The Republican Primary Clown Car

There is an image I cannot get out of my head whenever I follow campaign coverage about the Republican presidential hopefuls.  For the life of me.  This bunch is so comical, so colorful, and so ridiculous in their collective comportment that I cannot help but think of the lot of them riding around the country in a clown car.  The type where you think there's only room for four people, yet somehow thirteen clowns pile in and out to silly circus music and fall all over one another.

If history and common sense are any guides, Barack Obama should lose the next election.  His base coalition is listless and unsatisfied by the half-measures and feints toward the other side's views.  The right wing hates him with a rabid zeal regardless of what he has and has not accomplished or said or compromised on, and will surely turn out in force to pry him out of the White House next year.  The Occupy Wall Street movement has numbers, attention, and momentum, and yet Obama has been unable to tap into their energy, instead making them a liability to his re-election campaign.

Meanwhile the all-important moderates and independents are still trying to make up their minds about whether they like the president or not.  Centrists are not convinced Obama deserves another term, if polling is to be believed.  The nation's poor economic performance has served to dent his support among all Americans across the board along with shaking the citizenry's confidence in America more generally.  Sometimes it seems as if the only support Obama can really bank on comes from overseas, where his popularity remains high.  That's also irrelevant because those folks have zero say in the American electoral college.

That being said, there is absolutely no question that a healthy President Obama will defeat the odds and survive another term, even without the continuous improvement in the economy that conventional wisdom would indicate he needs to win.  After all, we have largely been in recession with the requisite high unemployment numbers for over three years running.

How can this be?  It's because the challengers from the GOP represent such an embarrassingly weak crop.  There isn't a single viable candidate among them, assuming the group of finalists remains static at Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman.  The window is fast closing for those waiting in the wings such as Sarah Palin.  You may question my smugness, especially in a year where so much power seems to be on the Republican side.  Allow me to entertain you with the following breakdown of each so that you can decide for yourself.

Jon Huntsman  Here's my favorite guy of the bunch.  If I were voting in the Republican primaries, he would receive my vote.  He is smart, witty, experienced at meaningful managerial and diplomatic levels, and the candidate least given to bizarre and/or hateful rhetoric.  He has been a governor, a businessman, and a diplomat among other things. As a former Ambassador to China fluent in Mandarin, he understands the rising dragon superpower better than his rivals and quite likely Obama and Hillary Clinton as well.

In the end Huntsman is too well-adjusted, pragmatic, and soft-spoken for today's rabid conservative movement.  They crave unhinged vituperation against imaginary enemies to explain away America's decline.  Huntsman's candidacy makes no sense and will go nowhere.  There is no way that an intellectual low on charisma and followers such as Huntsman will have a chance this time around in the Republican primary.

Mitt Romney  Mitt is certainly persistent, running for the second cycle in a row after being both un-competitive and uninspiring in 2008.  Most of the media consider him to be the front-runner of the race, largely by default, despite his inability to garner even 30% of primary voters in any poll over the last year.  The perceived inevitability of his primary victory can be attributed to a general consensus, which I agree with, that he's the most electable in a head to head contest with Obama.  Not that it says much when you ride in a clown car.

Mitt is most persistent when it comes to changing his core political beliefs.  He has been unable to convincingly explain why he pushed for, signed into law, and adored a health care plan in Massachusetts that looks a lot like Obamacare but has since been thrown under the bus. His positions on abortion, gun control, and other issues have morphed with the winds of opportunism. While his business acumen and successful bid to become super-rich can be seen as assets in a time of recession, it calls into question his lack of authenticity as a corporate automaton who happened to pick up politics.  Bain under his watch shut down a lot of business and jobs to boost the bottom line for shareholders.  His vision for the country is muddled.  He has never inspired excitement and I doubt he ever will, even after winning the nomination.  His Mormonism is also a liability, though more so in the primary than in a general election.  He has a mean-spirited streak which may help him in the primaries but hurt him in the general.

My prediction is a narrow Obama victory over Romney/Condi Rice come fall 2012.

