Ford Campaign Speech Thread (Simplicity in Forum Affairs)

[The Duke]

Broad Brush Statement on Foreign Policy:

I have been disappointed since leaving the Federal government in January of 2005 in the way our foreign policy has more or less deteriorated over the last year.  There have been spurts of energy, like Siege's putting together a country list and establishing a specified policy towards each country.  There have been glimmers of vision, like WMS's recognizing Somaliland as an independent nation.  But on the big questions that will determine serious life or death questions I'm disappointed in the lack of action and progress.

The most obvious shortcoming is Iraq.  When I left the Pentagn things had improved drastically.  On December 8, 2004, The Midgard Chronicle reported that "(Baghdad) is returning to stability for the new year", and the no American had died there in two weeks.  We held elections in Iraq the next month, which were a smashign success.  Now a year later, the GM told me in our last conversation that things in Iraq are back to the pont where we're losing two or three soldiers every day.  The startling lack of energy at the Pentagon while Americans are fighting and dying in a far away land is a tradgedy that has crossed from one administration to the next for an entire year.

I won this war once before, and I can do it again.  If you elect me, we're gonna win the war, I guarantee it.

North Korea is still building a nuclear arsenal.  Why are there no negotiations to end this?  Iran is preparing to get where North Korea already is.  Why is there no pressure being put on them in the form of sanctions?  It is crazy that one nuclear rogue state and another near nuclear rogue state are running around unfettered right now, we have no leadership on these questions.  If anyone can find one administration offical to publicly mention Iran or North Korea in an official capacity (That means on these boards, not the real boards) I'd be shocked.  Heck, I'd shocked if the previous administration, or the one before that, or the one before that mentioned Iran except for whenb we put the country list together.

I believe I can get a deal with North Korea to freeze their weapons program and that I can get multilateral sanctions on Iran which may pressure them to give up their weapons program.  I know the current team hasn't done this, and I believe that they can't, for reasons I'll explain in my next speech.  As I hope to lay out, the method of running the cabinet that the President has adopted makes serious diplomacy impossible...

[The Duke]

The diplomatic sway government officials havewhen they go abroad is directly related to whether they are seen as the representative of the President, and therefore the representative of the government.  If a diplomlat is not seen as a representative of the President's views, that diplomat cannot be effective.

The current President does not really manage the cabinet at all, and essentially lets each member conduct their own affairs as they see fit.  This leads to two problems in conducting policy, one of which is obvious and the other is not.  The obvious one is that contradictions arise in our policy.  The most recent example is of course the diplomatic debacle with Germany, which has embarrassed this country.

The less obvious one is that once it becomes clear that the cabinet is not a representative of a central, thought out, coordinated policy, it will not be possible to conduct foreign affairs.  If the Secretary of State or Defense goes on a foreign trip, which they regularly do, how are they to be expected to exert any power?  The State Department, for example, can do very little on its own.  It can't impose sanctions, it can't wage war, it can't withdraw its own Embassy.  All these things require Presidential approval.  If the Secretary of State or of Defense is not seen as the President's representative then any threat he makes to impose sanctions or withdraw the ambassador will ring hollow, and nothing will get done, because no negotiating position any cabinet member takes can be assumed to have Presidential support.  And if there is no threat of Presidential support, then we will never have a credibvle negotiating poistion.  Without that foreign policy is impossible, and it is this cabinet structure that has resulted in a foreign policy totally devoid of any positive accomplishment.

[jokerman]

Good speeches.

Foreign policy is an issue that has been too long ignored in Atlasia.

[The Duke]

This week, economic policy begins.  But one more foreign affairs speech for now,, on an issue that's always ignored but shouldn't be, as this issue is critical to our future.

Statement on US Relations with India:

India is the world's largest democracy.  It is a largely Emglish speaking country.  They have a historical connection to the same Anglo tradition that shaped our early history because of their time as a British Colony.  They are a nation that is threatened by the same violent forces that threaten us, namely Wahhabist terrorism.  If there is a more natural ally and economic partner in all of Asia, I can't imagine who it would be, yet somehow India is always put on the foreign policy back burner.

If elected, my first foreign trip will be to India, and I hope to cement political and economic ties with this emerging power.  Greater trade with India will benefit both our nations, and other kinds of coopration will increase global security.  Most importantly, we have to make a concerted effort to connect India to the emerging global economy in a way that benefits Indians and Atlasians so as to ensure that India can share in the prosperity that connectivity can bring and will ensure that India does not backslide away from its current status as a democracy or see an end to its current increased prosperity.  I'd hate to see India return to its old, anemic growth rates, and I'm afraid that will happen if trade between our two countries isn't encouraged.

