateral military cooperation with the United States, there were signs today that the Democratic leadership in the House was planning to quietly shelve the resolution so it would not get voted on in the full House.

Now the U.S. is now in the baleful position of having worsened relations with Turkey without even getting points for principled action.

From the standpoint of current U.S. foreign policy, the timing of this whole affair could not have been worse. The Republic of Turkey is a key U.S. ally and partner. Ankara’s cooperation and support are crucial to U.S. military activities in Iraq. Turkey represents a modern country with an Islamic majority that endorses the separation of mosque and state. Add to this the extremely sensitive situation on Turkey’s border with Iraq, Turkey’s restive attitude toward the Kurdish semi-state developing in northern Iraq, and the latest vote today by the Turkish parliament to authorize military incursions across the border to attack suspected PKK enclaves, and one is left with a sinking feeling about what may happen next.

This is not to say that Turkey should be allowed to deny the actions of the Ottoman Turks ninety years ago. But there are better ways – and much better timing – to achieve atonement and reconciliation.

It would also help if congressional resolutions were more consistent, and less politically expedient. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) must have thought at first it would be easy to support this measure because her party is not in the White House and would not have to bear the consequences – at least not yet – for worsening US-Turkish relations. She appears now to be reconsidering.

For better or worse, when Democrats or Republicans control both the Executive Branch and Congress, Congress passes very few resolutions that are considered offensive to key allies. When power is divided in Washington, Congressional forays into foreign policy don’t have the same consequences and it becomes easier to stand on “principle.”

Perhaps more important, the temptation is great, during election seasons, to solicit votes by actions that appeal to ethnic voters. California, home to the largest part of America’s Armenian diaspora, will be key to the outcome of the 2008 elections. Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan – other sites of more recent genocides – are less present in America’s immigrant/ethnic communities, or we might see more resolutions in this election season on their behalf.

As Congress recalculates its interest in this issue, it might also keep in mind its October 2002 Resolution supporting the Iraq war, which seems so hasty in light of subsequent events. When the U.S. moved ahead and invaded Iraq, the Turkish parliament opposed its own government and refused to authorize use of Turkish airspace for the U.S.-led invasion. Maybe Congress would do well to listen occasionally to its counterparts in Ankara.

If we are going to overhaul, change, or toss out the Electoral College, that is a discussion that we ought to have at a national level. Cynical attempts to manipulate politics for the sake of partisan gain, however, should simply be beyond the pale. Fortunately, it looks as if GOP proposals to choose California’s presidential electors based on a proportion of the popular vote are not going to gain traction. 

Such ploys seem like even more of a naked grab for power when one remembers that in the wake of the 2000 and 2004 elections Republicans scoffed at the very idea that the Electoral College needs fixing and insisted that Democrats were crybabies for wanting to look anew at the system we use to elect the President.  The same thing can be said for Texas’ unporecedented statewide redistricting a few years back. Just try to imagine the reactions from the right if the party affiliations were switched in either of these scenarios.