Ron Paul  Nobody will accuse Tea Party godfather Ron Paul of being inauthentic; he is the real f***ing deal.  He would dismantle one half of the federal government brick by brick, and he'd use his own hands to do it if he could.  He would take an axe to that most hallowed of government agencies for Republicans, Defense, while pulling back our troops from misadventures around the world and ending any rhetoric about the use of force against Iran or other rogue nations.  His proposals are completely out of the realm of possibility, though he is wildly popular with a small band of enthusiastic followers.  Ergo, the Republican establishment has grown to become deathly afraid of him for his very real potential to play spoiler to more viable candidates, which would simply delight the old man and his college co-ed coterie.  Ron Paul leads in Iowa and has sired Senator Rand Paul, so he is a force to be reckoned with, just as Ralph Nader used to be on the other side.  He is smart enough to know he won't win, but has the ability to shape policy.

As a pure civil libertarian and strict Constitutionalist, Paul makes common cause with Americans of all stripes, including those who would legalize marijuana or seek to end military intervention or foreign aid.  I agree with some of his views, while others are clearly untenable.  Nonetheless, he is the most entertaining to watch, because he says what he wants and doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks.  This is completely refreshing in this political world of endless focus groups and poll-testing.

Michele Bachmann.  I've written extensively about Bachmann here before.  The men of the party can't live with her, and can't live without her.  Everyone knows she is un-electable.  She is considered just a notch more sane than Ron Paul, and has admittedly worked very hard to burnish her image from a bible-thumping wing-nut twinkie to one of a serious candidate.  Her campaign has already been through a dramatic rise and fall and yet she plows on with great determination in an effort to win Iowa, where she has some roots.  However, Bachmann's grasp of what the country looks like and is going through, let alone the world outside, is limited by a lack of curiosity and experience.  She does not have executive ability or a leadership record to point to.  Her socially conservative agenda is not what the nation is fixated on during this moment of financial discontent.  That being said, the Republican party recognizes her ability to harness an energy in the base that the front-runners are incapable of, and the establishment will therefore have to keep her around- and probably need to offer her an attractive cabinet post or enticing leadership role in Congress in the near future.

I have enjoyed the silliness, miscues and foibles surrounding Bachmann's campaign, especially her husband's attempts to cure gays of their "affliction," but her work ethic and dogged determination- attributes that separate her from Palin- have earned my grudging respect.

Rick Perry.  Rick Perry was late to the party, and as such I did not get to know him that well until recently.  On paper when he joined, my assumption was that he'd be formidable and a probable front-runner.  It's still true that Perry best bridges the business wing of the GOP with the middle-America evangelical wing.  He's got rugged good looks, charisma, and that Texas swagger that an ailing and confidence-sapped America yearns to reclaim once again.  He is someone voters could see themselves getting behind to give Obama a good ole fashioned ass-whoopin'.

Unfortunately for Perry, he turned out to be more style than substance.  He has the charm but is completely out of his league when it comes to performing at speeches and debates or handling the media.  Almost certainly on medication, drugs or booze on multiple loopy occasions at public events, Perry is stumbling his way through a campaign which is clearly above his head.  He discusses issues such as the death penalty in Texas with great confidence in his Christian beliefs, but I wonder if the evangelicals will see that he cares more about corporate welfare than theirs when it comes time to act.  And this brings me to my least favorite candidate.

Rick Santorum.  He is too irrelevant and upsetting to write about.

Newt Gingrich.  I've followed the Gingrich career since the mid-90's when I was in high school, and he was Speaker of the House.  Back then I thought he was an unattractive, pompous, lying, pseudo-intellectual shape-shifter (I was ignorant enough at the time to believe that most politicians were not the same).  Observing him during this campaign has been a pleasure- because he has stayed completely and predictably true to form.  Some say people don't really change.  I believe Newt's limited success thus far in 2011 is directly attributable to older conservatives remembering him in the exact opposite fashion as myself- with fondness.  Newt certainly had his moments in the sun - such as the time he led the crucifixion of Bill Clinton to great right wing fanfare (even as he was philandering about town) - to working with that same administration to achieve meaningful and sweeping welfare reform.  He can be a bulldog for conservative causes at times, but I often question his true beliefs.  Like Romney he seems inclined to change his mind when it suits him.  Prime examples of this are his flip-flopping on healthcare reform and the Libya intervention.  He is also given to spreading bizarre theories about things such as President Obama's deep, dark rebellious psyche developed from having an absentee father from Kenya.

