Here are more foreign policy thoughts I would like to hear from President Obama as he attempts to reverse the effects of the Bush years, and get the world back on our side. Today’s messages are for Israel, Palestine, the EU nations and Russia.

1. To the Israelis: You have an unquestioned right to defend yourself against Hamas (and any other element bent on your destruction). At the same time, there are limits to what you can achieve through military force. Scenes of destruction wrought by Israel’s vastly superior military, most particularly the inevitable civilian casualties, can only harden already intense feelings of bitterness and hatred. This in turn serves as a recruiting tool for new Hamas terrorists and leads inevitaby to another cycle of violence. The cycle must be broken. Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was an excellent first step towards demonstrating your commitment to ending Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, but more needs to be done. Particularly troubling are the settlements on the West Bank that Israel has promised to halt and dismantle, but which in fact have continued to expand. It is imperative that Israel take the moral high ground and show the world that it will restrain its own militants and extremists, just as it is requiring of the Palestinians.

2. To the Palestinians: Another year has ended, and a new year begun, with scenes of devastation and chaos in your lands; the violence seems never-ending. It doesn’t have to be this way. We cannot go back in time and undo the injustices inflicted by both sides over the past 60 years; we can only move forward. No country in the world will tolerate a barrage of rockets fired into the midst of civilian populations virtually every day; until the rocket fire stops, your people will never know peace. As president, I will press the Israelis to make the concessions necessary to achieve peace. On your part, you must recognize Israel’s right to exist and you must cease all terrorist activity. It is also time to realize that many Arab dictators have an interest in seeing your conflict with Israel prolonged; it serves their purposes because they can use it to distract attention from the abuses of their own people. Ask yourself: why is it that Arabs in Israel are living better than many Arabs in their home countries, with more freedoms and opportunities?

3. To the Europeans: During the Bush years there were many reasons for you to be skeptical of American intentions and America’s use of its power; now it is time to solidify our alliances and focus intently on the common threats that we face. Perhaps most important, it is time to take a close look at your societies and the religious fundamentalists in your midst. It is Europe, not America, that is home to hundreds of extremist Islamic cells bent on attacking Western targets. Many of these would-be terrorists are your own citizens; they are estranged from European society; their grievances have been allowed to fester in mosques preaching hatred and violence. Radical Islam may not be an existential threat to the West, but the threat is nonetheless serious and must be confronted head-on. Making your societies more welcoming to immigrants, while at the same time taking a hard line vis-a-vis the most extreme elements, is the key to securing a safe future for all of us.

4. To the Russians: In many ways I can understand your desire for a more rigid and authoritarian system; people often crave order and stability above all else. We in the West who saluted and urged Russia’s transition from communism to capitalism bear some of the responsibility for the instability that ensued, and allowed much of your country’s wealth to be concentrated in so few hands. It is also understandable that a once-powerful empire sometimes feels compelled to flex its muscles and give in to its nationalistic instincts. But ultimately these tendencies are counter-productive. We live in the 21st century, in an era when power is better achieved through the sustained economic growth made possible by an integrated global economy and modern financial institutions. America has no intention of returning to a Cold War posture; on your part, Russia must realize that its true interests lie with the West. Be careful in your dealings with rogue nations like Iran, and the reassertion of Russian influence in former members of the Soviet Bloc. The collapse of the Russian stock market after the war with Georgia contained an important lesson: military incursions are not likely to yield real gains for your country, and can in fact backfire. Temper your roles in the former Eastern Bloc countries; help us insure that Iran doesn’t develop nuclear weapons; and we will help you to integrate more fully into the global economy, and achieve all that your nation and people deserve.

Jason Scorse

Although the failing economy is likely to be the top issue facing the Obama Administration, there are many foreign policy challenges that will demand significant amounts of attention and fortitude. From Iran to India-Pakistan to Iraq to Russia to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis (which ignited again over the weekend), there is no shortage of serious, volatile hotspots that pose significant threats to U.S. interests and the safety of the world’s citizens.

