I have CNN's Website and MSNBC's Website programmed into my browser, I get the New York Times delivered to me via electronic mail every day. I am, for all intents and purposes, a political junkie, or "politico."
The good news is that I am a political science major and an editorial editor, which allows me to turn my passion into something productive. The bad news is that I am often a frightful bore in social situations.
While most college students want to talk about bars and clubs (and whatever else contributes to UB being the sixth biggest party school in America), I am at my finest when talking about the long-term ramifications of campaign finance reform, congressional gerrymandering and the especially inflammatory discussions on budgetary appropriations (I get all tingly thinking about that last one).
Now, I know what you're all thinking, and it's not "What are you doing Friday night?" No, it's "what a geek!" Really, though, that's OK, I'm fine with that, but there are a few things that you should know about politics before you tune me out.
First, al-Qaida (remember that?) is a political, not a religious, organization.
Second, Bill Clinton's impeachment was a political, not a moral, witch-hunt.
Third, and most timely, George W. Bush's insistence on attacking Iraq is a political ploy, designed at rekindling fears of nuclear war, anthrax letters and nerve gas.
The politics of fear are the greatest weapons the Bush administration has at its disposal and it is not going to hesitate to use them on both opponents and constituents.
And why shouldn't it? Every Republican administration since Eisenhower has been at its best when the people are diving under their desks in air-raid drills, stocking up on canned goods, or repeating hawkish rhetoric fed to them from the ivory towers of Washington "good ole boys."
Whether we should fear Commies, terrorist thugs or evil countries, the conservative puppet masters of public opinion cultivate a self-image that they alone can stand up to the big bullies of the world. They show us their big guns and bigger bombs, airplanes you can't see, and satellites that can see penguins square-dancing on an iceberg.
What they fail to show us, what they are scared to show us, is that there is an entire world out there, a world of people who are more scared of what America will do to incite World War III than we are of Osama, Omar, Arafat or Saddam.
The important thing is that those frightened people around the world aren't necessarily living in Baghdad or Gaza. They're living in London, Berlin and Toronto. These are our allies, the people we are compelled to consult before playing Wyatt Earp on a global scale. The international community is being held hostage by Bush and his minions, people itching to bring anyone who questions their authority to a dark cell, devoid of light, heat or due process.
While the globe apprehensively waits for the inevitable, there are many at home who have voiced concern at our potential unilateral action. Congressmen and senators from both major parties, like House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, have condemned the idea of going at it alone to overthrow Saddam.
The experts who served in former President Bush's cabinet, including former Secretary of State James Baker, have also said that an international coalition should be assembled before any preemptive strike against Iraq is launched.
This is not to say that Saddam Hussein should remain in a position to acquire nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Instead, he should be removed through more intelligent means than America committing thousands of troops and billions of dollars to send Iraq to the Stone Age.
A diplomatically assembled coalition must be built with both our traditional friends, like Britain and France, as well as our traditional adversaries, like Russia, as was done before the first Gulf War. Before that can happen, a clear exit strategy must be diagrammed.
This is nothing new, either; before the United States entered World War II, Roosevelt and Churchill drafted the Atlantic Charter that had a clear plan for post-Nazi Europe should the Allies win the war.
Following that example, the actual removal of Saddam must be orchestrated largely from within the borders of Iraq, encouraging Kurds and oppressed Iraqis to revolt in the way the Northern Alliance combated the Taliban in Afghanistan. A mandate from the Iraqi public would mean a world of difference in both casualties and money in the event of a conflict.
Finally, the rebuilding of Iraq must be on the grandest scale possible, done with the idea in mind of proving to the Arab world that democracy and capitalism are the best answers for a starving people, just as was done with Germany and Japan in 1945.
What is the best way to achieve this kind of result? The answer is politics, but not the politics people are used to. Instead, smart politics, politics designed for the greater good of the global society.
George W. Bush practices petty politics, the politics of partisanship, stubborn arrogance, and a kind of Napoleonic superpower megalomania. I say that I enjoy politics, and this is true, but a more accurate statement would be that I "root" for politics - intelligent politics. The politics that take into account the views of more than one's self, and then make an educated decision to the benefit of the whole, even if it may be inconvenient.
John F. Kennedy would call it a "profile in courage," George Bush Sr. might call it "prudent." I call it the only answer we as a nation should ever consider.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