Those of us wishing for a better candidate to come around might be disappointed.  The thin bench at this time probably includes Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump: all completely uninspiring and as delusional as any of the others if they threw their hat in the ring.

It's in fact a historically fascinating phenomenon that a political opposition party is unable to put forth a single decent candidate when the president himself is limping along and most Americans feel that the country is on the wrong track.  It says a lot of things about our country, none of them good:

1) The party's purity tests are too draconian and probably drive competent people out of the process.
2) The expenses involved are phenomenal and require endless fundraising, which is another turnoff.
3) The process for a candidate of either party is too long and taxing- running constantly for two long years, jumping through endless hoops for the media and voters, entertaining nonstop attacks from the media and other candidates, dragging family and friends through the mud.  All of this is prohibitive for normal humans.
4) The electorate is largely ignorant and therefore this encourages the self-aggrandizing reality-TV caricatures to become our politicians.
5) We simply aren't producing great leaders in America at this time, and the travails of Obama have deflated our hopes of finding the next one who inspired us like he did.
6) We've become cynical.
7) In this era of decline, the new reality is that there is no leader who has the vision, the answers, the solutions we are yearning for, as the problems are simply too overwhelming.

Great way to end 2011, America.  Good luck to all the candidates in the coming primaries.  Above all, let's enjoy the entertainment.  It promises to keep getting better as the stakes are raised.

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS

How do we create jobs?

One of the most frustrating aspects of American politics today is the lack of relevant, mature

debate on how to move the nation forward in a time of multiple crises at home and abroad.

Both political parties are rarely prepared to discuss reality free from vitriolic rhetoric these

days. The sad result is historic dysfunction. This is especially true when it comes to the

question of how to create jobs. The only thing that politicians agree about is that it’s the most

important issue facing the nation. Yet there seems to be a gloomy consensus: there are few

tools left in the tool shed that we can agree to use in order to create jobs.

Too many Republicans and their backers think that taking an axe to all government programs

except the army, deregulating industry, all the while lowering all taxes are the end-all solutions

for economic woe.

Meanwhile most Democrats believe we can spend our way out of everything. What have

our biggest recent expenditures achieved? TARP and the Fed bailed out our ailing banks with

trillions of dollars, rewarding bad behavior and allowing lenders to hoard cash and disburse

record bonuses instead of loosening credit, all while underpaying their taxes. Record profits

are being made thanks to financial products nobody understands and which not only don’t help

society, but actively harm it.

The stimulus funds have been spent slowly, inefficiently, and with poor oversight, giving a good

idea a bad name. The trillions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq have achieved uncertain results

at best, damaging the credibility of both political parties along the way. Our foreign aid is

mismanaged and poorly audited. Contrary to partisan ideology, the problem isn’t spending

itself, but HOW government spends those precious dollars. The government isn’t “broke.” We

should also rid ourselves of the notion that government isn’t capable of spending well.

So we know why the doom and gloom. Is it possible to create jobs in a capitalist society led by

an irresponsible government? Of course it is. I implore President Obama and his Republican

challengers to draft policy on the following five simple, common-sense principles, which unlike

everything else in Washington are not driven by partisan ideology. These do not constitute

party platforms; they are an American platform. I want to hear how any of the candidates will

help accomplish the following, or else their arguments against them.

1) Hearken Back to what Made America Great. How did America come to be the world’s

leading superpower? I believe the best answer is that our businesses of all sizes existed

primarily to produce high quality stuff that people needed or wanted to buy. This was

accomplished through constant innovation, excellent customer service, and hard work.

