Much Thunder, Little Rain

Sarah Palin speaks. And says nothing.

Despite the appearance of what is being lauded as a "home-run" speech by Sarah Palin last night, the truth of the matter is that she had little to say about anything that will matter to the American people in her possible role as vice president. Aside from mocking quips and underhanded shots at Senator Obama, Palin gave voters no reason to suggest that she is ready to run the nation in a time of crisis. In fact, for those concerned with her foreign policy record, the message was downright scary.

Political analysts seem to be in agreement about the changing nature of the Vice Presidency itself; and in the last two administrations it has been an office of considerably more influence than perhaps was originally intended. For good or ill, the VP has taken on the role of foreign policy front-person, dealing with crises and often being dispatched to volatile regions on short notice. Able to maintain a schedule that is more flexible than the chief executive's, the Vice President in the twenty-first century may often be the first point of contact for foreign leaders seeking U.S. assistance or shunning U.S. influence. After a speech in which she compared herself to a pitbull, emphasized her fear-stricken love of firearms, and actively embraced her simpleton, down-home Americanism, the prospect of sending Sarah Palin to the Middle East is terrifying.

What we should have learned from 9-11 is that our way of conducting business has brought the ire of millions across the world. Yes, there are extremists who seek only to destroy order. Yes, there are terrorists in the world whose plans are directed against all those who don't share their radical views, and these are not men who are likely to be dissuaded by a lovey-dovey approach to international relations. But to ignore the fact that our actions and patterned behaviors are alienating much of the developing world will only perpetuate the resentment that has been building for years. While I respect Gov. Palin's achievements and find her toughness and candor a refreshing departure from politics as usual, the thought of her brash and unrefined political tact being employed as the voice of American diplomacy is unsettling, to say the least.

Shifting gears to domestic policy, Gov. Palin's message last night was full of the same misleading rhetoric the McCain camp has reverted to since it became obvious they could not win an issues-based campaign. Instead of discussing policies in specific detail and making comparisons to Sen. Obama's proposals, we heard a simple-minded scare tactic approach. "Obama will raise taxes," "Obama will take your jobs," "Obama has no experience." It's the oldest trick in politics, and it amounts to nothing less than a smear campaign that deliberately and knowingly misleads the public. The messages are aimed at those voters who will watch one or two speeches a campaign season, to those whose educational backgrounds prevent them from understanding the complexities beyond these vapid assertions, and to those whose fears about a black President make them ready and willing to latch on to any reason to oppose him. For all her jabs at the opposition candidate (whom she neglected to call by name), Palin failed to explain how her ticket might help the same people she sought to scare.

Yet despite all this low-minded rhetoric and lack of principled speaking points, it was something entirely different that outed Palin as a completely ignorant and downright stupid candidate. Alongside the vomit inducing "drill baby drill" chant that had Rudy Guiliani cackling like the soulless mongrel he is, Palin's promise to expand drilling and open more "clean coal" coal plants by the end of January in a McCain-Palin administration was infuriating for an environmentalist. This is fatalistic talk. Clean coal? Seriously? How can the most polluting and unhealthy of fossil fuels come anywhere close to being called clean? And the assertion that we've "got lots" of oil and natural gas on American soil misses the point entirely. "Lots" is an outright lie - the amount of oil on U.S. soil would be exhausted in less than 20 years at the current rate of consumption. And the thought that it's as easy as drilling a standard well to find it is a gross simplification of the level of exploration necessary to find oil and natural gas that may be nearly impossible to extract. The scale and scope of environmental destruction that goes along with this type of raping and pillaging cannot be underestimated. This is not the talk of a tree-hugging, bird-loving hippie but a practical and pragmatic assessment of cost versus benefit. In classic Republican style, if the costs outweigh the benefits, the course should be abandoned. It seems when Big Oil is involved, however, the equation changes. Drilling in ANWAR and other environmentally sensitive regions is not a surefire way to produce more oil, but is a surefire way to keep enormous profits flowing from government contracts directly into the pockets of oil profiteers. If Americans want to see us stuck in the twentieth century and want their grandchildren to suffer the effects of an administration that continued to destroy our natural environment until it was nearly unliveable, then by all means, they should vote McCain/Palin.

Though it's hard to imagine a presidential campaign lowering itself to the high-school prom committee level the McCain camp now finds itself staring at head on, something tells me we haven't seen the worst. Expect all-out attacks on Sen. Obama, outright lies about his past and experience, and more deriding attacks on his Ivy-League education and ability to talk without using the phrase y'all or stumbling over his own words like a blundering idiot. We have turned to corner on this election, and the homestretch will see the re-emergence of all the tactics of dirty politics. It is my prediction that the Obama camp is preparing itself a suit of fine rhetorical armour, and I can only hope that this time the American people will realize they are being duped by a republican party which has no interest in their most basic needs.

Banana Republicans

What would you say about a country whose GDP growth rate stands at 10.3%? Whose poverty rates have dropped by 10%? Whose leader has offered aid to minorities and those in poverty in foreign countries? Sounds like a good deal to me.
Now what would you say about a country who is stockpiling Soviet weapons and aircraft? Whose leader is regarded by some as the most dangerous and divisive pundit in the Western hemisphere? Who stages protests and speaks out vigorously against the most powerful country in the world?

