Valentina Pasquali

Birmingham, Alabama – It is a hot southern Sunday morning in Birmingham, Alabama, and the downtown is deserted. At the foothill of the city’s high-rises, small groups of people stroll slowly on the empty streets and quietly into the side door of 16th Street Baptist Church. A brown-brick building, from the sixties, marked by a blue neon sign, the church stands at the center of a neighborhood of car dealerships, gas stations and auto-parts shops. Plastic bags fly along the jagged sidewalks swept up by a warm breeze. All businesses are closed in a sign of respect for the Day of the Lord, which around here is exclusively dedicated to prayer. Only the Civil Rights Institute next door–a museum commemorating the struggles that stormed through Birmingham in the 1960s and finally led to the abolition of segregation– is open for visits.

Contrary to the sleepy neighborhood, the basement of 16th Street Church is bustling with activity. Congregants are wrapping up Sunday school and preparing for service. Young girls wearing summery old-fashioned taffeta dresses stream out of their classes side by side their brothers in suits and ties. Elegant women stand on the laminated floor and compliment each other’s outfits. Two older men sit chatting on a fake 70s-style leather couch, while local notables in framed photos hang from the walls watching over them.

16th Street Baptist Church is a cultural landmark and a symbol of African-American Alabama. On September 15 1963, in the midst of Birmingham’s racial turmoil, a bomb exploded here killing four young girls. Reverend Martin Luther King spoke to a crowd of 8,000 at the funeral that followed. Joan Baez recorded the song “Birmingham Sunday” chronicling the aftermath of the bombing. And in 1997, film director Spike Lee shot a feature-length documentary, “4 Little Girls,” about the racially motivated attack on that fateful Sunday.

It is no surprise then that this congregation takes particular pride in the history of its church. “I’ve been a member here for many years,” says 43 year-old Marvin Hicks, a Birmingham-native who relocated to the town of Jamison, about an hour south, three years ago. Mr. Hicks still drives the forty-something miles to Birmingham at least twice a month to attend service at 16th Street Church: “This place has a good history, and good singing,” he adds with a smile.

Mass certainly rises to meet expectations.

Four women open the service singing a bluesy Christian hymn. The congregation rises from the red velvety benches and sings along; the more fervent worshippers dance. One of the four singers, a young large woman begins shaking uncontrollably as if possessed by unnatural and unseen forces. Her hypnotic quivering continues until she almost faints on the first-row bench. A man tries to reanimate her with a fan. The whole scene is repeated only minutes later, when the young lady resumes singing with the choir.

Pastor Arthur Price Jr. takes to the pulpit and asks his parishioners to pray for those who are sick, to pray for the country, the city, and the Presidential election. “Make sure you are registered to vote,” Reverend Price says, “You can’t be a member of 16th Street and not be registered; too many people have paid an awful price so that we could enjoy this privilege.” On a Sunday when thirty-three pastors across the country decided to officially endorse either John McCain or Barack Obama–in violation of churches’ tax free status–this is the only reference to politics and the presidential campaign in Reverend Price’s sermon, otherwise focused on the reality of “pain” which he asks his congregation to accept as just another part of life.

“I have Republicans, Democrats and Independents in my congregation. I certainly can’t tell people who to vote for,” explains Reverend Price, a native of Philadelphia who moved to Birmingham six years ago from a church in Buffalo, New York. He is convinced that this campaign will be historic no matter who wins: “As a congregation that is predominantly African American, we are undoubtedly proud of the Democratic nomination of the first African American candidate for President. Having said that, it is also exciting to think that the next Vice-President could be a woman.”

Rev. Price points out that there are only a few non-African American members of 16th Street Church, between five and ten out of a total of over three hundred. None are here today. His parishioners range, from the homeless to the cardiologist.

Despite the fact that 16th Street Church maintains a strictly non-partisan approach, Reverend Price says that he talks to his congregation about issues that are important. “We talk predominantly about economic issues, such as homelessness and equal housing for the poor. We also talk about the war in Iraq,” Reverend Price adds. The ongoing economic crisis has begun to take a toll on the community and Reverend Price recently started noticing that people are coming out to church less frequently, for example, cutting down on the Wednesday night bible study, and are giving less in donations.

