What I would do if I were President of the US 2

Once my cabinet positions are full, I can get down to the real work of governing. A democracy requires an fully-informed public, and a government of consensus not fear. The current administration condones neither; they seem quite content to rule by fear ("Elect Obama and the terrorists win!") and want to hide everything done governing the United States such as secret courts, deliberations (the Cheney task force on energy policy), and re-classifying papers which were not classified in 2000. As President, I need to get back to the basics.

[There are people who believe the Guantanamo problem (holding enemy combatants) is the most critical human rights problem we face, and they could be right. I have placed the Guantanamo problem after the "open democracy" program for the simple reason that is a relatively easy problem to fix, while opening the democracy will take longer and is more complicated. Thus I want to start it so it can continue in the background while I handle Guantanamo.]

When I say "Get back to the basics" I am using a methodology conservatives should love. I want to look at the Constitution and try to resolve our current issues within its framework using solutions which have worked in the past. That is, after all, what a good conservative is supposed to do. I believe the problem modern conservatives have with this methodology is, as I've written before, the Constitution is in general a liberal document. It was way ahead of its time; most of the countries during the late 18th century were monarchies of various sorts, dictatorships, and similar methods of restricting the rights of the people. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison et al. wanted, as Lincoln said, "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." There is nothing in the Constitution or its amendments regarding supreme executive power, as the current administration asserts. I intend to return the power to the people.

Step one is to either fix an existing or create a new Web site, including a personal blog, to pass information along to the American public (at least, those with Internet capability). Step two would be to examine all classified papers and determine which should be declassified. Automatically on that list are the documents which were re-classified by the current administration. Also automatically on the list are certain committee meeting minutes and information, such as the Cheney energy policy meetings, which do not compromise the security of the US. Other papers would have to pass muster for classification as state secrets, battle plans, and so on. I believe in an open government, but not so open we become vulnerable.

I would then appoint a blue-ribbon panel of educators to look at the No Child Left Behind act. That act was a good idea whose implementation went horribly wrong. Once again, the "new conservative" "blame the victim" mentality ruins all of the good this bill could have done. As I recall, such a study was done at the tail end of the Clinton administration, so I will use that as a starting point. One of the main difficulties I see is to combine the basic education needed to understand how to be a good, contributing citizen with the increasing need for everyone to understand our technologically advanced world. One can use a computer if they cannot divide 5 into 47, but they still need the basics to make wise decisions to weed out the garbage and keep the valuable stuff on the Internet (where the "80/20" rule applies).

The first two steps take care of passing and understanding information. The next steps involve removing the "politics of fear" currently all the rage in the US. There are two wars causing the US citizens a world of hurt, and I am not talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (although they are indirectly related). I am talking about the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs. So much money has been wasted on those two foolish wars it could probably repay the National Debt (well, maybe not; that's a pretty big number in itself).

The War on Terrorism is, once again, a good idea gone horribly wrong. Terrorism is not a place or a thing; it is an ideology. You cannot fight a war against an idea. My plan is to return terrorism to its rightful place as a world-wide crime. Terrorists would be captured and prosecuted as criminals, not held as enemy combatants. Instead of a "war" I would strengthen the ability of the US to spot terrorists before they can attack. This requires listening to information I don't like, something the Bush administration consistently refuses to do. They knew about the threat of the 9/11 attacks, and did nothing. I am not going to consider why, because it doesn't matter; the attacks could have been stopped and were not.

I would also do away with the "terrorism warning system". No more "Level Orange" alerts. Terrorism works because its sole object is to spread terror. If we are not afraid of them, they cannot really harm us. One major thing the Bush administration did was to squander an opportunity after 9/11. Just after the attacks, most countries were behind us, ready with support. When the President did not get the cooperation he wanted for invading Iraq (which actually increased terrorism), he went anyway. Thus another item on the agenda is to go back to the UN and try to make amends with our allies. The US cannot stand alone against the world. We are strong, but as a whole the rest of the world is stronger. The best way to win a war, any war, is not to start one.

Lest anyone call me an appeaser, that does not mean I intend on going to those countries which now hate us (Iran and North Korea, to name two) and ask for forgiveness. What I mean to do is to repair our relationship with countries who were on our side before Bush took office. Even the British, Canadians, and Mexicans, our strongest and best friends, are hurt, indignant, or even angry with us over decisions we've made unilaterally in the recent eight years. I want to put the US back on an even footing with the rest of the world politically. That means re-signing treaties we used to be part of which George Bush has abrogated. It means realigning ourselves with the UN. Finally, it means being a good neighbor instead of the neighborhood bully by changing our rhetoric from "pre-emptive strikes" to more of a neighborhood watch. We've seen both sides, and we were always safer with our allies than going it alone.

Speaking of our "enemies" such as Iran, I believe it a giant blunder to refuse to talk to a country because they do things we do not agree to. Talking is the only way to gain and pass on understanding, a mutual understanding to remove or relax tensions between two different cultures. Of course, I will not quietly stand by and allow a country to continue with human rights violations (I am a continuing contributor to Amnesty International, after all). However, the way to stop these actions is education and gentle pressure, not call names and turn our backs. The Bush administration has made us bullies; I'd rather not bully people.

Besides, having our side heard depends in large part on how we treat our own people. The current administration is so hypocritical even a blind man can see it. I would work hard to uphold the rights of all people as stated in our Constitution.

The War on Drugs has been lost for years. We don't even win battles in it any more. There is a bigger drug problem now than we have ever had. The way to beat drug addition is a two-pronged approach, but both prongs have a similar goal: reduce the demand and you reduce the reason to use and purchase illegal drugs. Prong one: comprehensive treatment programs for "early" (i.e. first- and second-time) users of recreational drugs). Prong two: re-examine certain drugs, such as marijuana, with an open mind to see if they could be legalized. Marijauna, at least, has been illegal for almost one hundred years because of a circular argument: "It's dangerous, so we won't test it." If we don't test it, how do you know it's dangerous?

Let's compare alcohol to marijuana. They both impair your judgement. Both of them have long-term negative side effects (alcohol is linked to Parkinson's and other forms of brain injury; smoking any plant can cause lung cancer). Too much alcohol at once will kill you; that doesn't happen with marijuana. Alcohol makes users belligerent and likely to fight; marijuana makes users mellow. One could make an argument alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. What I want you to remember is this: we tried to make alcohol illegal and it led to an increase in crime. I believe legalizing marijuana will substantially reduce the crowding in our prisons. See The War on Drugs fact sheet.

Interestingly, Congress has been willing to throw huge amounts of money at these two wars, but will not give a cent to education or preventive programs which would eliminate the need for the wars in the first place. That's idiotic. Whether you are aware of it or not, the United States leads the world in the percentage of its people in prison. That's right; despite China's bad press on this subject, we in the US put more people in prison, per capita, than any other country, even China. A good many of these are simple drug offenses such as possession.

A final word on this post: I do not believe we can safely pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq any time soon; their situations are just too unstable. However, I do believe we can set ourselves a set of goals to produce a phased withdrawal of troops within the next two to four years. I can't be any more specific than that because I don't have all the information (a lot of it is classified). One thing (perhaps the only thing!) I agree with the current administration on is this: publishing a withdrawal date is not a wise thing to do. However, if we set goals such as "When X number of Iraqi forces are ready to take over a specific region, we will remove Y forces" is not a timetable, and in fact is a necessary position to take or we'll be there forever.