American business has lamentably drifted away from such high-minded attributes in favor of

short-term profit.

The government can’t just legislate excellence or honesty into existence; however, it can

certainly stop rewarding the deadbeats who don’t conform to this paradigm. No more bailouts

and handouts for banks and insurance companies and automobile manufacturers who don’t

bother to build a better mousetrap. Let them earn their dollar the hard way, or else fall. If

corporate leaders defraud the public as they’ve been doing time and time again, put the

perpetrators in jail where they belong. We need to bring back the culture of being the best

because we make the best in an environment of honesty. The jobs will follow.

Every single government contract at the federal, state, county, and city level should pass a rigid

standard: does our society really need this right now? Let the bureaucrats and politicians slug

it out- but ONLY on the basis of this question. If it’s a repair for one of the many busy interstate

bridges that are crumbling apart, that would be a yes. For a bridge to nowhere or other types

of brazen pork, the answer would be a no. There are plenty of worthy infrastructure projects

in desperate need of funds. We must not tolerate projects that fall prey to incompetence,

fulfill a very narrow special interest, or are over budget, especially at the Pentagon, which has

turned boondoggles into a cottage industry. Somewhere in America, I guarantee you there is a

company that can perform the job. Fire the one who can’t.

2) Help our businesses connect with foreign customers and suppliers. America’s jobs depend

on the ability of business to perform, and lead, in a more globalized marketplace. Most

companies, from giant multinationals all the way down to small businesses are realizing that

their future desperately hinges on the ability to connect with consumers in foreign countries in

addition to the usual American customers. Americans have maxed out their credit, tightened

their belts, and will probably never spend at rates like they did over the last few decades ever

again. Rightly so. Accept it. Growth in consumer spending right now mostly lies overseas and

this is an unprecedented opportunity for Americans too. Every day thousands of new families

are entering the middle class and moving into cities for the first time from South America to

Africa to Asia, ready to buy all manner of stuff. But most American businesses are unprepared

to jump into this new and exciting fray. We need for companies to create goods and services

that there is a demand for, and which they can do better than overseas competitors, rather

than pursuing the same old methods- such as trying to revive the types of manufacturing

that other nations do better and more cheaply than us. We need to make electric cars, not

gasoline cars. There are those who say the government can’t influence this process. I disagree

vehemently.

We must revamp the U.S. education system for the 21st century, and this is something only

the government can do, in partnership with private educational institutions and industries. In

a nutshell, that means that our students must take mandatory trips abroad, and learn foreign

languages and culture beginning at a younger age (elementary school, my dear Watson)

continuing year after year, on through college. Additionally, we need to double down on math,

science and technology training, where American students are woefully lacking in relation

to their counterparts of all ages. School standards need to be reconfigured toward the new

realities of a shrinking, high-tech, multi-polar world. Teachers will have to be trained and

outfitted to provide what’s needed, especially in computing power.

The government must do a better job of encouraging free trade by removing all tariffs and

subsidies at home, and demanding that other nations we trade with do the same. There is no

reason to subsidize the energy and agriculture sectors and artificially affect the markets, giving

our trading partners an excuse to do the same. In the short run this may lead to pain, but it

will be better for the private sector in the long run. Part and parcel of this is fiercely protecting

the intellectual property of Americans as well as foreigners. In fact, I would take some of the

money funneled to defense and budget it specifically to protect intellectual property- it is in

fact a matter of national security.

Government officials of every level must reconsider their own roles. They must think globally

from now on, asking how their agency can thrive in an environment of interchange with other

nations for mutual benefit. That could be looking into products or suppliers in other nations,

studying what counterparts in other locations are doing on environmental issues, or simply

collecting new ideas through social networking.