Marvin Hicks is one of the members of the congregation who is feeling the downturn. He is particularly hit by the rising gas prices. “I work as a truck-driver all across Alabama and my gas bill is now about $600 a month,” says Hicks. His company pays him by the hour, gives him health care benefits, but does not pay for the gas he uses. As a result, the $600 a month must come out of his pocket. Married to an accountant, and a father of three, Mr. Hicks is an Obama supporter: “I’m going to go for change and stick with Obama,” he avows.

“I find the economic situation troubling, but I haven’t yet felt any direct impact,” says Valisa Brown, a medical researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Mrs. Brown has been a member of the church for ten years and she is here today, like every Sunday, with her husband, an assistant principle at a local high school, and their two boys aged two and five. “I found this church like many others do; I came here as a tourist and liked the Pastor and the things that were going on here,” Mrs. Brown explains.

She confesses to be very excited about the Presidential campaign and says that, had there been no kids, she would have splurged and gone with her husband to Denver for the Democratic National Convention: “If Barack wins, my children will only know a country where a person that looks like them is the President.”

Mrs. Brown grew up in a town in rural Alabama that relied on the logging industry and on a clothing factory that closed down while she was in high school. Her grandparents raised her. Her grandfather worked in a company that made paper products while her grandmother cleaned houses.

After graduating high school in 1988, Mrs. Brown put herself through college thanks to scholarships and earned a B.A. from the University of Alabama Tuscaloosa and a Master in Public Health from UAB. “I hope that my children will be able to see that there is life beyond Alabama, that their opportunities are limitless, that they can do whatever they want to do and be whatever they want to be,” Mrs. Brown declares.

Obama’s story, she think, will only help illustrate the possibilities.

Growing up in a community plagued by poverty, for both African Americans and Caucasians, she says she didn’t feel as many tensions in rural Alabama. However she remembers the day her grandfather received a Klux Klux Klan pamphlet in the mail supporting a candidate for a local election. “Racism is always there,” says Mrs. Brown recalling the times when she has walked into a shoe store for shopping and other costumers have automatically assumed that she is an employee. “I have a $200 purse on my arm, how do you think that I work here?” she says with laughter.

More than on the streets, at the workplace, or in school, it is in the churches that Mrs. Brown sees the strongest racial separation: “They’ve always said that the most segregated time of the week is Sunday,” she concludes before heading out for lunch with her family.

“This is a militant church, and it will be triumphant.”

Valisa Brown might very well be right. The Presbyterian mega-church Briarwood lies only a few miles outside Birmingham and it offers an insight into a very different reality. Briarwood, started in 1960, is considered the flagship establishment of the Presbyterian Church of America, an organization founded in 1973 by a group of 250 churches that thought that mainstream Presbyterianism was too liberal.

The congregation counts approximately 4200 members. The church includes a Christian school, serving 1900 students from kindergarten through 12th grade, and a seminary. In 1988, Briarwood moved to a huge $32 million campus on the hills overlooking I-459, and in 1998 a $5.5 million expansion was added.

This October construction on another $28.8 million expansion will begin. “We need more room because we don’t fit anymore,” says Stan Goebel. “We need new parking lots, more offices for the staff, and we are going to build a new 32000 square feet youth center,” adds Goebel, who is a missionary of Briarwood, and walks the projects in Birmingham to talk to people about Jesus.

As the sun slowly sets on the hilly suburbs of Birmingham, big SUVs drive into the wide tree-lined parking lot outside the church. Older couples, families with young children, and teenagers stream into the redbrick building. The 6pm Sunday service is only the last of a long series–Briarwood offers regular mass at 8am and 11am, and then so-called ethnic masses in Spanish, Korean and Japanese throughout the day. “At some point I remember learning that Briarwood has about 1000 weekly activities,” says Glenda Wood, a homemaker who volunteers at the church about 15 hours a week, and is shuffling a big cart filled with binders around the spacious lobby.