Chief among Obama’s goals is to not only restore America’s standing, but to convince the world that fighting extremism is in everyone’s interests. This is not an easy task, and it will require more candor that we have seen from an American president in a long time. Obama will need it to overcome feelings of nationalism, shame, inferiority, and other counterproductive emotions, all of which can cloud the judgment of other nations in their dealings with the United States (separate and apart from their legitimate grievances).

Here are some messages I would like Obama to convey:

1. To the Iraqis: Even though Saddam was a brutal dictator, I opposed the war because I knew the aftermath would be disastrous and that America was unprepared for nation-building. I thought there were better ways to contain and weaken Saddam, ways that wouldn’t have been so damaging to the Iraqi people. But we can’t go back in time, and the democracy that is burgeoning in Iraq must be nourished and sustained. As promised, I am going to draw down U.S. forces and let you govern your own country; at the same time, we will be there to support you against the forces resisting democratic change. There is nothing that dictators around the Middle East fear more than to see an emerging Arab civil society full of hope and prosperity.

2. To the Iranians: America’s involvement in Iranian affairs has not always been honorable. More than 50 years ago we opposed your democratically elected government; we also supported the Shah too strongly, and turned a blind eye to his oppression. But it is a new day. America wants good relations with Iran and an end to Iranian isolation from the world community. On the question of nuclear weapons, we cannot compromise; your country cannot be allowed to acquire these weapons because your leadership has made clear that it will use this power to threaten Israel and for expansionist goals. Iran has every right to develop nuclear power for peaceful uses, but not nuclear weapons. You may think that this represents a double standard, but we would not oppose an Iranian nuclear program if Iran was a free democratic society at peace with its neighbors.

3. To the Pakistanis: Let there be no doubt that Al Qaeda is as determined to strike against Pakistan as it is against the United States. The worldwide war against Al Qaeda is not one that Pakistan can afford to lose, because Al Qaeda intends to take down your society. There have been over 50 bombings in your country in the past few years, and the same terrorists that target America are the ones who killed your leader Benazir Bhutto. These extremists want to divide our two countries, but we cannot let them. We know that our assistance has been too tilted toward the military, and we’re going to quadruple our domestic aid to your country. Only when your people have opportunity will they turn away from extremism, and we will help to make this happen. We ask for your full cooperation in what is a struggle for order over chaos, hope over despair. Neither the U.S. nor India is the principal enemy; militant Islam is.

Next week: Messages to Israel, Palestine, Russia, and the EU.

Jason Scorse

Over the past few months I have spent a lot of time talking with women about the conditions they face, how they are treated by men, and how these factors shape their worldview. What I have learned has been nothing short of shocking. I have always been aware on a peripheral level of the abuse and harassment which women suffer, but never have I understood the full extent so viscerally.

From sexual violence at the hands of husbands, boyfriends, family members, and strangers, to the incessant pestering and sometimes assault by employers and passersby, to their outright subjugation to men in all corners of the globe, women too often live in a world of distrust, fear, and constant intimidation. This occurs not only in the backwaters of Pakistan and Sudan, but far too often in developed countries such as our own.

There are women who walk the streets of America who rarely go a day without encountering some form of strongly inappropriate behavior. It is no exaggeration that for many women, men are predators whom they must constantly be on guard against.

In addition, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of women are trafficked each year, either to serve as some form of sex slave or as indentured servants. Often these women are very young and live in the shadows, with no recourse for the abuses they suffer.

There are many causes of these ongoing injustices, but the root cause is the despicable conduct of men, plain and simple. I have written previously that male insecurity and sexual repression are central to most forms of religious fundamentalism, but the problem goes far beyond that.

A civil society requires that people subject their primordial instincts to the tenets of reason, forcing the former to take a back seat in order to foster social interactions in which all members, women as well as men, are allowed to flourish.

There are no more powerful instincts than sexual instincts. It is clear that men still have a long way to go to tame this aspect of their nature, to truly become partners with women and truly treat them as equals.

