Turkey: The Forgotten American Ally

By Preston Cooper

Courtesy of Wikipedia

The Middle East is in flames. Fighting in Syria grows bloodier by the day. Conflicts between Israel and Palestine look likely to break open again. Tensions regarding Iran are escalating, and Afghanistan persists as the war that won't end. Despite all the violence, all the anti-American sentiment, we do have allies in the region. And it's important that we don't forget them.

Two years ago today, a chasm opened between our two closest allies in the region, a chasm that never really closed. When pro-Palestinian activists attempted to sail an aid flotilla into the impoverished Gaza Strip, Israeli soldiers boarded the boats and killed nine Turkish activists. Plenty of harsh condemnations and severed diplomatic ties between Israel and Turkey followed the incident. And the US did relatively little to mediate the conflict or mend the damage.

If anything, we took Israel's side - and taking sides is a big no-no when settling disputes between allies. Rick Perry went so far as to call Turkey's Prime Minister an "Islamic terrorist" for his spirited language against Israel. All in all, we left Turkey alone and stewing.

This egregious lapse of foreign policy judgment has gone unnoticed and unfixed. In many ways, Turkey is a more important ally than Israel. It is a large country with a strong economy, a big influence in the region. It is one of few stable, democratic governments in the Middle East. And unlike Israel, it has the respect of neighbors who may be less friendly to the United States, with the ability to serve as a mediator. Most importantly, it is tolerant of both Western and Arabic cultures, a paragon of progressivity for the rest of the Middle East to follow.

It is high time that the American government started paying more attention to Turkey. I hope that Secretary of State Clinton and the Obama Administration will reach out to our Anatolian friends and let them know that like Israel, they have our full support. We can start by pressuring Israel to mend relations with Turkey, and request that Turkey do the same.

If the conflict in Syria explodes beyond its borders to neighboring countries, as many experts fear, Turkey must know that the United States will provide support if requested. We are a nation that stands behind its allies, and Turkey is no exception.

Five Do's and Don'ts for Mitt Romney, GOP Nominee

By Preston Cooper

Let's have a round of applause for the 2012 presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney. Last night, the Texas primaries gave him enough delegates to officially clinch the GOP nod. After knocking down thirteen challengers in as many months of campaigning, Romney has entered the second act of the presidential contest: the general election.

Game on, Obama.

In the next five months, Romney must convince the country that he is better equipped to occupy the Oval Office than the sitting president. As of now, he's not up to the challenge. Despite a lethargic economy and rumblings of renewed conflict in the Middle East, most polls still show the candidates tied. This election would be an easy win for the Republicans if Romney would take a little more initiative. Why do we not know his intentions after the repeal of Obamacare, or the hard numbers of his plan for deficit reduction?

If we're going to return Obama, Romney has to prove that he's worth our store credit.

Therefore, I've compiled a list of five do's and don'ts for our GOP nominee. Barring complete financial meltdown or nuclear war with Iran (both of which I'm trying not to count on), Mitt Romney must change his game plan to solidly win the White House.

DON'T spend time on social issues. Obama is not waging a war on religion; his war is on commonsense economic reforms. Social issues such as gay marriage and abortion are also where we find some of your biggest flip-flops. The economy is your strong suit, and it remains weak in critical swing states like Florida and Nevada. Use it to win the election, and then fix it.

DO press immigration reform. Hispanics, to whom immigration is a top issue, are a critical voting bloc that Obama won handily in 2008. We've heard a lot of talk about what you're going to do with illegal immigrants; let's talk about how you'll simplify the process for people coming here legally. Immigration has long been a backbone of this country, and voters want to know what you're going to do about it.

DON'T keep your plans for the country shrouded in ambiguity. My big issue is the nation's balance sheet; I want to know how you're going to cut taxes by twenty percent while also balancing the budget and bringing down the debt. Let's see some numbers.

DO spend a little time on the real Mitt Romney. If you're uncomfortable sharing personal details, dispatch Ann to do it for you. She can tell us about how you helped a Bain associate search for his missing daughter, or about time with the family that didn't involve strapping a dog to the roof. Don't let this distract from the real issues, though; in 2008 we elected a funny, interesting, nice-guy president with zero preparedness for the job.