3) Open up the borders This may seem counter-intuitive. Won’t immigrants take away jobs

from corn-fed, homegrown Americans? Generally, they will not. Immigrants tend to find

jobs that most Americans won’t do (picking grapes for 12 hours in 105 degree weather) or

can’t do (writing code in Silicon Valley). They are often the top students or strivers from their

homeland. Brands like Microsoft, Google, GM, GE, and even the NBA are in desperate need

of replenishing talent every year, and often the only places to find it are abroad. University

departments and laboratories across the nation would collapse without immigration. These

immigrants in turn help innovate, pay their taxes, and spend their incomes at the mall. Some

of them become national heroes, such as Dirk Nowitzki. Of course a minority of immigrants

do engage in criminal activity- and those individuals should rightly be subject to prison or

deportation.

Let more immigrants in. Offer a path to amnesty for the undocumented, law-abiding people

who are already here. Help them help America stay ahead rather than helping another country.

Our diversity and openness are more than a strength- we are desperately going to need them

to survive- especially as the baby boomers are beginning to retire en masse, and the ratio of

taxpayers to retirees will go up drastically in the near future. We can have strong national

defense hand in hand with more open immigration policies.

4) Speaking of national defense It’s time to read the tea leaves. The days of traditional warfare

are over. What does that mean? Instead of buying big tanks, cargo planes, and aircraft carriers

we need to pivot toward the new world we live in. The wars of the future will be fought, won,

and lost on asymmetrical battlefields. Yes, “cyber warfare” and counterterrorism are the new

front lines. Rather than building large standing armies of muscular jarheads and filling the

seas with big fleets of warships, we need legions of geeks and linguists sitting in computer labs

who know how to expand and protect our critical infrastructure and dismantle that of others.

We need more detectives and spies versed in the ways of high technology, who can infiltrate

terror cells and nuclear plants, or guide unmanned aircraft. The operation to track down and

kill Osama bin Laden was more “Law and Order” than “Saving Private Ryan”: good old law

enforcement, with years of investigative work backed by in essence, a glorified SWAT team

going in and out in 45 minutes. The war of the future is not invading countries full-on from

the beach-head, that failed neocon solution to every threat, but instead having the ability to

protect our interests everywhere using all tools at our disposal, including diplomacy and force

with pinpoint precision. That means more special forces, more technology, and less large

standing armies.

Russia and China invest in asymmetrical warfare, and so do the terrorists, anonymous hackers,

and private businesses. In your lifetime and mine, no nation will likely have the ability to fight

the United States head on in a traditional theater of war. But that won’t help if a terrorist finds

a way to sneak a dirty bomb into town or if Chinese hackers manage to shut down our national

power grid, which we almost managed to do without any help in 2003. The asymmetrical

warfare employment prospects in both the private and public sector will provide a triple bonus:

a proliferation of high-paying jobs, the types of technical training and expertise America needs,

and measurable national security achieved. It’s time for America to bring our troops home,

get them trained to be ahead of this game, and stay ahead. This is a good segue into the final

principle.

5) Quality, not quantity Often overlooked in the job creation discussion is that not all

jobs are the same. We are terminally fixated on the numbers: 9.1% unemployment! 8.9%

unemployment! The number of people receiving unemployment checks month on month went

up! We forget that it’s not only jobs we need, but good jobs. If unemployment was at 3%

because the rate of fast food consumption in America suddenly doubled, and most frustrated

jobseekers succumbed to become minimum-wage burger flippers, I would argue this isn’t ideal.

We need jobs in the areas where there will be growth in the future and where America has

a fighting chance to carve out a competitive advantage. Green technology, biotechnology,

nanotechnology, social media, and other high-tech fields are going to result in tons of new

consumer demand (and jobs) around the world, and America is losing the race in each case.

For example, China’s government is investing $200 billion in high-speed rail while American

conservatives mock the concept and the Obama administration struggled to allocate a paltry $8

billion in funding. Foreign companies are likely to be the new champions of this field, and for

American companies to even play the game they will have to resettle in Asia. It is a sad state of

affairs. This is an example of the sort of industry that the government can safely spend toward

boosting up - because it is unambiguously beneficial to society on so many levels.

