August 6 and 9 mark the 71st anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing over 130,000 men, women, and children, horribly wounding others. Speaking in Hiroshima in May, President Obama called for “a moral revolution” to rid the world of nuclear weapons, saying “technological progress without an equivalent program in human institutions can doom us.”

Yet President Obama’s own administration has failed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to move toward nuclear disarmament.

Instead the U.S. is embarking on a trillion dollar nuclear weapons modernization program. Senate Republicans forced Obama into this program, otherwise refusing to ratify the START II treaty with Russia.

Arms control advocates are trying to stop the most dangerous of the new nuclear weapons, which will be more usable and thus more likely to be employed. The Long-Range Standoff Weapon, a cruise missile, increases the risk of accidental nuclear war, as an adversary could mistake one of our conventional missiles for a nuclear attack.

Let us support the president’s call for a “persistent effort” for a nuclear-free world. It is a stand for safety and sanity.

War is not the answer but is big business for a few U.S. companies. We are the largest maker of weaponry and sell arms to the world. The U.S. just concluded the biggest arms deal ever with a key player in the Syrian conflict: Saudi Arabia.

Let’s cultivate peace and turn to a diplomatic solution. Military action has only made things worse. The talks in Vienna are a good start. Over 18 nations are taking part. Remember, one must bargain with ones enemies as well as with ones friends. Perhaps a cease fire will begin the peace process; then an arms embargo for all government and rebel groups. A UN peacekeeping force can be called in. President Obama may have to lead diplomatic efforts to reach a negotiated end to the civil war in Syria. All the above would slow the flow of migrants and bring some much-needed stability to the Middle East. There is another way!

Will future generations look back at Governor Pence with gratitude for defending the Hoosier way of life — or with dismay for entrenching Indiana on the wrong side of environmental and economic history? The corporate world is changing its attitudes on energy and climate; the religious world more so.

Governor Pence’s announcement came just a few days after Pope Francis issued an Encyclical on climate change. The Pope writes: “Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence.” “What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?” In this profound document, the Pope challenges us to understand the climate crisis as an issue of justice between generations, and he reminds us to care for the poor, who will be left homeless and hungry in a climate catastrophe.

Governor Pence would do well to heed the Pope’s admonition.

Sources:

https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/pence-obama-indiana-comply-epa-rules-84002/

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.pdf

That was his only reference to the Citizens United ruling, the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision lifting restrictions on business funding in elections. However, he added the next day that “The Citizens United decision was wrong and it has caused real harm to our democracy.” To the President, the Court’s action empowered special interests over ordinary citizens.

Many agree, including a candidate for Bloomington mayor, who has announced he would not take corporate contributions and challenged his opponents to do likewise.

But five years after the Supreme Court spoke, finding evidence that business dollars have harmed American politics is not easy. This is partly because special interests do not speak with one voice. Groups and individuals favoring more liberal causes have shown they can take as much advantage of the new rules as those supporting more conservative ones.

Elections are now more costly than ever, but not by a lot. In 2006, before Citizens United, we spent 2.9 billion dollars to elect Congress. Adjusted for inflation, the bill last year came to 3.4 billion dollars, a 2 percent annual increase.

In any case, since much of the corporate money goes to issue-oriented groups, not to candidates, refusing it is mostly an empty gesture.

But since these groups are often single-minded about their cause, what such money can do is inject more debate and vigor into our election campaigns. Isn’t that what “better politics” needs, especially here in Bloomington?

Sources

President’s State of the Union address
Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
“John Hamilton promises to not accept funds from corporations,” The Herald-Times, January 22, 2015.
Cost of 2014 election
Cost of 2006 election

In October of the same year, 2009, President Obama received the Nobel Peace prize, in part for his vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. (2)

However, the United States armed forces are now considering nuclear upgrades and modernizations as much as 40 or 50 years into the future, with expenditures of up to one trillion dollars. (1) It is true that Obama has not yet approved these expenditures, but he has not disavowed them either.

A conference will be held in Vienna, Austria, in December on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. (1) President Obama should attend this conference and make clear his continued support for a goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Despite American differences with Russia over the Ukraine, the United States should resume negotiations with Russia for a large mutual reduction of their nuclear arsenals. A deep reduction, coupled with the example it would set for other nations, would go a long way toward achieving President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Sources:

(1) Democracy Now, Friday, Oct. 24, 2014
(2)  Nobel Peace prize

The first is that despite what many expected, the Tea Party faction has not become a liability to the Republican Party. Tea Party candidates may not have been as visible as they once were, but the Republican Party has increasingly embraced their positions. Yet, exit polls indicate a majority of independents voted for the GOP last week.

After the 2012 presidential race, some also believed the Republican Party’s electoral base was shrinking. But after this year’s vote, six Midwestern rust-belt states will have Republican governors; the victories in Illinois and Wisconsin were surprising, and in Ohio, a landslide. Despite Democratic efforts to appeal to them, nearly half of women voted for the GOP, up a bit from 2012. More young people and minorities also cast their ballots for Republicans than two years ago.

Finally, even though President Obama was not on any ballot, Tuesday’s elections showed again that regardless of how much control presidents really have, the public holds them accountable for what happens on their watch. According to a Fox News exit poll, one-third of those who voted did so to oppose administration policies, compared to 19 percent who came out to support them.

As it considers how to deal with a Republican Congress for the next two years, the White House should remember this lesson: Americans expect their presidents to govern, even when that becomes more difficult–as it just did in the mid-term elections.

Sources:

Exit polls, 2014 election
Exit polls, 2012 election
Gubernatorial results, 2014 election
Fox News exit poll

At the United Nations, President Obama called for world action against what he termed “the danger posed by religiously motivated fanatics.” While claiming he was taking a “narrowly focused” approach, he identified danger zones from Afghanistan to Africa and a wide range of challenges to be addressed, including high unemployment, food and water scarcity, and corruption, as well as sectarian conflict.

The day before, at the Clinton Global Initiative, the President laid out an even more ambitious program. Naming political prisoners in Russia, China, Egypt, and elsewhere, he declared that the United States stood squarely behind them, and for promoting freedom and “civil society” wherever they were in danger. His country, he told his audience, “will not stop speaking out for the human rights of all people … because that’s part of who we are, and … what we stand for.”

These words echo George W. Bush’s, when he pledged, in his second inaugural address, to promote freedom and democracy throughout the world. Other presidents have expressed similar views and even acted on them, most famously, Woodrow Wilson.

The United States has often seen itself as a country founded on ideals, an “exceptional” nation with a mission to promote liberty throughout the world.

However, Barack Obama has been among the most cautious presidents in making this claim. If he has now changed his mind, will he also match his words with actions?

Sources:

United Nations speech

Clinton Global Initiative speech

Bush Second Inaugural