DO talk about an issue important to voters across the political spectrum that has gone almost completely untouched this election season: partisan gridlock. In 2008, Candidate Obama promised to unite the parties and ended up dividing them like no other president in history. Gridlock has defined American politics for the last two years, giving us imbalanced budgets and downgraded debt. How are you going to end the stalemate in Congress and move the country forward? Talk about it. This is an issue you can win on.

Mitt Romney Isn't the Only Flip-Flopper

Let's hold Obama accountable for some of the one-eighties he has made in his past four years as President. Liberals accuse Mitt Romney of being a flip-flopper, but they don't have to look beyond their own ranks to find someone ready to take a politically expedient position on the campaign trail, then renege on it once safely in the Oval Office. Take a look at ours, and create your own "Flip-Flop Obama" Memes here.

 

Honoring the Fallen on Memorial Day

Photo courtesy of Christopher Hollis

As a soldier in New Guinea during World War II, my grandfather contracted a strain of malaria which remained dormant in his body for over forty years. Long after he returned to the United States to raise my father and aunt, the disease finally caught up with him, and he joined the fallen heroes of war whom we honor on Memorial Day.

I hope all of you enjoy your time off today, but please take a few minutes and think of someone who died for their country. I'm not only talking about veterans, but about all who gave their lives to protect the freedom that makes this country what it is. There are forces, both outside and inside the United States, that seek to challenge our way of life. But there are always people, American heroes, who stand up against those forces, and this Memorial Day let's be sure to thank all of them.

So take a few minutes and think of a veteran, police officer, firefighter, civil rights activist, paramedic, nurse, or anyone else who died to protect this country and make it a better place. There have been many challenges facing this country throughout its two-hundred-thirty-six-year history, but we have survived them all because of American sacrifice, American courage, and American unity.

Private Sector is the Future of Space Exploration

By Preston Cooper

Courtesy of NASA

Yesterday, a remarkable advance occurred for the technological universe of mankind: a private company docked a spacecraft at the International Space Station. Called SpaceX, the company was commissioned by NASA to run supplies to the orbiting spaceport, instead of putting them aboard Russian rockets as it has done ever since the demise of the Space Shuttle.

Every child born in the Space Age is probably wondering what happened to the missions to Mars. Why aren't we flying to the moons of Jupiter? Why haven't we built a base on the moon?

The technological advances we've made in the last few decades have all been in this world. Indeed, the technology that defines the current era is not of the extraterrestrial sort, but works to improve our lives here on Earth. The internet, smartphones, and other communications technologies are the most sophisticated innovations that have a direct bearing on our lives here in America. And who would have thought, even ten years ago, that an internet access point, a music library, and a gaming center could all fit into a cell phone?

One of the reasons that communications technology has been such a success, while space travel has largely stalled over the last few decades, is that communications technology originated in the private sector. There are other factors at play, of course, but being developed by companies rather than government bureaucracy is a big leg up. Private companies compete to employ the best and the brightest minds, and tailor their products specifically to the general public. After all, if you don't make a sellable product, you're out of business.

There are many ways that a private company can turn a profit off space travel. Governments, other companies, or academic institutions may contract them to ferry supplies into space or conduct research in space. Private companies may also sell seats on commercial flights in and out of the cosmos; Virgin Airlines recently announced plans to create a new division, Virgin Galactic, that flies beyond our atmosphere.

NASA, while working towards an admirable goal, does not have the same drive to create an end product that will captivate the heart of the American public. They are above all else a government agency, and the invisible hand is not at play. That's why SpaceX's mission to the ISS is such a remarkable accomplishment. Perhaps, with private companies at the helm, space travel can reinvigorate the American imagination.

The French and Indian War(ren)

JP Morgan Losses: A Crisis Done Right

By Preston Cooper

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Last week's $2 billion (now likely much higher) trading loss at megabank JP Morgan Chase sent the financial world into a frenzy. The bank's stock plunged more than twenty percent, and regulators in Washington leaped at the opportunity to call for stronger oversight of Wall Street. Many have called for the resignation of JPM's CEO, Jamie "Panache" Dimon, from the New York Fed's Board of Governors.

I don't see what the hullabaloo is about.

Yes, JPM's trading loss was large, but the bank will likely still turn a profit in the second quarter. This will not cripple the company by any means. What's more, had something like this happened at JPM's two ugly stepsisters - Bank of America and Citi - it would probably not even make headlines.

