Surprise, Surp-rise, Young People Aren’t Interested in Politics! By Bruce L. R. Smith

Surprise, Surp-rise, Young People Aren’t Interested in Politics!  By Bruce L. R. Smith

Every once in a while, one comes across an idea well-intentioned but so wrong-headed that it takes one’s breath away.  I encountered such a one recently on the webpage of my esteemed former employer, the Brookings Institution, in a blog entry by an earnest non-resident Brookings scholar, Professor Jennifer Lawless of American University.  Readers are encouraged to look up and read the blog on the Brookings website www.Brookings.edu. Blog Entry

The problem, as Lawless explains, is that young people –high school and college students –aren’t interested in running for office these days and would rather spend their lives in a profession other than politics.  These apparently misguided young people perceive politics as a battle ground for egotistical, self-centered liberals and egotistical, self-centered conservatives who posture, advance themselves, and pretend to be doing something for the common good while in fact are merely scoring political points and accomplishing nothing. 

The cure for this parlous condition of the body politic, Lawless and her co-authors assert, is threefold: government should sponsor more programs for youths (like AmeriCorps, Teach for America, Peace Corps, etc.); colleges and universities should refocus admissions standards to reward knowledge of politics; and an app should be on smart phones to give young people information on which elective offices are currently vacant, how to qualify for the ballot, and how to become a candidate. 

A few observations come to mind about both the diagnosis and the remedy.  First, do we really need more brown noses, big men on campus, and other ambitious self-promoters in high schools and colleges?  Of course not, by any measure.  There is no shortage of people who think they know best, want power, and just love to run other people’s lives.  When young people suspect the motives of their peers who want to be the class presidents and teachers’ pets, they display a healthy understanding of human nature.  This skeptical stance, far from endangering, promotes and indeed is the essence of democracy.  As a former activist in student politics, I can attest to the difficulty of getting out the vote and persuading fellow students that this or that proposed campus reform would actually accomplish anything.  A skeptical citizenry is critical for democracy and a useful counter-balance for the ubiquitous and hyperactive would-be big shots.

Should government use taxpayer funds to tempt more young people into running for office?  The thought makes one shudder.  We should have fewer, not more, politicians, fewer half-baked enthusiasts with grand schemes for remaking society.  Politics should be the business of a small number of professionals who are thick-skinned and cynical enough to survive the contempt of their fellow citizens and pragmatic enough to understand that compromise is their main business.  The ultimate task of the politicians is to keep society from blowing apart, a goal that is served by keeping the well-intentioned amateurs as far as possible out of the process.  We have too many do-gooders, blundering amateurs and ideologues, who just know in their guts that they are right and everybody else is wrong.  The misfits, who half-understand the issues, greatly complicate the task of arriving at sound policy.  The few who actually run things should be judged harshly by their fellow citizens who are not wrong but are essentially correct in disparaging politicians as egomaniacs.  But we need those few egomaniacs who really know what they are doing and are strong enough to survive without flattery from sycophants and self-important journalists.

We should aspire to a condition where most of the people are apathetic about politics, most of the time because they are busy building companies and creating jobs, writing novels and scientific papers, raising their families, enjoying the higher things of life, and mostly minding their own business.  Give the real pros, the professional politicians, the scope to make their deals, solve problems, and mind the store.  But they don’t need to be loved and we should come down on them hard when they screw up.  Keep the media clatter within bounds, the hyperactive amateurs marginalized, and the hysterical alarms and the alarmists off to the side.  If people don’t want to vote, that’s fine.  It has become a cliche that our political system is dysfunctional and the nation is suffering from gridlock.  The fact is that the nation is not misgoverned and the critics are quite wrong and have grossly exaggerated the problems.  The dysfunction these days pales in comparison to other periods in American history – for example, the era that produced the Civil War, the Federalist-Jefferson disputes the second George Washington term, the Vietnam era and the late 1960s, the battles between the interventionists and non-interventionists on the eve of WWII, the late Truman Presidency, the governmental paralysis in the last two years of Hoover, just to name a few examples of far worse dysfunction.  Politics, alas, is not and has never been a pleasant business.  It is not made easier by fairy tales that see benign results coming from having government devise incentives to induce more youths to become perpetual candidates for office.

Celebrating the Publication of My New Book on Lincoln Gordon

I recently attended the Conference of the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR).  

While at the conference, I had the opportunity to meet with Allison Webster of University Press of Kentucky (UPK); Steve Wrinn, Press Director, and with my colleague Lawrence S. Kaplan.

