Trends: Where will the Republic party go?

Salon magazine has published a fascinating "State(s) of the Republican Party." It might a tad bit too statistical to be of much use to the laity - but the anecdotal part of the survey makes it a great read!

Food and Violence

Michael Klare, who teaches courses on international peace and security studies in Massachusetts, has a long record when it comes to studying violence in developing countries. In a recent article posted on Foreign Policy in Focus, Prof. Klare argues that an economic contraction in developing countries will have a catastophic effect on a global scale.

As private capital and foreign direct investment continues to dry up throughout the third world, countries near the poverty line will have an even more difficult time providing basic needs: food, shelter, and security. Even advanced countries, such as Brazil, Argentina, and China, face food shortages. Forty-Six million people may be pushed below the poverty line. And no less than Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence, predicts that many governments in the developing world face political volitilty, even regime change.

Prof. Klare's article is even more interesting when juxtaposed with a speech delivered to the Carnegie Council by Thomas Barnett, the author of the recently published “Great Powers: America and the World After Bush.” Mr. Barnett, with over fifteen years of service in Defense Department, has an interesting way of presenting his ideas. He doesn't mince his words: his presentation is choppy and to the point. Even more interesting are his prescriptions for the future: accelerate globalization, exercise control of cultural content exported to the world, increase transparency, and embrace “cultural separatism.”

Mr. Barnett clearly has a respect for American history. And underlying his argument is the idea that America should act to win back respect throughout the globe. The problem is that Mr. Barnett doesn't address the way in which the economic crisis in enfolding worldwide, and, by neglecting this fact, his argument loses much of impetus. After all, if globalization is getting a bad name for developing countries who believe they've hamstrung by transparency and international aid – how can it be repackaged to win the faith of suspicious trade partners? More importantly, should it?

Books - - -

- An interesting review of "Clintonomics: How Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution" should interest liberal and conservative alike.

- American Exceptionalism Redux

- Understanding Paul Krugman

Obama trades war on drugs along the Mexico border for trade war?

My friend Marc has posted an article on the recent row between Mexico and United States over trucking access. It's a great post, and Marc does an excellent job of defending free trade. If one has to take issue with the piece at all, it could be said that it leads one to believe that the Obama administration was the cause of the crisis, rather than Congress. In point of fact, the Congressional measure that ignited the conflict has been smouldering throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations. But I do think that Marc get's it right when he says the Obama administration should act.

This is an important issue for the Obama administration. First, the conflict represents a test piece for his administration – reconciling the interests of those supporters opposed to NAFTA with the administration's commitment to free trade will require delicacy and a strong hand. Unfortunately, as Justin Webb points out, if the Obama administration does attempt to establish a new program facilitating trucking between the countries, it will force him to spend politial capital at a precarious point in his administration. Perhaps Mr. Webb is correct when he claims that “the trucks won't roll.”

Although Mr. Webb may capture the difficulties at home, I think his post fails to consider what the implications of inaction would have internationally. Here, I agree with Marc's contention that a failure to act decisively would represent a mistake on the part of the administration. Even if the sanctions don't escalate into a full trade war between the United States and its neighbor to the south, the Obama administration should be cautious: if the United States fails to nip protectionism in the bud, it sets a dangerous precedent for the G20 summit next month.

The summit should be interesting to watch. Members of the G20 met for a preliminary meeting last weekend in London, and talks of rifts between the industrialized countries have already made rounds on the blogosphere. Trucking, Mexic, Nafta - how will this crisis in North America plays itself out abroad?