JPM remains a very well-managed bank. It will not be needing a taxpayer bailout anytime soon. The company will absorb its own losses, the managers responsible for the damage will resign, and business will eventually return to normal. This is how a crisis should be done. The tumult in the media and on Wall Street is unnecessary.

Moreover, the response of Washington regulators reveals that the loss has had a good effect - it is inspiring discussion about how to improve the financial regulatory system. This is good - conservatism does not oppose regulation; it opposes inappropriate or inefficient regulation. Good regulation is healthy for the economy, as it mitigates damage in times of crisis.

As far as I'm concerned, financial regulation has two aims:

1. To protect depositors' money. When you deposit money in a bank, you should - and do - have a guarantee that your money is safe. The government has a duty to make sure banks' practices do not jeopardize the money you're saving for college or retirement.

2. To protect the economy from the failure of systemic institutions. If the failure of an institution will have a major negative effect on the country, it is necessary for the government to ensure that the institution does not incur undue risk of collapse. However, under no circumstances is it appropriate for the government to bail out a failing institution with taxpayer money.

If regulation of the financial sector does not pertain to one of these two goals, it is bad regulation and is most likely antithetical to the free market. JP Morgan is a systemic institution as well as a savings bank, so increased oversight of its trading practices may be necessary to ensure that it does not put depositors' money or the larger economy at risk. However, I am confident that JPM will emerge from this setback stronger, an exemplar of how to properly navigate a crisis.

Is Dharun Ravi a Hate Criminal?

By Preston Cooper

We all killed Tyler Clementi.

Two days ago, Judge Glenn Berman sentenced Rutgers student Dharun Ravi to thirty days in prison after he was found guilty of an assortment of charges, most prominent among them bias intimidation, another way of saying hate crime.

As a freshman at Rutgers, Ravi used a webcam to spy on his roommate, Tyler Clementi, during a sexual encounter with another man. When Clementi discovered that Ravi had broadcasted his private life on the internet, he killed himself by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. Though not directly charged with Clementi's murder, Ravi received fifteen criminal charges, including bias intimidation and invasion of privacy. Prosecutors argued that Ravi's actions constituted intimidating his roommate because of his sexual orientation, which is a hate crime under New Jersey law.

Despite being convicted of a hate crime, Ravi's thirty-day prison sentence was unexpected. Activists on both sides of the case cried foul, some saying that his sentence should have been no more than community service, others arguing that he should spend years in prison. In a surprising move, some gay rights activists made a case for community service, on the basis that Dharun Ravi was only one element of a complex network of social pressures that drove Tyler Clementi to kill himself.

And they're absolutely right. Most psychiatrists will tell you that few single events, like the webcam incident, drive a person to commit suicide. Tyler Clementi was a depressed person long before Ravi's juvenile behavior sent him over the edge. That's why I say that we all killed Tyler Clementi - we have all contributed, in one way or another, to the state of the world today that makes millions of gays and lesbians uncomfortable in their own skin.

So are we all guilty of hate crimes? No, I wouldn't say we are. Because the world as a whole does not hate LGBT people; the world is simply not fully tolerant. During sentencing, Judge Berman refused to give Ravi a longer sentence because he did not believe Ravi hated Tyler Clementi. Like the world, Ravi was simply not fully tolerant.

In 2009, Congress passed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which extended the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity. A hate crime, as defined by previous legislation, occurs when an individual is specifically targeted because of his or her membership in some group - in the Clementi case, the gay community.

So, do Dharun Ravi's actions constitute a hate crime? It is true that Ravi had a prejudice against gays, and that prejudice drove him to commit the crimes he did (invasion of privacy and others). But hate crime charges should be reserved for violent crimes, threats of violence, or particularly repugnant hate speech. These are all cases, as the legislation specifies, where the crime is clearly motivated by hate.

Like Judge Berman, I don't believe Ravi hates gay people. He, like the rest of the world, is not yet fully tolerant. But hate? Hate does not belong to Ravi, nor to most people in the world. Hate belongs only to a few individuals and fringe groups, and they are the intended targets of hate crime law in America.

We want to help those like Ravi, who are not fully tolerant of the LGBT community, become more accepting. We don't want to lock them away for hatred they don't possess. Ravi's actions were disgraceful, but they do not warrant prison time. I hope that when Ravi is released, he will overcome his intolerance, and the rest of the world will follow.