[DanielX]

John Ford, want to be my Secretary of Defense?

[The Duke]

John Ford, want to be my Secretary of Defense?

If I don't win, I'm just going to be Governor.  I would consider going back t a cabinet after I get term limited, but that won't be until December.

[The Duke]

A former President recently warned me that the Presidency is institutionally weak, and even if I win, I should be warned that I will find nothing but frustration in Nyman.  As always, I appreciate advice from those with breadth of experience, but I don't think the Presidency is institutionally weak, it just needs the right person to wield the powers of the office.  To the question of whether the Presidency is institutionally impotent, I would say, no.

The first reason I say the institution is not weak is that, historically speaking, its weakness is only a recent phenomenon.

In the early days, te President was not actually weak.  Our first President was Nym90, and he was actually strong.  He got a Constitution passed, set precedents for the structure of the cabinet, and oversaw the first Federal Senate being elected.  In retrospect, it was a more impressive accomplishment than he was given credit for at the time.  Our third President, JFK, was also strong, even though his administration was not long and his ascent was accidental.  Our fourth President, PBrunsel, was also strong, even though many of the things he did proved unpopular at the time he was able to implement a clear agenda.  From our first year, we had four Presidents.  Only one, Gustaf, was weak.

But in February of 2005, that changed.  Lewis Trondheim won an election he had no intention of winning and refused to take the oath of office.  True Democrat became President by accident, and resigned quickly.  Alcon became another accidental President and the south seceded.  Siege ran for President and won only because he felt someone liberal had to run, but his heart didn't appear to be in it and he was not especially strong.  Now Joe Republic is President, and he too is a weak executive.  So in our second year, we have had five Presidents, and all have been relatively weak.

This recent experience may be all we remember, but if you read through the archives, you'll see that this is not all that has ever been.  In the first year, the President was the legitimate head of the government.  It is only recently that this has changed and the President has become weak.

There is no reason to believe that the Presidency cannot be strong again, and that better forum affairs won't follow a strengthening of the executive.

There is also the cabinet to look at for guidance.

People often forget that there was a time when the Secretary of Forum Affairs was, shall we say, seasonally employed.  He ran elections and then basically disappeared, periodically updating voter rolls.  Then came StevenNick.  For the first time, the SoFA became more than a mere government clerk.  StevenNick began pointing out serious legal flaws in the first Constitution, and this eventually resulted in a new Constitution.

There is the Treasury Department, which was so weak that Alcon left it vacant for nearly two months and hardly anyone noticed.  There was the State Department, which was so feckless at one point that some wanted to merge it with the Pentagon, that is before Siege40 gave it meaningand purpose.  There is the Attorney General, which was a weak position until PeterBell.  Fianlly, there is Defense, which seemed entirely superfluous until I came into the job.

Most cabinet positions, at one point, appeared hopelessly weak, but strong individuals came in and changed that perception.  In the absence of those individuals, most of these Departments have reverted to weakness.

The institutions remained the same, but they way they operated on a daily basis did not remain the same.  It changed based on individual actors.  So, anyone who worries that the Presidency is institutionally weak and that my promises to strengthen it and in so doing strengthen Forum Affairs are promises of the impossible, look at the history and you'll see that there is substantial reason to believe that I can do the things I say I will.

[The Duke]

It has become clear that the role of GM has grown to the point where it is too much work for one person.  I have had a number of jobs here on the Forum, and by far the one that required the greatest time committment was GM.  The lethargy that seems to set in for GMs after a period of time is evidence that the job is by and large thankless and joyless.  The main reason for this is that we ask a tremendous amount out of these people.

That's why we need two - because its more work really than one person can handle.

We had ought to have one GM for domestic issues and one GM for international issues.  The two GMs would talk to each other and coordinate their activities, and once each is carrying only half the workload, we can get more frequent and more effective news articles.

This is something that's been talked about for a logn time, and its time to finally make it happen.

[The Duke]

More than any policy I can propose, more than any criticism of any opponent, more than any personal attribute, the biggest reason to vote for me is my record as an officeholder on the Forum.