Only then will we be able to claim that we live in a civilized world.

Jason Scorse

When I first heard that the “Big Three” automakers were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, my reaction was good riddance. The automakers, in conjunction with the United Autoworkers Union (UAW), have blocked environmental legislation for decades because cheap oil spelled big profits with gas-guzzling SUVs. There’s something to be said for allowing market forces to weed out inefficient producers and reward the Asian car manufacturers who had the foresight to develop fuel-efficient fleets.

But after some reflection I realized that this was too simplistic. Part of the reason the Big Three are so close to insolvency is because of the credit crisis, which is no fault of theirs. Currently it is simply difficult to get car loans, and even Toyota and Honda are experiencing huge sales downturns. In addition, because the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation without universal healthcare, U.S. automakers are at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis their overseas rivals.

Bailing out Detroit might not be a great option, but it appears to be the lesser of bad options; letting the mainstay of U.S. manufacturing go down in the middle of a major recession would reverberate throughout the economy, and make things significantly worse. In comparison to the $700 billion so far pledged to bail out the financial sector, the $15-$34 billion that is being discussed for the Big Three is a relative pittance; there’s also a good chance that the government (aka we taxpayers) will eventually recoup the investment, which happened when Chrysler was bailed out years ago.

Enter the Senate Republicans.

At the weekend the GOP, in yet another show of class warfare and ideology trumping the public good, seemed intent on derailing any auto bailout because the UAW would not agree to immediate and major cuts in wages. That the GOP’s anti-union stance would blind them to the repercussions of letting this modest proposal fail shows all too well that when it comes to the middle class and blue collar workers, the Republicans could care less. Where is their outrage over the compensation of corporate CEOs and investment bankers who pull down more in a year than autoworkers make in a lifetime? Their companies have already received tens of billions of dollars, many times more than the Big Three are asking for.

I hold no love for GM, Ford, and Chrysler and I’ve never owned an American-made car, but I never imagined the day might come when these companies went out of business. There is still time for emergency measures, but the window of opportunity may be about to close for good.

Jason Scorse

My hunch is that Barack Obama is an atheist, or at minimum an agnostic. I doubt that he believes in heaven and hell, that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that a supernatural being is preparing to wipe away our sins and redeem the world.

But Obama wanted a career in national politics. In America this requires membership in a church, and at the least a modest display of piety. (You don’t believe it? Polls show that Americans would sooner vote for a black lesbian for president than for an atheist.)

So am I accusing Obama of being an opportunist and somewhat dishonest? Yes, but I forgive him; pretending to be religious is a tried and true American tradition, and he had no choice but to feign devotion if he wanted a future in national politics. I think he has a genuine affection for much of Jesus’s philosophy and the role that it played in the Civil Rights Movement, and I believe this helps him to justify his own professions of Christianity.

But make no mistake about it: Barack Obama is not a deeply religious man, if religious at all (the same can be said for John McCain, which is one of the reasons the far right despises him).

This is a good thing. It is time for America to reverse the creeping intrusion of religion into politics and the public square. Obama is just the person to elevate rational discourse to its rightful place in national politics, and to return religion to the private sphere where it belongs.

I am sure every now and then Obama will make a speech that highlights religion, and he will routinely end his talks with “god bless America”—he wants to be re-elected after all—but I predict that his administration will be one of the least overtly religious in the modern era. Above all, Obama is a pragmatist who understands that the role of government is to protect the public interest and get things done.

By couching issues in terms of basic fairness, common sense, and effectiveness, Obama will demonstrate that America does not need religious dictums to do the right thing; that our inherent moral intuition, combined with reason, is up to the task of crafting sound government policy. With Obama, intellectualism will be back in vogue and the United States can get back to leading the world in many areas of scientific inquiry.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created just about the perfect balance between religion and the public sphere; in contrast to the last eight years of attempts to upset this balance, Obama is poised to solidify the wall that separates church and state.