How to End the War in Afghanistan Correctly

By Preston Cooper

Today, the NATO summit in Chicago is expected to announce that, after over a decade of military involvement, international forces will hand over the primary responsibility for Afghanistan's security to Prime Minister Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government, with a pledge to withdraw all combat troops by the end of 2014.

This is a welcome move. The War in Afghanistan has become the longest major US war in history, surpassing the Vietnam War and the Iraq War by two years. The engagement has cost over $530 billion and nearly 2,000 American lives, not to mention countless Afghan civilians caught in the crossfire. Security gains have largely petered out since the first few years of combat. Recent incidents such as the massacre of Afghan civilians by a US soldier are evidence that things are tense between the US military and the nation it aims to protect.

It is safe to say that the War in Afghanistan has overstayed its welcome. In the same way that conservatism values finding a job versus being dependent on welfare, a country ought to have control over its own security rather than leaning on us for support.

However, the situation in Afghanistan remains unstable, and it is unacceptable for the Taliban or al-Qaeda to regain a foothold in the country. The forces that attacked us on September 11, 2001 are weakened but still very much alive today. For our own reasons, the US still has a vested interest in the security of Afghanistan, which is why we must stay involved, to a calculated degree, in the country.

This does not mean hundreds of thousands of troops patrolling the streets of Kabul, or dozens of helicopters beating the sky over the Khyber Pass. But it does mean ensuring that our relationship with the Afghan government remains friendly and intimate.

We must be as close with Afghanistan as we are with Israel. This means continued assistance to the fledgling government and military staff left in the country in a non-combat role. It is also critical to repair the frosty relations that have grown between our two nations as a result of the prolonged war. Ending combat will certainly help, but additional demonstrations of US respect for Afghanistan may be necessary.

I hope that the end of US involvement in combat will not be the end of US involvement in Afghanistan. The nation is an ally and a friend we cannot afford to lose.

Introducing Conservative Memes

I've noticed that this blog is somewhat text-heavy, so I've decided to start including other features such as memes. If you have a conservatively themed meme that you'd like to share, please email it to redslateblog@gmail.com. Enjoy!

Europe's New "Iron Lady"

By Preston Cooper

Photo by Armin Linnartz.

America should borrow some ideas from Angela Merkel.

This week, members of the G8 - the group of all economies on track to get their rear ends kicked by China - will convene at Camp David to discuss the Eurocrisis, stimulus, and fiscal austerity. In debt-ridden Europe, German Chancellor Merkel has come out as an advocate for austerity, the idea of spending cuts and tax increases as a tool for driving down the debt. While no one likes to tell voters that they'll soon be getting less from the government for more money, it's better than the alternative.

Enter Francois Hollande, newly elected president of France. The socialist leader, also known as Mr. Monkey Wrench, tells Greece and other European countries in crisis to spend more on stimulus programs. The idea here is that a stronger economy will bring in more tax revenues, but I see several problems with this thinking. First, the stimulus will eventually run out, as it did in America, and the economy will be right back where it started. Along with a larger pile of debt. Second, countries such as Greece, where debt exceeds GDP by half, cannot afford to throw stimulus around to see if it will work. They need action now.

Fortunately, Chancellor Merkel remains an advocate for sensible, if unpopular, austerity. Under her leadership the Eurozone may avoid a massive debt crisis. I hope President Obama will borrow a few pages from her book and face reality about our growing debt problem. Fortunately, America has the luxury (ahem) of a debt pile roughly equal GDP, meaning the action we take to reverse its growth can be slower. This translates into less draconian spending cuts and very light tax increases. Waiting even a few more years will result in trillion-dollar cuts and tax hikes on the middle class.

Angela Merkel has earned herself a place next to Thatcher and Reagan in the ranks of great conservative leaders. Unlike President Obama, who pursues meaningless initiatives such as the Buffett Rule and claims they will solve our fiscal problems, Merkel is serious about the situation in front of her. And unlike Congressional Republicans, who use our debt crisis to pursue their own political agenda, she is in it to fix it. I wish her all the best.

Maryland Tax Increases an Irresponsible Move

By Preston Cooper

Photo by Jay Baker.

Yesterday, the Democrat-controlled Maryland legislature sent a bill to Governor Martin O'Malley (also a member of the Tax-and-Spend Party) that would increase taxes on the middle class.

