Month: November 2012
This week’s peace picks
1. Secularism, Islamism, and Women’s Rights in Turkey, Monday November 12, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Georgetown University
Venue: Georgetown University, 37th Street NW and O Street NW, Washington, DC 20057, Edward B. Bunn S.J. Intercultural Center, Room 450
Speaker: Serpil Sancar
Please join us on Monday, November 12 from 12-2pm in ICC 450 for a talk with Professor Serpil Sancar, Visiting Scholar at George Washington University as she discusses Secularism, Islamism and Women’s Rights in Turkey. Lunch will be provided.
Register for this event here.
2. External Rebel Sponsorship and Civilian Abuse: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Wartime Atrocities, Monday November 12, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Thomas Flores, Idean Salehyan
While some militant groups work hard to foster collaborative ties with civilians, others engage in egregious abuses and war crimes. We argue that foreign state funding for rebel organizations greatly reduces the incentives of militant groups to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of civilians because it diminishes the need to collect resources from the population. However, unlike the lucrative resources such as minerals and petroleum, foreign funding of rebel groups must be understood in principal-agent terms. Some external principals – namely, democratic states with strong human rights lobbies – are more concerned with atrocities in the conflict zone than others.
Rebels backed by states with theses characteristics should engage in comparably less violence than those backed by other states. We also predict that multiple state sponsorsalso lead to abuse, for no single state can effectively restrain the rebel organization. We test these expectations with new disaggregated organization-level data on foreign support for rebel groups and data on one-sided violence against civilians. The results are consistent with our argument. We conclude that principal characteristics help influence agent actions, and that human rights organizations exert a powerful effect on the likelihood of civilian abuse and the magnitude of wartime atrocities.
RSVP for this event to Barre Hussen at carevent@gmu.edu.
3. Public Diplomacy in the Next Four Years: A Post-Election Look at American Strategies and Priorities for Engaging the World, Tuesday November 13, 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM, Elliott School of international Affairs
Venue: The Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602
Speakers: James Glassman, Judith McHale, Paul Foldi, P.J. Crowley
The upcoming U.S. Presidential election may have a dramatic impact on American foreign policy. On November 13, an experienced panel of international affairs experts will gather at the George Washington University to discuss the course of U.S. Public Diplomacy for the next four years.
Please register for this event here.
4. The Procedural and Subtantive Elements of Prosecuting Cases of Trafficking in Persons: Comparative, Tuesday November 13, 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Nitze building, 1740 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Kenney Auditorium
Policymakers, attorneys, law professors, and representatives from legal clinics and NGOs will discuss this topic. For a complete agenda, visit bitly.com/Ublfr6.
Please register for this event here.
5. Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum: “Comedy and Conflict”, Tuesday November 13, 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Building Auditorium
Speakers: Yahya Hendi, Elahe Izadi, Craig Zelizer, S. Ayse Kadayifci-Orellana
Yahya Hendi, Muslim champlain at Georgetown University; Elahe Izadi, comedian and National Journal reporter; Craig Zelizer, associate director of the Conflict Resolution Program at Georgetown University; and S. Ayse Kadayifci-Orellana (moderator), visiting assistant professor in the Conflict Resolution Program at Georgetown University, will discuss this topic.
Register for this event here.
6. Yemen and the Fight Against a Resurgent al Qaeda, Tuesday November 13, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Saul/Zilkha Room
Speakers: Daniel L. Byman, Gregory Johnsen, Ibrahim Sharqieh
Rife with political turmoil, Yemen has proven fertile ground for al Qaeda-linked groups in the post-9/11 era. Until the beginning of 2012, the United States cooperated with the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh, but his departure – orchestrated by the U.S. – raises questions for future counterterrorism cooperation. How much ground has al Qaeda gained in Yemen despite setbacks in Pakistan? Can the United States effectively manage events in Yemen without becoming entangled in another costly ground war? What more can be done to prevent al Qaeda’s influence from spreading further throughout the Arabian Peninsula?
Register for this event here.
7. U.S.-Turkish Relations: A Review at the Beginning of the Third Decade of the Post-Cold War Era, Tuesday November 13, 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM, CSIS
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street NW, Washingto, Dc 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: John Hamre, Bulent Aliriza, Bulent Aras
Please join us on November 13 for the release of “U.S. – Turkish Relations: A Review at the Beginning of the Third Decade of the Post-Cold War Era,’ jointly prepared by the CSIS Turkey Project and the Center for Strategic research (SAM) of the Turkish Foreign Ministry. The report is the product of a year-long study that included workshops in Washington and Ankara. It incorporates U.S. and Turkish perspectives on the evolving relationship, examines the opportunities and challenges the alliance has confronted in the past six decades and looks ahead to those it is likely to face in the coming years.
