View on the News

What lessons did we learn from 2015?

Posted

With trials, travails, tumult, and tribulations, 2015 has been a year of great unrest. Internationally, the world seemed to be on a collision course with disaster. Nationally, a growing sense of danger and social upheaval caused Americans to wonder whether the fabric of our society was unraveling. Similarly, that imperiled feeling drove potential voters to seek the offbeat and inordinate to lead them. In our home state, a new governor offered a modicum of hope which to date has not been realized. The proffered potential missteps of state government were smartly stalled by the objecting voices of conscientious citizens in 2015.

As we ponder this vastly complicated year permeated with terrorism, nativism, volatile rhetoric, and perhaps a resurgence of prejudice, one must ask what we can learn from what has transpired.

Spanish philosopher George Santayana famously wrote: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” and, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” These adages beg the questions, what lessons did we learn from 2015, and how can a contemplative examination of the year’s events better inform our future?

The brewing difficulties of the Middle East and the Russian Federation are stark reminders of the importance of a well-conceived and adroitly implemented American foreign policy. Unfortunately, under the administration of Barack Obama, our foreign policy has been mercurial and inconsistent. Our secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, have spend more time enjoying the prestige of their station rather than actually negotiating agreements that would enhance the United States’ position in the world. Clinton shuttled to the far reaches of the world and traveled to obscure, minor countries, as well as grand players in the geopolitical spectrum. Her visits often appeared as episodes of the old television show “Travelogue” rather than real attempt at defending American interests.

While Kerry forged an agreement with Iran that stripped away safeguards of oversight and virtually guarantees that Iran will have a viable nuclear armory eventually, one has to wonder whether Kerry’s capitulation is an attempt to secure the president some sort of legacy rather than striking an agreement favorable to U.S. and Middle East security.

In a rather silly example of meaningless gesturing, in 2009 Hillary Clinton presented the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov a Staples-like “reset” button theoretically to symbolize a new start between the Russian Federation and the United States. Then-president Dmitry Medvedev alluded to his puzzlement of the showboating and immediately discounted Clinton’s credibility.

The U.S.-Russian relationship under the Obama administration continued to worsen as the Russians sensed weakness and began to expand their horizons. When Vladimir Putin came back in power in 2012, he ratcheted up Russian aggression in Ukraine. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, and this year more Russia troops were sent to Eastern Ukraine. One can easily anticipate that Russia will eventually move on Ukraine. Putin scoffs at the notion of any statement of condemnation that Obama had made. Knowing that Obama’s defiant proclamations such as his “red line in the sand,” which promised U.S. intervention in Syria predicated upon Assad’s use of brutal weapons against his own population, were empty assertions from a feckless and spineless “leader.” Putin realizes that he has carte blanche latitude to virtually do as he wishes. Hence, he has come to the aid of Bashar al-Assad, the tyrant/president of Syria, and has dispatched military airpower with a twofold purpose of protecting Russia longtime ally while simultaneously punishing ISIS/ISIL, which has targeted Russia with acts of terrorism including shooting down a jetliner.

What we should learn from an unchecked Russia is that if from the beginning we had a clear policy regarding Russian aggression and we imposed that policy with steady resolve, they would perhaps have thought twice before entering Ukraine and Syria.

In reference to Syria, had we stabilized the country with American force when the Arab Spring movement commenced, there would not be an exodus of millions searching for a safe haven elsewhere today, and Russia would not have dared to seat a military presence in Syria.

Obama’s continual standpoint of air power and advisors only in both Iraq and Syria this past year has not succeeded in thwarting ISIS/ISIL sufficiently. What we should learn from our foreign policy experience in 2015 is that only with an on-the-ground, U.S.-led military coalition can Syria and Iraq be stabilized. The exodus of the fleeing wayward migrants would stop, and ISIS/ISIL would be defeated. In regard to Russia, not until a new U.S. president takes the oath of office will Putin take our challenges to his incremental territorial plans seriously.

Nationally, proof that anyone can run for president was provided by former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. In his campaign announcement, the perplexing Chafee proclaimed the cornerstone of his political ideology was his call for a conversion to the metric system. After a laughable first primary debate, Lincoln got the message and dropped out. Thus, his run proved that with a large checkbook, anyone can run for the Oval Office.

Similar proof of this idea was verified when Democrat-turned-Republican Donald Trump used his real estate millions to self-fund a campaign full of anger, bigotry, nativism, adolescent retorts, and wild assertions about what he could unilaterally order should he ascend to the presidency. What we should learn from his candidacy is that his popularity is built on frustration, disenchantment with the federal government, and a deep-seated visceral and emotional response to illegal aliens. However, his temperament is ill suited to be president, and most of the supposed “deals” he would forge are not constitutionally doable. We need a credible public administrator, not a self-possessed bag of wind.

Also, bearing on the minds of many are the deadly interactions between African Americans and law enforcement. Young black men have perished in these interchanges, and the question of the use of deadly force has been challenged by the black community. Is extreme force being applied unevenly to African Americans, or are these unfortunate incidents merely happenstances that involved young black males? Black activists have claimed the renewed reared head of bigotry and have ignited a movement called “Black Lives Matter.” What we should derive from this issue is that ultimately, the protections guaranteed by our constitution have spawned grand juries and district attorney investigations into all these matters. Also, the officers involved have been from varied backgrounds. Thus, one should question whether these sad occurrences have anything to do with race.

Here at home, the Ocean State was filled with failures of efforts, unrequited projects, and the lack of dynamic governmental change with only nuances of progress.

Our minor league baseball team, the PawSox, under new ownership, wanted to build a grand park in the heart of downtown Providence. Unfortunately, they wanted to sustain little risk and wanted the taxpayer to foot the bill. Smarting from the 38 Studios debacle, public outrage voiced in print, on talk radio, and loud admonishments to Smith Hill succeeded in terminating this poor deal. We learned after decades of dormant complacency that we, the public, could thwart the powerful from using us to their ends.

Our new governor, Gina Raimondo, formed study groups and commissions galore in order to grasp how to proceed on the catalog of Little Rhody’s problems. The year ahead will show whether all those meetings will result in any triumphs. Where our Rhodes Scholar governor went wrong was in her presentation of a truck-tolling plan. She fooled no one. An unnecessary increase in bonded debt and the first stage of an incremental tolling of all vehicles could be easily avoided by simply corralling outrageous public spending. We learned that the Democrat paradigm lives in Gina’s ideology – that instead of cost cutting and streamlining, she prefers more burdens on the populace. A righteous public outcry postponed or perhaps preempted her progress in the matter.

All in all, we learned many valuable lessons from what transpired in 2015 – the most important of which is that we are lucky to live in a country with constitutional protections that not only protect our personal liberties, but also guarantee our ability to confront and challenge our government. In Rhode Island, what seemed inevitable has not become inevitable because we spoke up and that freedom of speech is a valuable lesson to remember.

Additionally, although there is little we can do to change the immediate faltering course of the federal government, we are entitled to a ballot in 2016. Those powers are sacred investitures in every American, we should never squander them. That may be the most important lesson of 2015.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here