I was the best Secretary of Defense ever, and maybe the best cabinet secretary ever period.  Before me, no one in the cabinet pretty much ever did anything.  Then, in July of 2004 I asked President Gustaf to allow me to lead an intervention in the Sudan to stop genocide in Darfur.  Without firing a shot, we stopped the genocide and got international peacekeepers into the country.  Then, I beat the insurgency in Iraq to the point where almost no US casualties were taking place in February of 2005 and elections had gone off without a hitch.  During this time, I also rebuilt an overstretched military into the lean mean, fighting machine it is today.

After that, I was GM, and I was probably the best ever at that job too.  We've had plenty of good GMs, but none turned in so consistent a performance for so many months as me.  There had been four different GMs in the month before I came in, and the GM thread was decaying to the point many people thought we should just get rid of it.  Then, I revived the position and put out quality news stories twice a week for six months.

Then I was Governor of the Pacific.  I am the best Governor in Atlasia, and arguably the best Governor ever.  We have the fastest growing economy in the country, we were the first to adopt a minimum wage, and the first to balance our budget.

Look at the resume.  It is dominated by words like "first", "highest", "best", and "most handsome".  Okay, I made the last one up, the rest is a pretty fair description of my career.

If you have any doubts that I am the best person for the job, I would ask you to consult the record, to consult my constituents, and to consult those I've worked closely with.  The record speaks for itself.

[Q]

Please add "most humble" to that list as well.

[The Duke]

Please add "most humble" to that list as well.

Don't be hatin'.

[12th Doctor]

Please add "most humble" to that list as well.

Funny, humility never got me anywhere with anyone, so maybe John is on the right track.  There is a vast disconnect with what is wanted and what is acctually seen as desirable.

[The Duke]

Hamas' election in Palestine:

The election of Hamas in Palestine is a disappointment, but we should not read more into this than there is.  There are many reasons Palestine would elect Hamas aside from its terrorist activities.

This can be seen as a rejection of Fatah, which is corrupt and incompetent, as much as an endorsement of Hamas.  It probably has something to do with Hamas provision of social services that Fatah has failed to do (This third party welfare state was a key ingredient in the Nazi rise to power as well).  It probably also has something to do with Hamas' intimidating presence in the area, which may have a similar effect on Palestinian moderates as the Klan had on blacks in the pre-Civil Rights south.

Palestine was not choosing between a peaceful Fatah and an evil Hamas.  Essentially, Fatah is a corrupt and incompetent terrorist organization and Hamas is an efficient and pervasive terrorist organization.  Hence, we had ought not read too much into Palestinian's preferences as a result of this election.

We also have no idea whether Hamas is more popular or less popular than it was, say five years ago.  We know its support levels today, but that tells us nothing about whether this support has risen or fallen.  Five years ago, Hamas was taking an active part in an ongoing intifada.  It is reasonable to say that support for Hamas has actually fallen, even though they won the election recently, from where it was five years ago.  A good analogy is Britain, where the Labour Party won re-election last year but recieved less support than it had in the previous elections.  Labour's support was falling, so even though they won commentators talked about Labour as if they had lost the election.  Given the evidence, it is not unreasonable to say that Hamas may have lost a significant amount of support since the second intifada ended and disengagement began.

In short, we know far less than many people are pretending to know.  Be sure to elect a President who understands the naunces of foreign affairs, doesn't over react to events, and considers all factors before making any decisions.

 I am the only such candidate in this race.

[minionofmidas]

This third party welfare state was a key ingredient in the Nazi rise to power as well

Uh, no. Although it was a key ingredient in the Communist rise in Germany at the same time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be fair though, the same is true of Fatah.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, to put the same into neutral terms, a nationalistic party in government that did not deliver on its promises and was also considered corrupt, and a nationalistic opposition - both of them with heavily armed paramilitary organizations in a country at war that does not have a military.

[The Duke]

This third party welfare state was a key ingredient in the Nazi rise to power as well

Uh, no. Although it was a key ingredient in the Communist rise in Germany at the same time.

I'm sure the communists did this, but the Nazis also set up all kinds of non-government social services in the 1930s to get more members.  Soup kitchens are one example, the Nazis would set up soup kitchens and only members could use them.  So people would become members and pay dues so they could eat at the soup kitchen.

Regardless, the point stands that voting patterns are not solely the result of ideological affinity.

[minionofmidas]

This third party welfare state was a key ingredient in the Nazi rise to power as well

Uh, no. Although it was a key ingredient in the Communist rise in Germany at the same time.