RSVP for this event to rbeardsley@csis.org.
8. A New Deal? Renegotiating Civil-Military Relations in Egypt, Tuesday November 13, 2:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Elliott School of Interntional Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602
Speaker: Yezid Sayigh
Yezid Sayigh is a senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, where his work focuses on the future political role of Arab armies the resistance and reinvention of authoritaian regimes, and the Israel-Palestine conflict and peace process.
Register for this event here.
9. Middle East Institute’s 66th Annual Conference, Wednesday November 14, 8:45 AM – 5:30 PM, Grand Hyatt Washington
Venue: Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20001
The Middle East Institute’s 66th Annual Conference is an opportunity for policymakers, government officials, students, the media, and the interested public to come together to discuss the future of the Middle East. Entitled “New Horizons, New Challenges: The Middle East in 2013,” the conference the conference will convene experts from across the U.S. and the Middle East to examine the momentous political trnsitions underway in the Arab World and forecast the year ahead for a region in flux. The full-day conference will analyze the obstacles impeding democracy in Egypt and Syria, and the reaction of countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia to the shifting regional dynamics brought about by the Arab Awakening. It will also look at evolving U.S. policy in the Middle East in response to the new realities on the ground and to the demands of the Arab revolutions. The conference will include four 90-minute panels on “U.S.-Mideast Diplomacy in Transition: New Era, New Principles”; “Challenges Ahead for Egypt”; “After the U.S. Election: What’s at Stake for Iran?”; and “Syria and the Regional Implications of the Crisis.”
10. Launch of the Asia Foundation’s 2012 Survey of the Afghan People, Wednesday Novembe 14, 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM, The National Press Club
Venue: The National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20045, 13th Floor
Speakers: Andrew Wilder, Sunil Pillai, Palwasha Kakar, Mark Kryzer
The Asia Foundation will release findings from Afghanistan in 2012: A Survey of teh Afghan People – the broades, most comprehensive public opinion poll in the country – covering all 34 provinces with candid data gleaned from face-to-face interviews with nearly 6,300 Afghan citizens on security, corruption, women’s rights, the economy, development, and the Taliban. This marks the eighth in the Foundation’s series of surveys in Afghanistan; taken together they provide a barometer of Afghan public opinion over time.
Register forthis event here.
11. How to Promote Local Order and Property Rights Under Weak Rule of Law?, Wednesdday November 14, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Bernstein-Offit Building, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 736
Speaker: Chris Blattman
Chris Blattman, assistant professor of international and public affairs and political science at Columbia University’s School of Internatonal and Public Affairs, will discuss this topic.
RSVP for this event to itolber1@jhu.edu.
12. Serbia’s Road to EU Accession: Prospects and Potential Pitfalls, Thursday November 15, 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Bernstein-Offit Building, 1717 Massacusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 500
Speaker: Ljubica Vasic
Ljubica Vasic, member of the Serbian Parliament, will discuss this topic.
Register for this event here.
13. Benghazi and Beyond: What Went Wrong on September 11, 2012 and How to Prevent it from Happening at Other Frontline Posts, Thursday November 15, 10:00 AM, The Rayburn House Office Building
Venue: Rayburn House Office Building, 45 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20515, Room 2172 Rayburn HOB
Speakers: Michael Courts, William Young
14. Protest and Rebellion in the Middle East, Thursday November 15, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602
Speakers: Marc Lynch, Wendy Pearlman, Jillian Schwedler, David Patel
Three leading political scientists will discuss opportunities, resources, and emotions in regional social protest movements. A light lunch will be served.
Register for this event here.
15. The Obama Administration and U.S. Foreign Policy, Thursday November 15, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 812
Speaker: James Mann
James Mann, author-in-residence at the SAIS Foreign Policy Institute and author of The Obamians: The Struggle Inside the White House to Redefine American Power, will discuss this topic.
RSVP for this event to reischauer@jhu.edu.
16. Drafting Egypt’s Constitution, Thursday November 15, 1:00 PM – 2:15 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
The new Egyptian constitution is surrounded by controversy over who should write it, when it should be drafted, and which principles and values it should embody. With a draft already published, debate is as intense as ever.
Register for this event here.
17. Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb, Thursday November 15, 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Feroz Khan, George Perkovich, Peter Lavoy
The story of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons developments remains in dispute, with a rich literature of colorful and differing accounts. In his latest book, Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb (Stanford University Press, 2012), Feroz Khan presents a comprehensive picture of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. What internal and external pressures threatened Pakistan’s efforts? What conditions contributed to its attainment of a viable program in the face of substantial political and technical obstacles?