And we will all be better off.

Jason Scorse

A curious thing has happened in the weeks since Obama’s momentous victory: many on the Left are complaining that the President-Elect isn’t being progressive enough. On popular cables shows such as Rachel Maddow, in the pages of liberal blogs and websites like Truthdig and MyDD, and in the columns of established liberal publications such as The Nation, commentators are declaring Obama too centrist.

I don’t know what planet these people are on.

Obama has maintained a remarkably consistent set of principles and policy goals ever since he began campaigning almost two years ago, and they include some of the most progressive U.S. policies in over a generation. Obama is set to put forth a plan for universal or near-universal healthcare coverage; to enact major tax reform that increases taxes on the wealthy and gives cuts to the middle and lower classes (the definition of progressive); and to embark on a massive public works stimulus program that will create millions of jobs and focus on green energy.

He’s also committed to regulating greenhouse gases and reversing the Bush Administration’s environmental legacy, and to expanding preschool education and federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Taken together, we have the makings of the most progressive administration of our lifetimes.

It seems clear that Obama’s critics have yet to realize that what is considered “centrist” these days is actually progressive. They should be celebrating the fact that the policies which progressives have long fought for are now embraced by a majority of the American people, and are on the verge of being enacted by one of the most skilled politicians in American history (and one who takes office with a significant mandate as well). Instead, too many progressives seem stuck in their role as outliers who need to “take on the system”.

In particular, the appointment of many former Clinton Administration officials and prominent classical economists has some prominent progressives confusing personality with policy. As Obama made clear at a recent press conference, he is the one who will provide the vision for where he wants to take the country, and his team will be tasked with implementing it.

I can understand why progressives are nervous; they are so close to realizing many of their dreams, and they don’t want the opportunity to slip away. But it would be nice if everyone could take a deep breath and give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He has earned it and until he proves otherwise, I am going to trust him to carry out the progressive policies that he has promised.

Jason Scorse

Aside from all the speculation about Obama’s cabinet picks this past week, the most significant political development may have been the victory of Henry Waxman over John Dingell for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, has chaired this powerful committee for nearly three decades. He has consistently undermined sound environmental policy by kowtowing to the Detroit automakers, scuttling efforts to raise fuel efficiency standards and to otherwise address climate change.

Few believed that Waxman would succeed in ousting Dingell before the chairmanship came up for a vote, and Waxman ended up winning by only a slim margin. His victory is significant because it means that Democrats are serious about energy policy. Obama released a short YouTube video on climate change last week, in which he made clear to both domestic leaders and the international community that America will take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gases.

In addition, a large portion of Obama’s planned stimulus package (which will be his first priority after taking office) centers on building new green infrastructure, including transmission lines to support electric cars, smart grids to allow much more efficient use of energy, and major new renewable energy projects across the country.

As someone who has waited decades for the United States to get serious about energy issues, and not simply react to the ebb and flow of the oil market, the prospect of comprehensive reform is truly exciting.

Obama is benefitting from a political climate in which there is now bipartisan consensus that government must make up for the spending slack caused by falling consumer demand. Add to this the fact that most jobs in alternative energy cannot be outsourced, and you have a potent recipe for action.

Another aspect of a major progressive energy policy is its security component, i.e., what’s best for the environment and job growth is also best for our national security: as one of my bumper stickers proclaims, “Renewable Energy is Homeland Security”.

With this in mind, look for James Woolsey, former head of the CIA and energy advisor to John McCain’s presidential campaign, to have a role in the Obama Administration. Since Obama has yet to name a (promised) Republican to his cabinet, I wouldn’t be surprised if Woolsey became at least a senior advisor. This would be politically shrewd; Woolsey is highly respected in both parties, and could help cement support from the military and those who are security-minded, but less persuaded by environmental concerns.