Enter Hugo Chavez. Part revolutionary, part drama queen, part politician, the Venezuelan leader is both loved and loathed – but he rarely goes unnoticed. During President Bush’s recent visit to Latin America, Chavez made nearly as much news as the leader of the free world, staging demonstrations and events, often in close proximity to Bush’s, as a counterweight to the president’s rhetoric of human rights and strengthening relations with Latin America.
Of course, President Bush had nothing to say about Chavez, whose name he refuses to speak out loud. Chavez, who has taken to calling Bush “El Diablo” has been essentially erased from the president’s official language. After all, if you his name isn’t spoken, then he must not exist, right?
Unfortunately for the administration, Chavez does exist, and his voice is getting louder. Far from the criminal the Bush administration would like to portray him as, Chavez is the leading voice in a growing contingent of Latin American countries that are fed up with the dominance of American-based corporations in their native lands.
As most countries in Latin and South America continue to struggle to provide basic human needs for a large percentage of their citizens, the anti-poverty rhetoric of a corporate-heavy American policy becomes more and more transparent. The privatization of natural resources such as water, oil, natural gas, and (perhaps most famously) fruit has led to a trend of rising prices and constricting access for native citizens. But Chavez, working with other leaders, has begun to spread the rhetoric of change, relying on nationalism and anti-American sentiment to help incite a movement back toward national ownership.
Venezuela has nationalized its oil industry, one of the largest in the world, and it appears that others are following suit. Last year, Bolivia made the decision to nationalize its own natural gas reserves, and Colombia, despite outward statements that may suggest otherwise, has expanded production of cocoa, its largest cash crop.
But what makes Chavez and Venezuela unique is the oil. Unlike other third world leaders, Chavez is sitting on an enormous reserve of petroleum – that magic black substance the US seems to be willing to go to all ends of the earth to procure. What’s more, Venezuela remains the fourth largest importer of oil to the United States. So while the Bush administration can dismiss Chavez now as they dismiss all the others who denounce its policies, Chavez remains in control of a resource that becomes more valuable every day, especially to his gas-guzzling American opponents. It is his always ready and rarely mentioned trump card.

OIL

Last September, Chavez made a push to solidify his stance in the United States. Acting through Houston-based Citgo Corp. and in conjunction with Joe Kennedy’s Citizen’s Eneregy project, Chavez promised to provide Venezuelan oil at low cost to about 450,000 low-income families in the United States. Promoting the program at the United Nations General Assembly, he made strong remarks denouncing the consolidation of power in the highest office in the land. Responding to the claims of extremism often made by his American critics, Chavez had this to say: “The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.”
Yet the response to this seemingly benevolent act has run the gamut from praise to damnation, both from ordinary citizens and political figures. Arguing that the subsidies amount to nothing more than an attempt to curry favor in a disenfranchised demographic, his detractors have called for outright refusal of Venezuela. Supporters, on the other hand, praise Chavez for his ability to see human need ahead of financial gain.
Despite the contentiousness of the action, Venezuelan oil, subsidized or not, continues to pour into the United States. According to PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil firm, Venezuela plans to expand production to nearly 3.5 million barrels a day this year, with an estimated 50% of the total yield flowing directly into the United States.
“If discounted fuel from Venezuela is somehow unfit for the needy, the full-price Venezuela oil shouldn’t be enough for the cars, boats, jets and furnaces of the wealthy,” said Kennedy. In the U.S., where federal assistance for programs like Citizen’s Energy that provide low-cost heating fuel has been cut drastically during the Bush administration, the incentive for refusing Chavez’s oil seems low.
But in Alaska, another targeted location of CITGO’s low-cost oil initiative, some citizens are speaking out. Letters in the Anchorage Daily News express the sentiments from those who are less than grateful for the donation of Venezuelan oil. One resident called for those who accept the oil to “no longer be accepted as U.S. citizens.” Others aim for the heart, like Alexander Clark of Homer, Alaska: “There are many brave and proud rural Alaskans wearing the uniform of this country who are engaged in combat with the very enemy that Chavez supports. How proud of you will they be?”
Clark’s admonition is a common one, and the belief that Chavez is allied with destructive forces around the world is not entirely unfounded. He has developed relationships with both Syria and Iran and defended the rights to nuclear armament of the latter. He is widely known to revere Fidel Castro as a model of anti-American resistance, and was the sole world leader to visit Saddam Hussein in 1991. Though there appear to be no explicit links between Chavez and known terrorist organizations, the implications abound. Marked by dense vegetation and a lack of organized government presence, parts of Venezuela, especially those along the Colombian border, are suspected areas of “narco-terrorist” activity stemming from the production of cocaine and other narcotics. Despite the irony that these activities are fueled primarily by demand from the United States, these connections have prompted the U.S. State Department to label Venezuela a “liability” in the “international community’s fight against terrorism.”
Yet in the era of an administration that has used strangely similar language as a basis for the invasion and sanctioning of other resource-rich countries, the admonition bears little weight. The oil industry and its handmaidens in Washington have together created a rhetoric of terrorism against democracy, socialism against capitalism, extremism against determinism. In this light, Chavez seems only one of a multitude of targets of U.S. criticism.
“If objections to Venezuelan oil are about democracy,” said Kennedy, “then critics should look at the December elections won by President Hugo Chavez with nearly 70 percent of the vote. Venezuelans have now spoken four times in his favor.
“I'm not going to defend or demonize Chavez for his moves toward socialism, but it does seem like we favor selective socialism here in the United States for big corporations that get to socialize risks and privatize profits.”