The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Sunk Costs

6.11.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 4)

GO BROKE, GO BROKE AGAIN
Re: Barron Thomas's Real Estate Survival 2008:

Thanks for Barron Thomas's article. Please let "Tony" know that we're rooting for him to make it to the top again. And remind him of Robert (Rich Dad Poor Dad) Kyosaki's rule that most wealthy people have gone bankrupt three times before the wealth sticks.
-- Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

WITHOUT DELAY
Re: Matt Kibbe's Chuck Grassley, King of Pork:

One can almost track to the day when Republicans lost their way in congress: The resignation of Tom Delay. After that Texas Prosecutor's "Nifong-ing" of DeLay, the well tuned wheels fell of the conservative wagon. That of course trickled over to the Senate, where there are few strong individuals anyway.

The loss of Delay was what Democrats did to break the Conservatives' back.
-- P. Aaron Jones
Rahmallah, Michigan

SELLING SALMON TAGS
Re: Ralph R. Reiland's Beach Economics:

An interesting article, not about any specific political proposal or impact, but informative nonetheless. Would be interesting to see if the Spectator could coax similar articles from columnists or economists in different parts of the country. Is the pain of getting one pound of flounder better or worse than, say, paying for driving, parking, digging and shelling a pound of clams on the tideflats in Tomales Bay, California? Or the fees for catching salmon in an upstate Washington stream?
-- Michael

FACE TO FACE
Re: George H. Wittman's Talking With the Bad Guys:

Mr. Wittman's piece was a fine primer for the role of a Foreign Service and its diplomatic Corp, but left out one very important point. When should a head of state negotiate directly with another head of state?

As Mr. Wittman noted, there are a myriad of options for communication between nations and their leaders. And, in fact, many of these options are used regularly among and between all nations. Some of these are "traditional" diplomatic channels and some are "back channel" assets. The point being that governments communicate with each other continually, on a variety of levels.

The rules change, however, when there is direct communication between Cabinet or Ministerial level personnel or Heads of State. Almost all such contact or communication is "official." The positions of the principles are already known to all parties, before the meeting, and practical negotiations are over. The meeting is merely a formality for public consumption.

Another thing to consider is status or standing. Generally, a person in a position of lesser power goes to see a person of greater power. The President of GM does not travel to Sam's Chevy dealership in Podunk to ask Sam to honor GM's warranties. He has a low level subordinate contact Sam concerning the matter. If that fails to achieve the desired result, then other means are used (sanctions, embargoes or legal action) to gain Sam's cooperation. Likewise, the Speaker of the House (the third person in line for succession in this government) does not go to Speak directly with a Head of State of a nation that is hostile to her own. Especially without the approval of the CEO of her country, the President. To do so heightens the apparent power and position of the country of the person being visited and lowers that of the other. And it undermines the effects of other channels of diplomatic communication.

Should the sitting President of the United States sit down with the President of Iran? Only if the Iranian President, and his Government, is prepared to acquiesce to the demands of the United States and the rest of the world. Why? Because the positions of the two parties are well known. And the weaker party has only to refuse to agree to anything to win the status war, while the stronger has to secure a binding agreement from the weaker to simply maintain its position. For the stronger party to go, seemingly hat in hand, to ask the weaker to stop doing something simply makes it that much more difficult to to gain the cooperation of other nations in the future. It is a bad move.

Now, the key phrase being bandied about among the Presidential hopefuls is "unconditional meeting." The only time such a meeting should ever occur is if two Heads of State bump into one another while buying a double mocha late in Starbucks. And then they should limit their discussion to the relative merits of bagels versus crullers for breakfast. To have unconditional meetings between hostile Heads of State is simply a disastrous idea. And that is why this issue has arisen in this campaign. McCain is using it to point out Obama's apparent lack of knowledge concerning diplomacy and also to paint him as being too weak to effectively deal with recalcitrant foreign leaders. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to paint himself as an alternative to President Bush, by saying that the President should have been able to secure the acquiescence if the Iranians by simply meeting with their President.

Teddy Roosevelt was, undoubtedly, one of the greatest diplomatic Presidents of all time. It might be a good idea for U.S. Presidents to follow his lead in these troubled times.
-- Michael Tobias

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, John McCain, Harry Reid, Economics, Social Security, Medicaid, Environment, Global Warming, Law, Iran, NATO, Conservatism, Alaska, Medicare