Jason Scorse

Today, I jump into the media buzz concerning Obama’s first-term priorities. One thing I think is certain: Obama is not going to be an incrementalist. He won a large mandate based on bold campaign promises, and I expect him to quickly put forth major initiatives such as universal healthcare, energy independence, and progressive tax reform.

All three will be difficult to enact given the vested interests and the costs, not to mention the GOP’s aversion to raising taxes on the rich. Nevertheless I think Obama will make these the centerpiece of his first year in office, and that he will succeed in all three areas. The reason is simple: a significant majority of Americans want them. Their enactment will not only help us out of the current economic slump, it will lay the foundation for strong economic growth in the future.

Obama promises a new “New Deal” that progressives have been awaiting for decades, yet which has eluded past Democratic presidents. The confluence of factors at Obama’s back make it likely that this time will be different.

In other critical areas as well, I think Obama’s presidency will have a profound effect almost immediately.

We are likely to see major election reform within the first year. This may include a national registration program, extended early voting, mandatory paper trails, perhaps even shifting Election Day to a weekend or holiday. All of these changes would benefit not only American democracy, but the Democratic Party; since its base is growing, anything that increases turnout bodes well for the Party’s prospects.

On the issue of gay rights, Obama could move the country closer to the European model of civil unions. If Obama can pass a law mandating civil union rights for all gay couples, at the same time making it clear that no religion will be forced to perform ceremonies for gays, this should reassure those who remain concerned about infringements on their view of marriage. With a national civil union statute, the state wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation; religions could marry whomever they wished, straight or gay.

On the abortion issue, Obama has another opportunity to quell the culture wars by pressing for major initiatives to decrease unwanted pregnancies. If he can achieve a reduction in abortions through sound government policy, and not ideology, that would be a huge victory for the progressive approach to reproductive issues.

Obama is likely to face his greatest challenges in foreign policy. Here, I think he will very likely disappoint and anger many of the left, which may result in some of the fiercest opposition to his presidency.

He is not going to be a pacifist. There is little doubt that he will not only ratchet up troop strength in Afghanistan, he may very well ratchet up cross-border raids into Pakistan too. In addition, if he remains true to his commitment to stop the genocide in Sudan, this will require putting U.S. troops into the midst of a volatile, chaotic conflict. The same logic that says we should intervene in Sudan may also be applied to the Congo, where war is once again raging and hundreds of thousands are being displaced. I would not be surprised to see U.S. troops take a more active role in more conflicts under an Obama Administration (a role which I wholeheartedly support).

With respect to Iran, Obama will no doubt make diplomatic overtures and perhaps offer the Iranians some sort of “grand bargain” in which in exchange for inclusion in the international community the Iranians must give up their nuclear ambitions. But make no mistake: one of the reasons Obama wants to negotiate with Iran is because if they refuse an American deal this will make the case for military action that much stronger. I strongly doubt that Obama will allow Iran to go nuclear on his watch; if military action is required to stop them, I think he will opt for that choice.

Obama gives us a better chance at non-violent solutions to the world’s thorniest problems. At the same time, anyone who thinks an Obama Administration automatically means a de-escalation of conflict is naïve.

Jason Scorse

Above all, Barack Obama’s landslide victory last Tuesday was a victory of reason over ignorance. His opponents tried to tarnish him with every kind of mindless smear, but they all backfired; the American electorate by large margins is not only comfortable with Obama, they say that he shares their values. With Obama’s poise and intellect, plus a little luck, America may finally have turned its back on the anti-intellectual fear tactics of the modern Republican Party.

What is so striking about Obama’s victory is the way he managed to defeat the agents of intolerance and anti-intellectualism: he either ignored or belittled them. Instead of fighting fire with fire and responding with anger and indignation, Obama mocked his attackers and made them look petty. In many of his speeches he would mention a recent smear and essentially say to the crowd, “can you believe these people?” In these moments he always maintained a sense of humor that put him above the fray.

When McCain made fun of his comment that Americans should inflate their tires (which would save more oil than any amount of offshore oil drilling), Obama said that the right seems “proud of its ignorance.”