These five principles may be difficult to implement in the short run and will take immense

courage on the part of our leaders, courage that few have been willing to show. But they

are no-brainers when it comes to sustained job creation over the long term. There are some

changes that all leaders should be willing to embrace above all of the noise. Luckily for

America, one of our strengths as a nation has been the uncanny ability to course-correct when

the going gets tough. There is hope that we can do it again. America’s jobs problem is spiritual

in nature: we have become slow and scared in embracing the winds of change, whereas in the

past it was America who rode these winds the furthest, fastest.

Palin, Bachmann, and The Cult of Stupidity in US Politics

A most disturbing trend in America today is the growing celebration of stupidity by our political leaders. Its predictability as a phenomenon that mirrors American society at large does not make it any less devastating or dangerous.

This is best exemplified by two former beauty queens, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin who are both comically uninformed and fiercely proud of it. They revel in their lack of suitable education or original ideas, and get away with it thanks to above average looks, compelling stories of motherhood, and by frequently ducking under a Constitution-bound bible for cover. Their platforms are little more than tenuously interwoven platitudes on patriotism, the glorification of gun violence, cannibalizing government, and Christianity. Their views on each are narrowly defined to the point where exclusion and conflict are inevitable, only adding to their appeal for those who feel included, the ones who wish that their little club could be their whole country.

Neither is qualified to be a 21st century public school teacher, let alone presidential material even in the barren 2012 Republican wasteland. That their names are bandied about should frighten US citizens half to death. When Palin and Bachmann misquote history and have it pointed out to them, they immediately bat their eyelashes seductively and cry victimhood as followers pile on like sheep to defend their honor. For Palin and Bachmann live in an alternate reality where logic is irrelevant and facts are incidental at best on the journey to grow their personal brand.

This would be all fine and good if not for the sad commentary about the state of our nation. What does it say about us? These quaint publicity-mongering middle-aged ladies would be at worst, harmless and inconsequential strands of the American fabric if not for the millions of Americans who would passionately support them for higher office. The loud and annoying aunt down the street isn't usually a threat outside her home. But somehow we are as close as we've ever been to living in a universe where Palin, Bachmann, and others of their type are in charge. The problem of course is not that women are capable of achieving high office; far from it, that is a national strength. It is that some leverage their status as women to unjustly claim victimhood when challenged. They mislead their supporters, showing how little respect they have for the IQ of their own flocks.

Somehow in America it became cooler to be mediocre than intelligent, attractive than talented. This rings true from the Hollywood Hills to middle school classrooms straight into the halls of Washington power. It applies to both men and women and spares no political party. It should not be surprising that many politicians we elect to represent us are winners of popularity contests rather than readers of books. But if we lower the bar further by opening the White House doors to unashamed "C" students at the cost of "A" students, disaster will occur and we will deserve it completely.

The presidency is among the most complex, difficult, dangerous, stressful, and thankless jobs in the world. It is not appropriate for insecure, thin-skinned egomaniacs who "refudiate" instead of admitting mistakes or evolving philosophically. It puts one in charge of the most fearsome army and weapons ever known in the history of mankind. Palin and Bachmann view these as toys to play with in an earnest personal crusade to advance America and Jesus Christ without knowing much about who and what lie beyond the water's edge. This more than any other reason should give us pause. Knowledge, experience, and intelligence are in short supply in D.C. and needed more now than ever before. Palin and Bachmann have exhibited little interest in learning more about what they don't know or can't glean through prayer.

Their ostensible love for America, family, and God are admirable and closely aligned with my own deep personal sentiments. However, these traits simply do not qualify one to run for national office when coupled with an overarching lack of intellectual curiosity. We must ask our leaders to pass a higher test, especially in these historically stormy waters. There are forces at play that will almost certainly accelerate America's decline relative to other rising nations in the near future. Through outstanding leadership and courageous course corrections these forces can be halted or even reversed. However, it will take an "A" student to make this happen.

From all political stripes, some may protest conflating Palin and Bachmann. Yet these two are in fact engaged in the beginnings of a tea-soaked Beltway Barbie death match, vying for the same votes from the same base assuming both end up declaring for the presidency. Ramifications could endure well beyond 2012 as the real battle is for leadership of a medium-term fringe movement, win or lose in real-world government elections.