Register for this event here.
18. Politics and Power in the Maghreb: Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco from Independence to the Arab Spring – A Conversation with Michael Willis, Thursday November 15, 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602
Speaker: Michael Willis
Professor Willis will be discussing his new book Politics and Power in the Maghreb: Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco from Independence to the Arab Spring.
Register for this event here.
19. Lebanon in the Shadow of Syria Civil War, Friday November 16, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs
Venue: Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, 3307 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20007, Suite 200
Speaker: Irina Papkova
The car bombng that killed Lebanese security chief Wissan al-Hasan last month has raised new concerns that Lebanon is being increasingly drawn into the Syrian civil war. Indeed, predictions that Lebanon would descend into sectarian violence as a result of the Syrian uprising have abounded since the begining of the conflict. Yet, Lebanon – once a byword for religious civil war – has managed so far to avoid that catastrophic scenario. Irinia Papkova, a Berkley Center research fellow now living in Beirut, will address the current political situation in Lebanon and the threats and challenges facing its leaders in the shadow of the Syrian conflict.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pas de deux
After twenty years and more of objecting to Macedonia calling itself Macedonia and months of avoiding direct contact, even in the presence of the UN mediator, the Greek Foreign Minister sent a friendly message to his counterpart in Skopje at the beginning of October suggesting a memorandum of understanding “outlining the basic parameters of a possible mutually acceptable solution” including “the general principles governing good neighbourly relations.” A month later the Macedonian Foreign Minister responded in an equally friendly tone. What’s going on here? Are we really making progress on this silly but so far insoluble problem?
I doubt it. There are clear hints in the letters exchanged that no agreement is likely any time soon. The Greek letter and MOU fail to mention the Interim Accord of 1995, which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2011 found Greece had violated. It requires Greece not to block Macedonia’s membership in international, multilateral and regional organizations under the name “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.”
Athens instead proposes a new MOU that includes the following language:
the name agreed upon [in the future] will be used by all erga omnes and for all purposes.
This means Macedonia would have to change its name throughout its constitution as well as in all its official correspondence, documents and buildings, a condition that Athens knows is unacceptable to Skopje. While one of my Greek readers has suggested that this is negotiable, there is no sign of that in the Athens letter or text.
The response from Skopje is likewise friendly but no more forthcoming. It brushes off the Greek proposal with mention of the Interim Accord, which it clearly prefers to the proposed MOU, and the ICJ decision, which went entirely in Skopje’s favor.
So what’s going on here, if not a move towards resolution of this dreadful dispute? It seems to me likely that both sides are trying to avoid responsibility for what happens in December, when the European Council will meet and likely decide not to offer Skopje a date for the start of EU accession talks, because of a Greek veto. Athens wants to be able to say that it offered a way out that Skopje rejected. Skopje wants to be able to say that it responded positively to the Greek initiative without result.
This is diplomatic ballet, likely coached by high-priced consultants on both sides. It would be fun to watch, if it hadn’t already gone on far too long.
Greece is in blatant violation of an ICJ decision. It is a testimony to European fecklessness that 26 EU members don’t dare tell Athens it needs to back down and settle for a definitive solution farther down the pike, when Macedonia is at the threshold of EU membership. Macedonian politicians of all stripes acknowledge that will be necessary.
Washington deserves no more credit than the 26. It allowed Greece to block NATO membership for Macedonia at the Chicago summit in May, while Macedonian soldiers were guarding NATO headquarters in Kabul.
Those seeking equity must do equity. The music and the pas de deux should stop. In the absence of a resolution of the name issue, Skopje should get a date to start EU accession talks and it should enter NATO as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as the Interim Accord requires, at the next NATO summit in 2014. Athens’ greatest leverage will come when Skopje is ready for accession. That is the time to settle the name issue.
Of course if Athens and Skopje decide they can settle the issue now, that’s all right too. I’ll be glad if they prove me wrong, but I doubt that is what is in the cards.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Balkans progress, at risk of slowing
My blogging hiatus since Wednesday morning was not planned. But I flew Wednesday overnight to Pristina, where I found myself Thursday afternoon and Friday in a conference where the internet connection did not work. This turned out to be fortunate, as unbeknownst to me the conference was mostly off the record. My intended live blogging would have violated the rules. But I’ll try here to convey some of the gist of the public opening as well as the session on “a post-American Europe?,” respecting Chatham House rules.