When the right began calling him a radical and a socialist, Obama asked whether sharing his toys in kindergarten was part of the evidence against him.

And in his acceptance speech Tuesday night, Obama injected a word that he hadn’t used before on the campaign trail to characterize the divisive politics of the last couple of decades: immature.

Obama clearly represents a return of seriousness to politics, a recognition that we simply cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from the major issues that we face.

It will be fascinating to watch the team Obama assembles: he has the best and the brightest lining up to offer themselves, from Nobel Laureates to leaders of business and finance to the world’s top statesmen (and women). In just his first few days as president-elect, he has set a tone indicating that he means to put competence above loyalty, pragmatism above ideology (including making clear that he intends to fill some senior positions with Republicans). The main message from the Obama camp is that the adults are back in charge.

For the most part, the Republican Party seems to have taken exactly the wrong lessons from their defeat. Listening to leading Republicans this past week, I couldn’t help but wonder whether they live in the same country. There were claims that Obama doesn’t have a mandate, claims that the country remains “center-right,” suggestions that the GOP needs to focus on culture war issues and limiting government spending; there was almost nothing to indicate that the party has any sense of the political realignment that’s taking place.

Obama and the Democrats won in all of the demographic groups that are growing in America, while the GOP won in only the groups that are shrinking. If this isn’t a recipe for permanent political irrelevance for the GOP, I don’t know what is.

While political fortunes can change very quickly, my hunch is that Obama and his administration will not make the same mistakes as Karl Rove and George Bush and blow the political capital they have. Unlike Rove and Bush, who lied about their agenda in order to get elected (promoting a non-existent “compassionate conservatism”), Obama earned his mandate by telling the voters precisely what he intends to carry out. This is a huge advantage that should not be underestimated.

There is a case to be made that it’s a good thing the Republicans are clueless and in disarray, perhaps even enough to nominate Palin in 2012, because this would only extend their minority status.

But one-party rule is ultimately not good for a democracy, and a robust and inclusive Republican Party is something we should all wish for. Let us hope that thoughtful and reasonable Republicans will be able to recapture their party, sooner rather than later.

Jason Scorse

This campaign has been an amazing journey. We have witnessed the rise of the biggest star in American politics since JFK, who has run a masterful campaign that will be studied for generations to come. Against incredible odds and in the midst of world financial crisis, Barack Obama has maintained his composure and demonstrated a fortitude and commitment to reason that has been astounding.

As epic has been the rise of Obama, John McCain’s fall has been equally dramatic. A once proud man, who championed many controversial positions, has been reduced to making baseless claims and spreading lies. His choice of Sarah Palin, a know-nothing religious fundamentalist brazenly proud of her provincialism and ignorance, will go down in history as the one of the worst vice-presidential picks of all time. Choosing Palin demonstrated without question that McCain put his election prospects first, not the interests of the country, while completely undermining his argument about Obama’s relative inexperience.

But the election is not over yet.

Even though McCain has not led in a single national poll in over six weeks, and every single electoral analysis has Obama winning comfortably, there is still a slight chance that America will give in to fear and swing for McCain in the last days. Undoubtedly, if McCain were to win racism would be a huge factor since there would be simply no way to explain such a shift in such a short period of time (absent world-changing events).

If this happens it will demonstrate that despite all of the terrible lessons of the past eight years, America has still not regained its bearings. This would be a terrible blow against the forces of reason that I shudder to contemplate.

To make sure the unthinkable doesn’t occur, I urge everyone to do what they can in these last hours to make sure that on November 4th America chooses light instead of darkness, hope over fear, reason over ignorance, and unity over division.

It will be an amazing and historic moment to wake up on November 5th and see that America emphatically rejected the politics of the extremist right and turned the page on one of the darkest chapters of our modern history.

And it will be with great pleasure that I can begin to devote the pages of VoR to discussing how an Obama Administration plans to rebuild the country and make a more prosperous, more just, and safer world.

Jason Scorse