Others may claim neither has a chance to win the nomination or the general election, but this could be an underestimation of Americans' ability to make bad choices. Finally, stupidity and vituperation in politics are admittedly nothing new as we all know, and certainly pre-date poor Palin and Bachmann. Yet nobody has approached the unique, ignitable combination of clout and clueless-ness to date that these two have achieved in short spurts of spotlight.

July 4th weekend is not a bad time for national self-examination and introspection. After all our country's government is a reflection of us. That Americans watch reality television and pay attention to the lives of uneducated, mediocre and classless people such as Lindsey Lohan, Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton is bad enough. But if America were hypnotized long enough to elect one of them to the presidency, that would be far worse. By now it should be apparent that this is exactly the path we are on.

Sensible Immigration Reform

In today's dysfunctional American political landscape, it's no surprise that any chance of achieving meaningful immigration reform by the 112th Congress has been scuttled. In an era in which most Republican voters question President Obama's place of birth, there is no hope for that party to create coherent policy around such a contentious issue. Let's not mince words here. "Birthers" and their leaders are racists and xenophobes, plain and simple. They're direct descendants of the KKK without the white hoods, hiding instead behind "trumped up" charges that the White House is being occupied illegally. It is raw emotion that drives these people, not the law. The debate taking place is so far disconnected from reality that I fear another decade may pass before real action is taken.

Half-baked immigration policy drags the United States down faster than any other. It has a domino effect on all other policies. Everyone in Washington these days is talking about budget deficits, the national debt, low GDP growth, and the solvency of our Medicare and Social Security systems. We all know that the baby boomers are beginning to retire, and the ratio of working, taxpaying people to retired people is shrinking drastically. The consequences for the economy are dire, the talking heads proclaim loudly. Meanwhile, other countries with their youthful working citizenry threaten to overtake us economically.

The answer to all these problems is the same simple, benevolent force that has kept America afloat throughout the last few centuries: immigration. America has consistently remained a magnet for industrious individuals from every corner of the globe. We are in dire need of an infusion of new blood. Don't take my word for it; ask any multinational CEO. We need to let more people into the United States from around the world, opening up our borders dramatically. Meanwhile, we must provide amnesty to the illegal immigrants who are already here, for regardless of what we do, they are going to be here anyway. It is simple supply and demand, just as with the drug wars being fought in American cities all the way down to the outer reaches of Latin America. We have only ourselves to blame for craving it. American businessmen are more than happy to hire cheap labor regardless of their immigration status in order to squeeze additional profit.

There are legitimate concerns with illegal immigrants. They can strain resources at the federal and local level such as schooling, healthcare, and law enforcement. Criminal gangs made up of foreigners have sprung up around the nation. Most importantly of all, we are a nation of laws, and the law is broken each time somebody jumps over the border without authorization by the United States federal government. I agree with this point of view. This is why we need to change the laws on the books- and put together a sensible immigration policy once and for all to make us more viable in the global marketplace.

Most indicators show that a majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal are hard-working, willing to do the hard farm labor that locals aren't, generate sales and income taxes, and are leading technological and scientific innovation in the United States at an inordinate ratio. Think of where Silicon Valley, our great universities, or any of the premier medical institutes or labs would be today without recent immigrants. Just ask any of them. They simply wouldn't exist today, likely overtaken long ago by foreign competition. Immigration has allowed us to become, and stay an exceptional country.

The racists and xenophobes may always fear the Mexican labor that is landscaping their yards and cooking their meals at the fine French restaurant. Yet for many of these people, those immigrants will probably be responsible for their adult diapers and all other bills at the nursing home in the not-too-distant future- if they are lucky enough to receive the government assistance that keeps them alive, thanks to immigrants keeping our social safety net solvent.

Do enough Americans have the common sense to allow us to change course in time? There is nothing more patriotic than looking out for our nation's long-term health, even at the cost of short-term challenges.