I'm sure the communists did this, but the Nazis also set up all kinds of non-government social services in the 1930s to get more members.  Soup kitchens are one example, the Nazis would set up soup kitchens and only members could use them.  So people would become members and pay dues so they could eat at the soup kitchen.

Soup kitchens ... possible. Not sure. Although I doubt it was done chiefly to recruit members. It's not as if the bulk of the Nazi membership had any need for a soup kitchen. It was primarily a middle class party (though not nearly as much so as the old bourgeois parties, from Conservative to Democratic, from which it chiefly drew votes.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, absolutely.

[The Duke]

Soup kitchens ... possible. Not sure. Although I doubt it was done chiefly to recruit members. It's not as if the bulk of the Nazi membership had any need for a soup kitchen. It was primarily a middle class party (though not nearly as much so as the old bourgeois parties, from Conservative to Democratic, from which it chiefly drew votes.)

Its true their ideology was a middle class ideology and many of their supporters were middle class, but they also pulled a lot of working class voters.  The Nazis came to power in a depression, when the middle class was shrunk and the working class has mushroomed.  They had to get a lot of voters who weren't middle class because the bulk of voters were not middle class.

Also, instead of being merely conservative and appealing to the workers on grounds of nationalism, the Nazis were revolutionary-conservative.  This revolutionary aspect of what they promised put them in more direct contention with the communists for votes than most people realize.  This isn't because of any deep similarity between the Nazis and communists, but because of superficial similarities that seemed significant to voters.

[minionofmidas]

Soup kitchens ... possible. Not sure. Although I doubt it was done chiefly to recruit members. It's not as if the bulk of the Nazi membership had any need for a soup kitchen. It was primarily a middle class party (though not nearly as much so as the old bourgeois parties, from Conservative to Democratic, from which it chiefly drew votes.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry to be hijacking your thread here, but of course the "bourgeois" parties of the Weimar Republic and the Empire all had their share of working class voters too, just as the British Tories have always had their share of working class voters ... but not only were their shares in this segment lower than among higher-class people, their working class voters were also far less likely to be organized than either middle-class voters or working-class Socialists (again, as with the British Tories).
And yes, the Nazis did draw some votes from the Social Democrats as well, just not as many ... and as the Commies drew almost all their votes from former Social Democrats (and from the children of former Social Democrats, once they reached voting age. The Commie votership in Germany in the early 30s was very unemployed and very young. The Nazi votership probably was also of less-than-average age) certainly there was a segment for which the two parties were the main competitors. Definitely.
-End thread hijack-

[The Duke]

As everyone knows by now, DanielX has ended his ill-fated mission into iran and the events of that mission have been or will be deleted from the record books.  While I'm glad to see this episode is over, and don't support citizens carrying out their own foreign policies, DanielX has done us a great service to help bring an important issue to light that has been ignored for far too long by the government.

The spread of the world's most dangerous weapons into the hands of people like Ayatollah Khameini and Kim Jong-il cannot be tolerated.  Right now, the government is tolerating it and has been for many many months.  This has to end, and we have to get serious.

If elected I will go to the UN and have international sanctions placed on Iran as soon as possible, and won't allow them to be lifted until the Iranian government fully coopertes with the IAEA.  We will also increase the economic and political pressure on North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons program.

Just as with the Midwest secession alerted us to the need for voting reform, the fact that some of our citizens felt the need to act against Iran on their own shows how important this issue is, and it shows that the government needs to take the appropriate action to protect the country and protect our allies.

[The Duke]

Simple is good.  The only way the Forum will succeed is to keep it simple enough that old members find it easy to stay and new members find it easy to join.  Right now, things are just barely simple enough.

It is my devotion to simplicity that has compelled me to oppose the idea of a personal economic system.

The idea behind the personal economic system is pretty straightforward.  People don't care about the economy, but they should.  Therefore, we must give posters a stake in the economy to make them care about it more.  But in practice, this simple sounding idea will, I fear, prove to be cumbersome and decidedly un-simple.

Remember, this is a political sim, not a life sim.  I can worry about my bank statement plenty in real life.  I don't need to have a fantasy house, or a fantasy car, or a fantasy yacht, or a fantasy mortgage when I come to the Forum.  I want to focus on politics, not paperwork.  The idea behind the personal economic system is on the surface compelling, but if we try to implement such a system, we'll find its harder and more complicated than it may seem.

And nothing would drive away new posters or reduce the activity of the current posters than something that is just too darn complicated.  Forum Affairs should be driven by this slogan: "Simple is good".