The Gathering celebrated publication of my new book: Lincoln Gordon: Architect of American Cold War Foreign Policy and Larry Kaplan’s new biography of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, also published by the University Press of Kentucky.  

The UPK publishes over 60 books a year, is a very professional organization, and was a pleasure to work with.

 

Please visit Amazon.com to purchase my new book or learn more.  I believe you can also find Lawrence Kaplin's book on Amazon!

Left to right: Bruce Smith, Allison Webster and Steve Wrinn.  Larry Kaplan not pictured.

How Open Is the Opening to Cuba? By Bruce L. R. Smith

     President Obama’s supporters congratulate him for “going big” in his opening to Cuba, restoring full diplomatic relations and proclaiming his intention to reverse a half century of failed policies.  At first look, this was indeed a bold move, not a mere loosening of a travel restriction (as Obama did when he took office in 2009). But it is a reopening of embassies, releasing of political prisoners, and paving the way for much broader economic relations in telecommunications for a start– and this all done with the help and the blessing of the Pope.  Apparently, eighteen months of secret negotiations were required.       Upon closer examination, there is less here than meets the eye.  The gains are more limited and what has actually changed is not quite what was proclaimed.  Consider, first the stated rationale for Cuba’s interest in the deal.  Raoul Castro has declared that Cuba is interested in a revival and rescue of its morbid economy, but has no intention whatsoever of changing Cuba’s one-party government.  The U.S. for its part has declared that the reopening of embassies requires that American diplomats have full rights to move about the country and speak with anybody they choose, not to be hemmed in and nor restricted in their movements as is currently the case.  This does not augur too well for a meeting of the minds anytime soon.  The first meeting of high-level officials from the two sides, which took place yesterday, January 22, in Havana, unsurprisingly it produced no quick resolution of this issue or other items discussed.
     The Cubans demanded, as conditions for further progress, the immediate lifting of the U.S. embargo against Cuba and the removal of their country from the State Department’s list of countries engaged in terrorism.   The first condition of course cannot be met by unilateral action, but requires action by Congress.  The claimed diplomatic advantage of the Cuban opening within the hemisphere is thus easily negated.  Those who are reflexively anti-American can and surely will declare that Obama’s opening to Cuba is phony because it is meaningless unless accompanied by the immediate lifting of the embargo.  Gaining Congressional support was not made easier by the fact that Obama did not include any Republicans in his secret negotiations, (he did phone Senator Menendez to “inform” him of the pending action but at the eleventh hour and did not even pretend to solicit advice from the Senator or any other Congressional Republican).  
     On the matter of Cuba’s removal from the terror list, the President, for all of the proposed boldness of his move, took no position, suggesting that he would seek a “recommendation” from the State Department and act accordingly.  Removal from the terror list is critically important from Cuba’s point of view because U.S. banks are chary of dealing with any country or bank that has even the remotest connection to terrorist financing.  
     The lifting of the embargo is a very complicated matter.  Before Congress can even consider lifting the embargo, a whole host of statutory requirements must be met relating to human rights, fulfillment of various claims, changes in political representation, plus additional other matters.  On top of this, there is a backlog of unresolved disputes relating to the seizure of properties and assets by Cuba from American investors following Fidel Castro’s seizure of power from the corrupt ancient regime of Fulgencio Batista.  Experience suggests that such disputes usually take years to resolve after protracted litigation and or arbitration.  So if you had any idea of rushing down to your neighborhood tobacco store for Cuban cigars or calling your travel agent for a quick flight to Havana, you can forget about it.  There is a way you can sign up for one of the twelve or so categories of cultural and educational exchange, a process which has been made easier to navigate and the categories have been broadened to expand travel by Americans.  But these are incremental gains and will mostly mean only a modest increase in tourism.
     Another long-term issue likely to emerge in future negotiations is the question of the American Gitmo base.  Some Americans believe that the base has no strategic significance anymore, but this is by no means a universal view and raising the issue would certainly complicate negotiations with the Cubans and inflame political passions here at home.
     All of this suggests that it will be difficult for American firms to operate freely in Cuba anytime soon and that diplomatic relations will move forward only slowly and with many bumps along the road.  There is also a danger that, if official relations are complicated and progress is slow, the shadow network of illicit money and criminal activity which bedeviled Cuban-American relations in the old days will return with a vengeance.  Collaboration between law enforcement might be a desirable first step in building toward a secure long-term diplomatic opening with Cuba.