The inside of the church is adorned with a shiny-white plaster octagon, encompassing a large stage which holds the pulpit. Two huge flat-screen televisions hang on each side of the stage and during mass display the lyrics of the poppy Christian songs played by a young man with a guitar and a woman with a violin.

The TVs also display a PowerPoint presentation that summarizes the points made by Pastor Harry Reeder as he gives his sermon. There is no mention of politics or current events in Reverend Reeder’s homily and the Pastor exclusively concentrates on complicated theological issues that are occasionally hard to follow.

The church teaches strict bible-based theology and focuses on missionary activity and outreach: “This is a militant church,” says Pastor Reeder in his sermon, “And it will be triumphant.” Briarwood is even known for something called Embers to Flame, re-energizing teams that this congregation sends out across the United States and the world to revitalize churches in crisis.

“We believe that the gospel of Jesus saves people. We try to reach out to others and see who responds,” says Reverend Harry Reeder who took over as Senior Pastor at Briarwood nine years ago.

Like Reverend Price of 16th Street Church, he has decided not to endorse a candidate from the pulpit today: “I believe I have a right to do it if I so choose, but I don’t think it’s fair to my congregation. We don’t tell people how to vote,” says Rev. Reeder.

But just like the 16th St. church, he also talks to his parishioners about issues that he deems important. “We believe that the sanctity of life should be protected, and so should the sanctity of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Finally we focus on mercy, in addressing problems such as the AIDS epidemic,” Rev. Reeder states.

Briarwood has a set of ethnic congregations, created for those members who would rather worship in their native language. Nevertheless, this church has only a few African American members: “We are getting more diverse but we are not as diverse as I would like. African Americans are probably about 10% of our congregation,” Rev. Reeder maintains.

Tonight, only the pianist is African American. In any case, Pastor Reeder explains that he is not a proponent of the concept of race: “The bible says we are one race, people made in the image of God.”

While it is not easy to speak with regular churchgoers, one is immediately approached by many who are directly engaged in the activities of the church and who are more than happy to volunteer information.

Biker and missionary Stan Goebel, who came to mass in his leather pants and carrying his helmet, says he likes Briarwood because it is an encouraging, nurturing church. A 55 year-old son of a minister, never married, Mr. Goebel started his outreach activities in 1979. He sees the economic crisis hitting the poor neighborhood he walks and even the bikers he hangs out with who “are not riding anymore as they used to because of rising gas prices.”

Mr. Goebel admits to not having followed much of the Presidential campaign: “In general I’m more of a McCain man, because of his stance on abortion and homosexuality,” he maintains, adding that he also likes Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin because she is a sharp woman with good values.

Sitting with her three children on the next bench, 35 year-old Jacklynn Gothard is also a Sarah Palin fan. A graduate of Mississippi State University and a nurse at Brookwood Medical Center, Mrs. Gothard is married to a preacher who recently moved to Briarwood from Chicago, IL. “I will vote and I will vote Republican,” Mrs. Gothard states. She says her vote will be more of a vote against Barack Obama, whom she doesn’t trust for the “nebulous platform of change he advances,” than a vote for John McCain.

Mrs. Gothard doesn’t have a specific viewpoint on the war in Iraq, but she is worried about the economy. Like many others in this spread-out town where people need cars to go about their daily schedules, the Gothards have been feeling the impact of rising gas prices and have started clustering different activities together so as to reduce the number of trips they take. As a result, Mrs. Gothards will vote on the basis of issues such as energy independence.

As a Christian conservative, she also looks for a candidate that shares her pro-life view and her understanding of marriage—a union between a man and a woman. Asked about what she hopes for the future, Mrs. Gothards says: “I want clear-cut values; not a future where there are no absolutes anymore and our kids grow up without foundations.”

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Marion, AK –

Big John’s Shake Shack, offering twenty-four different flavors of soft serve, is a local hangout in Marion, a town of 11,000 in southeast Arkansas. This family-owned restaurant right off of I-55 is also a microcosm of mid-America stuck in the heart of Elvis Presley country.