The Foreign Ministry/European Council on Foreign Relations event aimed to showcase Kosovo’s success and demonstrate that its experience and interests extend well beyond its narrow borders. My notes on the President’s and Foreign Minister’s presentations–which were on the record–disappeared into the ether, but they were at pains to underline that Kosovo has completed its period of supervised independence, welcomed the recent visit of Secretary of State Clinton and European Union High Representative Ashton and is now engaged seriously in a political-level dialogue with Belgrade, which was renewed earlier in the week in a meeting between the Serbian and Kosovo prime ministers.
The Europeans and Americans present welcomed these developments, naturally. No one dissented from the view that Europe and America need to act together in the Balkans. The hypotheses of a post-American Europe and a post-European America were both roundly denounced. The EU, because it is not united on issues like recognition of Kosovo and the Macedonia “name” question, cannot handle the Balkans alone. The U.S. should not expect to be able to turn its attention entirely to Asia. It has an indispensable role in southeast Europe.
The common American and European objective is EU membership for all the Balkan states, and NATO membership for those who want it. This will require not just dialogue but “normalization” of good neighborly relations between Pristina and Belgrade. The Ashton/Clinton visit was a symbol of joint understanding and common objectives: integration of the Balkans into the Euro-Atlantic community, support for the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, no change of borders in the Balkans. There is even reason to hope that the five non-recognizers of Kosovo are rethinking and might change their minds.
Europe is going through a difficult economic patch, but longer-term optimism is justified. Neither the euro nor EU is going away. U.S./European trade and investment is gigantic (55% of U.S. foreign investment is in Europe). The security relationship is vital. The U.S. is far from forgetting about the Balkans, because it needs them integrated into a stronger Europe that can partner with Washington in other parts of the world.
The 2014 NATO Summit will include enlargement, with Macedonia (if it can get past its problems with Greece) and Montenegro the prime candidates. Others will join later. Only Serbia has doubts, but Belgrade may well come on board once it sees all its neighbors in the Alliance. A Serbian alliance with Russia is not a serious alternative. The future of the Balkans lies in what it can contribute to resolving global issues, which can best be done through the EU and NATO.
The Macedonia “name” issue, on which Athens and Skopje have recently exchanged notes, will be resolved, but it is not clear when. Giving Macedonia a date at the EU Summit in December for opening negotiations for EU membership would help. All Macedonian politicians acknowledge that the issue has to be fully resolved before Skopje’s entry into the EU. The states in the Balkans need to take more responsibility for solving their own problems. Otherwise they risk facing not only enlargement fatigue but also Balkans fatigue.
Some would like to see the EU open accession negotiations with all the remaining Balkans non-members of the EU in 1914, marking the 100th anniversary of World War I. Others rejected this idea, underlining that the accession process is merit-based and clear criteria have to be met. The EU is now front-loading rule of law and governance issues (including corruption and organized crime), to avoid the problems it faced after accession of Bulgaria and Romania.
The tedious merit-based EU process creates a credibility gap: people in the Balkans are finding the prospect of membership too distant to create meaningful incentives for reform. The EU needs to find ways of providing intermediate incentives, as well as ways of keeping the U.S. engaged. Otherwise, the Balkans may slide back into their usual pathologies: ethnic nationalism, state control of the economy, organized crime and political stagnation.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Small war, insha’Allah
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Squeaker landslide
The polls were right: the margin in popular votes was narrow, but Barack Obama won with a substantial majority of electoral votes that may grow significantly if Florida falls his way. The Democrats did better in the Senate than they once expected but worse in the House than is healthy. I take some personal satisfaction in Virginia going blue once again (and also electing Tim Kaine to the Senate), as I spent the last five days in Suffolk campaigning for Obama (and Kaine).
The Republicans are saying this is no mandate. But of course it is. The question is, a mandate for what?
On the domestic side, above all there is a need for a serious budget that keeps us from falling off the fiscal cliff into the realm of draconian sequester. The Democrats will use the threat of allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire to extract an agreement on revenue increases and spending cuts. This is a scary game of chicken that may include kicking the can down the road a few months, but it is really important that in the end there be a credible and serious agreement. American credibility worldwide requires it.
I spoke about international issues last night, before the results were clear. The video should be up sometime today:
By the end of his campaign, Romney was leaving little to choose on foreign policy between himself and the President: not much more than a promise of greater “resolve,” a hint that his red line on the Iranian nuclear program was lower than Obama’s and a suggestion that he would allow heavy weapons (anti-tank and anti-aircraft) go to the Syrian rebels.
