The Future of Coalition Government

My Right-Side-of-Lowell friend put a guilt trip on me to put out a post on the (not unexpected) fall of the Dutch Government. When I noticed Saturday morning that a 20-hour marathon Cabinet meeting resulted in the resignation of the Liberal (PvDA) ministers, I was not surprised. It doesn’t surprise me that cooler heads were unable to prevail after what must have been a tense, polarizing, and meeting. I am, however, disappointed in the outcome and a bit apprehensive about the future of the Dutch Body Politic.

Let me explain. The Dutch have a long history of governing from the middle. Due to the political system, coalition cabinets are the norm and the prominent leader of the largest party typically serves as Prime Minister for an extended period. While I haven’t researched the statistics on Cabinet longevity, only 6 post World War II cabinets have completed their term (that’s 6 out of 26!). The fact that Balkenende IV just fell indicates that 3 previous Cabinets existed under Jan Balkenende’s leadership and he hasn’t been able to go the distance with any of them. He has been the Dutch leader since 2002 and his Central Democratic Alliance (a party formed by the merge of a number of smaller, Christian-principle and center left parties) has been a major party and routinely part of the ruling coalition for the past 35 years.

The liberal Labor Party (Party van de Arbeid) has fluctuated in their popularity and swapped “largest” party status with the CDA a number of times during these past decades. The personal ambitions of its leader Wouter Bos, the Deputy Prime Minister of the fallen Cabinet, played a key role in the fall of Balkenende IV.

At the heart of the rift was the promised timeline for Dutch Troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Dutch troops support the NATO mission and are scheduled to end their rotation by the end of the year. NATO, the US, and the CDA all assessed the current situation in Afghanistan as requiring continued support of international troops to allow time for the surge to succeed. Hence, the CDA (Balkenende and his CDA Secretary of State, Maxime Verhagen) were open to debate future commitments of troops to NATO’s mission. The PvdA publicly rejected that possibility out of hand.

It seems the PvdA is not interested in facts, only perception. Their perception is that the war in Afghanistan is unpopular in the Netherlands, a perception supported by opinion polls. The poll numbers of the PvdA’s leadership (Wouter Bos) have been slipping for some time – economic turmoil will do that to you. The fact is that one of the leading Dutch newspapers (NRC Handelsblad) points out that the decision to resign will cast the PvdA as the irresponsible party, willing to let the country go ungoverned during an economic crisis, facing charges of abandoning the international community. And that this Cabinet’s fall could be a watershed moment in the history of Dutch politics.

Why am I concerned for the Body Politic in The Netherlands? In one word: Radicalization. Coalition governments do not have a long history of success and the electorate is not happy with the direction the leading parties have been advocating. Populists such as Geert Wilders threaten to undermine the historical Dutch Tolerance. There is a real possibility that the Dutch electorate might gravitate toward Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) and elevate it to a major party. It seems to me that “radicals” haven’t done much good in the world. Whether you agree with Wilders or not, it is indisputable that his and the PVV ideas, are radical departure of the Dutch norm. Radicalism may sell and make for compelling news cycles. But in the end, no radical in history has expanded the freedom of its constituents or created enduring peace and stability.

Although, you could make the argument that the Founding Fathers were the original “good” radicals…

The Big Bad World.....

In the last week, I've read a number of opinions and articles reflecting on the role of the U.S in today's world and the future. Two pieces in particular resonated with me. One article (thank you John K!) dealt with the geo-political realities and the "Grand Strategy" of US administrations, Obama's in particular. George Friedman's piece on "Obama and the U.S Strategy of Buying Time" made me think about graduate school and the discussions we had on realism versus interdependence and the implications for empires, alliances, and world peace. The second article "The Modest Superpower" reflects on the roles of Europe and the US in light of the ongoing financial crisis and economic downturn.

The first article's main thrust is that the US tries (for good reason, according to the author) to stall for time before taking action. The second article concludes that Europe may be the next Superpower, at least economically, if not militarily. To me, these two articles complement each other and illustrate the advantages and dangers of the "wait and see" approach.

I am more inclined to side with the first article's approach, although that makes me sound like an isolationist perhaps, which I most assuredly do not see myself as. The second article, while I agree with the observations and implications, evokes a "where did we hear that before?" response in me. As I recall those graduate school days, it was Japan set to inevitably unseat the mighty American economic machine. But Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" put economic power and military might in perspective for me then, as it does now. Although he did forecast the fall of Pax Americana....

What did I conclude, you might ask? That it is a big bad world out there; that nothing is for certain; and that I am hopeful, dare I say optimistic, about the changes of the US. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated."

The State of Democracy and Public Interest

My friend and colleague at The Right Side of Lowell blogged (uncharacteristically brief) about the MA vote to allow the Governor to appoint an interim US Senator. Earlier he had asked about the lack of outrage in reference to the impending decision to change the law/rules. Frankly, at the time, I didn’t think the issue rose to the level where moral outrage was warranted or worth the energy. However, he indirectly does raise a point. Where does the slippery slope of democratic value deterioration start and when does the “public interest” become an afterthought in the drive of the political elite for self-preservation?