Now, I'm not going to say that I've never met a tax increase I didn't immediately despise. Some are truly necessary evils. But this one transcends the boundaries of what is proper.

The measure implements a 0.25% increase on the taxes of individuals earning over $100,000. At first glance, this six-digit figure seems like it belongs to the wealthy. Governor O'Malley would certainly like you to think so. However, I'd like to step back and see who this level of income actually belongs to. Let's start with the national level.

The Census Bureau reports that the median income for families in the United States is around $51,000. This figure encompasses everyone, from Alaska to New York City. Costs of living across the country are vastly different. A studio apartment in Midtown Manhattan might cost the same as a six-bedroom mansion in rural Nebraska. With such different costs of living, incomes vary wildly between regions, meaning wealthy for one region might be middle class for another.

On the national level, therefore, $100,000 seems like exorbitant earnings, being nearly twice the national median income. Let's take a look at Maryland. Here, in my fine state, the median income is around $71,000, a huge leap from the national figure. Once again, this gap stems from a much-higher cost of living in Maryland. $100,000 draws closer to the median income; the upper end of the middle class will see their taxes go up. Governor O'Malley and his legislature draw dangerously close to a just taboo of politics: NEVER increase taxes on the middle class. Especially in an economy as sluggish as ours.

Let's take it a step further and look at Montgomery County, a suburb of Washington, DC that one could easily mistake for a part of the city itself. Median income in Montgomery County is $92,000 - a figure almost identical to the breaking point Governor O'Malley so carelessly chose as the threshold of the upper class.

Montgomery County is no enclave of the elite; the mean cost of a simple, single-family home here is $694,000 - over two and a half times the national average. For this highly urbanized, East Coast county, wealthy on a national scale is just middle-income.

Governor O'Malley's bill will essentially raise taxes on half the residents of Montgomery County.

We have different tax brackets for a reason; wealthier people can afford to give up a larger percentage of their income. However, the situation in Maryland underscores the trouble with standardizing these tax brackets at a national level, or even a state level. I'm not saying that we should abolish national income taxes and set all rates at a county level, but I do believe tax-and-spend politicians like Governor O'Malley and President Obama should give more thought to who they may be hurting before taking away your hard-earned money under the guise of populism.

All national and Maryland statistics can be found here. All Montgomery County statistics can be found here.

An Open Letter to Mitt Romney

By Preston Cooper

Dear Mitt Romney,

I don't know who you are anymore.

You have no doubt heard that last Wednesday, President Obama endorsed the right of same-sex couples to be wed. In response, you predictably disagreed with the President's position, but also said this:

"I don't favor civil unions if they're identical to marriage other than by name. My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate."

Wow. Using the defense of protecting traditional marriage is one thing, but you just took discrimination to a whole different level. In this statement you made it clear that your interest is not in preserving the definition of marriage, but in expressly limiting the rights of same-sex couples. A civil union, identical to marriage other than by name, is not an ideal solution for proponents of same-sex marriage. However, it satisfies, to a limited extent, those who believe in preserving the definition of traditional marriage and those who advocate for expansion of the rights granted to same-sex couples. At least, until you came along, and in a blatant pander to the religious right, made this your official platform.

As a Republican and an LGBT person, I am a member of a very small voting bloc, and probably not one that you have to worry much about. I will likely still vote for you - economic issues, your strong suit, are more pressing - but with reservations. I know that at least one of your major backers, Bill White, withdrew his support and joined Team Obama after the daylight between you and the President on this issue became clear. More may follow. Are you prepared to alienate independents and young people, not to mention ostracize a major minority, for the sake of becoming a "fake" conservative?

You see, Mr. Romney, I don't believe you understand what true conservatism is. Conservatism is the belief that a limited government, which does only what it must, is the path to a prosperous society. I see no need under conservative values for the government to tell me who I may and may not marry. Nor do I see the need for forcing one definition of marriage, one espoused by only a segment of the population, upon the entire country. That is the exact kind of big government you should advocate against.

I certainly hope you and the rest of the GOP come to understand that protecting the liberties of our entire population, and by default supporting same-sex marriage, is an intrinsic element of conservative philosophy. If you want to be a true conservative, Mr. Romney, stop following what people say about our philosophy, and start following our philosophy.

Best of luck in November,

Preston Cooper