The real difference between the candidates was on budget for international affairs. The Ryan budget includes dramatic cuts for the “150” account that funds State, USAID, international organizations and lots of other things. Had Romney been elected, there would have been precious little left in the kitty other than what is needed to sustain our embassies (though security for them would have been cut) and maintain high-priority commitments like those to Egypt and Israel. Romney’s ideas about reshaping American foreign assistance to support the legal and institutional framework for trade and investment were in my view sensible, but there wasn’t going to be any money to fund them.
There is no guarantee in the second Obama administration that foreign affairs will do well, even if I take it for granted that they will do better than under the Ryan budget. It all depends on what compromises are made to get a budget passed by both House and Senate. The Tea Party still drives the Republican majority in the House. And Barack Obama has made it eminently clear that he has no interest in nation-building abroad. If Hillary Clinton leaves State, as she is expected to do, the foreign affairs budget could still be at risk of serious cuts.
Will Barack Obama take any new directions in foreign policy in his second term? That was perhaps the most frequent question I got, in one form or another, last night. Some may imagine that like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton he will try to revive the moribund Middle East peace process, but I see no sign of that in anything he has said so far. But most presidents find new directions in their second term, even if they don’t announce them up front. This is true for both domestic and foreign policy. And Iran is likely to force the President to do things–either a nuclear agreement or war–that will be challenging.
Neither the landslide in electoral votes nor the squeeker in popular votes was due to foreign affairs, which were not much at issue in a campaign that seemed at times to put in doubt everything else. But that doesn’t mean we are on an even keel. Whoever leads the State Department next is going to have to improve on how it sells what it, and the other foreign affairs agencies, do to the American people and to the Congress. Or face the consequences.
PS: With Florida declaring declaring for Obama four days after the election, it is more landslide and less squeaker than I thought when I originally published this.
PPS: The more or less final results, as of November 23.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A self-worshiping deity
This has been a maddeningly long campaign. My five days on the hustings in Virginia haven’t made it feel any shorter. I won’t have much satisfaction until the end of today, if Barack Obama is reelected.
It is going to be a miracle if he is reelected, whatever the margin. The amounts of money and venom poured out against him are truly astounding. The Thomas Peterffy ad, which I saw for the first time at dawn yesterday on CNN, was the last straw for me. The notion that the United States today in any way resembles, or is headed towards, the Iron Curtain nightmare referred to in the ad is outrageous. Peterffy seems to me a self-appointed, self-worshiping deity. That is not a compliment.
I spent yesterday trudging through Franklin, Virginia, in neighborhoods that were an odd combination of beautiful older houses–some restored, some not–and a hideous public housing project. Get out the vote was again the name of the game. I caught a whiff of my own “living demography” when some kids on the playground in the project expressed surprise that I was voting for President Obama. One resident even wondered out loud whether it was because he would protect my Social Security check.
I’m not really worried about my Social Security check if Mitt Romney is elected. But I am worried about a nation that would choose his priorities (a further defense buildup) over Obama’s (a strong defense with much, much smaller investments in education and infrastructure). I’m also worried about the truly single-minded effort to protect high-income earners and hereditary wealth. Not to mention women’s rights. These are values questions for me.
Most of the people I saw today don’t seem to worry about much of that. Nor do they seem hostile to entrepreneurial success, which is Peterffy’s charge against the president. They just want a president whose black skin will make him more sympathetic, they hope, to their plight and open up opportunities that are open to others. Their lives haven’t been transformed in his first four years. They don’t seem to expect much more from the next four. Just a bit of reflected dignity from a president who looks like them.
I suppose there is a kind of symmetry in that: Peterffy looks to a Romney victory for something similar. The difference is that Peterffy has got lots and wants more. His inability to empathize with people who start out even more disadvantaged than he did is astounding. It is beyond me why he would choose to support Mitt Romney, who is certainly not a self-made man, rather than Barack Obama, who is. What kind of person works his way up from the bottom and then looks down sneeringly and says you can make it if only you try? What would make Peterffy identify with inherited wealth and privilege? To attribute all of one’s success in life to talent and none of it to luck or help from others, or the color of your skin, is amazingly narcissistic.
I’ve lived most of my life among the privileged. But I have not forgotten either where I came from or the enormous assistance and good fortune I’ve had along the way, including the Social Security benefits on which I went to college (as did Paul Ryan). And I don’t want to live the rest of it in a society dominated with the values of Mr. Peterffy, who romanticizes his climb to wealth as an individual struggle against great odds that testifies only to his own virtue.
I’ve already voted. I’m headed out now to help others get to the polls.
RSS - Posts