I ran across an article in one of the leading Dutch newspapers, het NRC Handelsblad, lamenting the lack of political will to define “public interest” and the resultant deterioration of democratic values. One particular phrase resonated with me. The author concludes that for a host of reasons, governing in the Netherlands is now “incident-driven” with “symptoms of ADHD.”

That made me wonder where we in America are on that spectrum? Are our democratic values secure or compromised? Is the tone of political discourse conducive to sound decision making , or are we sliding toward a system where the vocal minority overshadows the true public interest? Is the lack of political engagement by the silent majority a sign of apathy, complacency, or stupidity?

Can we have a reasonable, albeit ideologically diverse, dialog about the real issues facing our democracy, be they national security, health care, economic prosperity, or energy? I sure hope so….although I am afraid we are free-sliding on this side of the ocean as well.

Harvard's Gold Bars

A bit more about those elite schools up here in the North East. Today is the graduation for Class 2009 at Harvard, a school widely considered to have the most "gold" and prestige. One thing it does not have a lot of are Gold Bars; as in those of graduating second lieutenants.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the graduating class will include seven (7) newly commissioned officers for our nation's military; four Army and three Marines. As you may know, Harvard does not have an ROTC program and these cadets had to fulfill their military training at MIT. But of these seven brave and dedicated young people, I happen to know one. She is the daughter of a former classmate and squadron mate of mine; a fellow Dutch fighter pilot who now works for American Airlines and his wife, a former USAF nurse. Mark and I both met our future wives at pilot training, in the days when the US Air Force was smart enough to send its newly-minted gold bars serving in the medical corps to a training base in Texas filled with eager young pilots from the US and a handful of European countries. As joint spouse assignments a not the norm between countries, most of these unions either disbanded or resulted in one of the parties enjoying a short military career.

Mark and Karen's daughter was the first-born out of these international weddings and she is the first to graduate from college. We got her graduation announcements a couple of weeks ago in the mail and she is following in a proud tradition of service, being the first to begin her service in the US Army. Pretty neat! But first and foremost, our "thanks" for your commitment to our safety and security. Congratulations, stay safe, and be well!!

Alberto Gonzales' Arguments...

I was driving home tonight and listening to NPR, where I heard the commentator quote our former Attorney General as having stated "I see no criminal prosecution for me, nor for anyone that I am aware of, because [......] people acted in good faith." According to the commentator, the "good faith" argument was in response to potential criminal prosecution for his role in authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, such as water boarding.
The interview is listed here and the salient passage is at 19:15 and on. Whether or not you agree with the legality of water boarding or have an opinion on its necessity as an interrogation technique is not my point here. I find the legal argument that the former AG presents very interesting and possibly revolutionary. In essence, AG Gonzales claims that as long as you are truthful and do not act in your own self interest or for political interests, you are not criminally liable. And that is particularly true if you are acting “in the best interest of the United States, as [you] saw it.” So to take that argument to one conclusion, Robin Hood was never criminally liable. He acted in the interests of others, he did it in the best interest of the country as he saw those interests and he was not concealing the fact he was stealing money. Ergo, he was above the law as it was written at the time.
It probably was that type of reasoning that enabled the Bush administration to expand the power of the Executive Branch to levels not perceived possible, even by the Nixon administration. I don’t know if the quote from the movie “Nixon” is accurate, but it is telling: “if the President orders it, it is NOT illegal.” I thought, and I’m just spit-ballin here, that the laws as enacted by the legislature applied to everyone, subject to interpretation and adjudication by the judiciary…..I’m sure I read that somewhere…..History may judge the AG as a hero, but for now, it seems he acted like an outlaw. And Mr. AG, I just like to say: "we can handle the truth."

The Decline of Dutch Tolerance

My friend Cliff, who blogs here, sent me an email last night with a link to a blog that follows the Dutch political scene. On that blog, the case is made that Dutch civil liberties are a myth, as is the country’s tolerance. As evidence of these moral declines, Perry de Havilland cites the decision by a Dutch court that the prosecution of a Dutch politician accused of hate speech may proceed. Cliff inquired if the report was even close and he asked me, because he considers me his resident Dutch expert. So here’s my two cents worth.

I see two issues that should be addressed in answering the “is it close” question. First, is Wilders being prosecuted for hate speech, and second, is this evidence of the decline of legendary Dutch tolerance. Let me take the latter first, just to be different. As a longtime (former) Dutch citizen, I lived in the sheltered cocoon of self-delusion about the national identity of the Dutch. We considered ourselves cosmopolitan, interested in world affairs, independently critical of the actions of large Nation States, and above all, tolerant of all views. As I traveled throughout Europe, these views were reinforced and refined. But when I took up residence in the US, these views changed. I now think the Dutch were not so much tolerant as indifferent. The indifference is not malicious – it does not mean they do not care. It means they allow for others to do their “thing” as long as it does not interfere with their own “thing.” The Dutch are tolerant in the sense that they do not put personal morals in front as political aspirations. They do not, or at least they did not used to, “preach” about what they perceived as the right path forward being the only path. I’ve found that in the US personal freedom and the protected free speech has created endless opportunities, to include the opportunity to harden one’s opinion about others’ equally eloquently stated opinions. Tolerance of other opinions, especially in the political arena, seems to be going the way of the dodo. We defend everyone’s right to express their opinion, we just are adamant to discredit is as forcefully as we can, for the purpose of political and personal gain.

Is that tolerance? I think not. And it seems to me that the ‘we” in the latter part of the previous paragraph is not limited to the US – I think The Netherlands is losing some of their “indifference” toward others and copying (as they do everything else) the US example. So the “we” is becoming “universal.”

Back then to the first part of the question, is Wilders being prosecuted. The answer is yes. It is my understanding that he indeed can be prosecuted for hate speech. I read some of the comments to the posting as well and those illustrate to me the difficulty in establishing limits on free speech. It seems to me that everyone, the US included, struggles with someone's right of free speech when it bumps up against "hate mongering." These are both abstract concepts and the position of the separation line is not clear. A three-judge panel in Amsterdam ruled not that Wilders is guilty; they ruled that the State can prosecute him. He will have his day in court and Dutch civil liberties are no more threatened by this action than when a US judge orders that Guantanamo prisoners have a right to their day in court. We may not like what the outcome of the trails may be, but we cannot claim that the Dutch State has a rubber backbone, just because the judiciary approves the State’s attempt to test the limit on free speech. Free speech is not free….there are consequences and when free speech is no longer tolerant to the interests of others’ life and limb, it seems to me every society has the obligation to examine where free speech becomes hateful and harmful. A slippery slope, I agree, and one that Dutch “indifference” avoided for a long, long time.

And there Twas.....

My friend Cliff blogged about the political correctness of Christmas Trees in one of his recent posts. There is an apparent continuing discourse in Corporate America, as well as in the Halls of Power, about the proper naming convention for a symbol of Christmas cheer -- the good 'ol Tannenbaum. Be that as it may, I was reminded that no one has contemplated renaming the menorah and my Jewish friends seem to be quite happy to help us celebrate the spirit of the season. We eat latkas and they come over for our Christmas brunch and everyone is happy.

In keeping with the season, the overall title of the blog, and my own perverse sense of humor, I decided to do a little investigative work on the American origins of the St. Nick phenomenon, just in case we need to rename him as well. My first source (wikipedia -- is there anyone who does NOT love it!) led me to remember the "TWas the Night Before Christmas."

You can see the connection, right? And it is this poem that is credited with the current concept of Santa and all that goes with it. Is that a good thing? I guess that depends who you ask, but for me, I truly enjoy the spirit and the concept embodied within that poem. It's a little bit about mystery, a little about cheer, a little about wishful thinking, and a little about dedication and commitment. Santa is a working man and not afraid to get his hands dirty (forget about the veiled breaking and entering reference -- that's the mystery part).

For those who prefer a more sober Christian interpretation (i.e., less commercialized), I respect their desire and traditions as well. No need for everyone to celebrate everything the same way, is there? It seems to me that in this season of ice storms, snow storms, and economic turmoil, a little cheer and good will toward all will go a long, long way toward resolving any perceived conflict in the naming rights to a Tree!

The Next Crisis

While I am by no means an avid diver or naturalist, I do marvel at the beauty and biodiversity found beneath the water's surface. A fifth of the world's coral reefs, one of the most extraordinary sights I've seen, is currently considered lost. These structures, oases in a vast water waste land, are under attack from rising water acidity (due to CO2 absorption) and rising water temperatures. Now I know that in the past I have voiced my thoughts about the human role in global warming (not in this blog) and I will go on record here to state unequivocally that I believe we are the primary reason for our current changes in climate. The report accompanying the global survey claims we need to limit climate change to the absolute minimum and substantially cut emissions if we want to save coral reefs.

DUH!!!

I wholeheartely agree and I am willing to do my part. But we do have bigger problems than the disappearing coral reefs, their undeniable beauty notwithstanding. It seems to me that the preservation of the reefs would be a very welcome side effect of the more strategic imperatives of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and creating a new, more sustainable, economic model that will preserve our leadership role in the world. With "pay-option" mortgages coming as the next wave of defaults and foreclosures, unemployment claims at a 26-year high, extremists in Belgium (of all places), and snow in New Orleans, it is hard to figure out where our next crisis will come from. I wonder if FDR's inaugural quote (paraphrased) still holds true; that all we have to fear is fear itself.

I surely hope so.....

Who Cares....

I read this post on MSNBC about a name I thought we had left behind...Joe the Plumber is back in the news with his "anger" at John McCain (see here).

And I say: Who Cares?? Not only do I not care why Joe is supposedly not a real fan of McCain, or that he is a true believer in Sarah Palin, I am puzzled why any of this should be news today in the first place. Joe's 15 minutes are long gone, his upcoming book notwithstanding. Which reminds me, I cannot believe there is an audience out there that would be willing to pay to read his manifesto....