Memphis is only a few miles away across the Mississippi River and Marion is, essentially, a suburb of what was once home to the King. “I opened this place in 1977, the year Elvis died,” says owner Loretta Tacker pointing to a wall poster that advertises a concert in Hartford, Connecticut, for August 21^st 1977. “Elvis never performed the concert because he was found dead on the 16^th,” Ms. Tacker recalls.

She and her husband John started their business fresh out of college. They had met at Harding, a Christian university in Searcy, AK, and Ms. Tacker, who is originally from Illinois, followed her spouse to his hometown after graduation. Big John — to whom the restaurant and the recently launched ¼ pounder are dedicated — died three years ago. A framed photo collage hanging opposite from the Elvis’ poster celebrates his memory.

Lunch is a busy time of the day at Big John’s. Patrons stream in and out incessantly while Ms. Tacker, her daughter Lisa and two other employees are busy serving their signature fried-fish. Sitting on the yellow plastic bench of one of the restaurant’s boots, Timothy Taylor has finished his lunch and is reading the local paper intently. “I’m completely depressed and disgusted about this election,” Mr. Taylor sighs, “Neither Obama nor McCain are the right choice for the country.” A man in his late thirties, Mr. Taylor works for the IT department at the Marion school district and is a disgruntled Hillary supporter. “I was born in 1971 and Bill Clinton entered Arkansas politics in 1974,” Mr. Taylor recalls as a way to illustrate the influence of the Clintons on his political upbringing. “This state is home to a near-cult of Bill, people love him for what he did here and for how he touched our lives,” Mr. Taylor asserts.

The son of a railroad worker and of a nurse, Timothy Taylor sees Bill Clinton’s popularity extending by default to his wife Hillary: “If Hillary were running for President, Arkansas would be color blue.” Which is certainly not the case today; according to the latest state polls Republican candidate John McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama fifty-one percent to forty-two percent.

While he doesn’t believe Sen. Obama is qualified to be president, Mr. Taylor is not impressed with Sen. McCain’s credentials either. “McCain would be a better choice as far as his experience, but I can’t stand his social policy, his stance on gay rights and abortion,” Mr. Taylor avows.

He holds completely opposing views of the two Vice-Presidential candidates, but just as negative: “Strategically, I think Sarah Palin was a brilliant choice for the Republicans, because it helps them reaching out to the Hillary supporters and to energize the evangelicals who were going to sit out this elections.” However, Mr. Taylor doesn’t like Gov. Palin, he’s worried by her lack of experience and wishes that there had been more vetting on the affiliation of Gov. Palin’s husband Todd with the Alaska Independence Party.

As for the Democrats, Mr. Taylor thinks that “it was absolutely stupid not to choose Hillary.” According to him, Joe Biden is qualified but boring and does not bring anything to the ticket. As a result, Mr. Taylor will vote for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, but he is keen on making it clear that “this is not so much a vote for Barr but more a vote against Obama.”

A single man and a homeowner, Mr. Taylor is worried about the economy and dismayed by the collapse of Wall Street and by the government bailout. “I’ve always believed in government and the need for taxes to support the system,” Mr. Taylor says, “but this mess is going to make me into an anti-tax person.”

Mr. Taylor is especially upset at the thought that somebody might have profited from the financial crash and that nobody in Washington, Republican or Democrat, seems to want to go after them. “I want to see some action against people who made money out of the subprime mortgage crisis,” Mr. Taylor states.

Although, as a government employee he hasn’t felt the effects of the economic downturn, Mr. Taylor is nervous that the worst is yet to come. He says this year many parents in his school district cannot afford to buy school supplies for their children. He also notes that premiums for health coverage are skyrocketing. In his case, for example, while the employer puts $131 a month towards benefits, his personal share of the burden will rise from $68 to $98 a month starting in October. “And I only have single coverage, if I had family coverage the cost could be much higher, up to $1000 a month,” Mr. Taylor maintains.

But he also believes that there is more to be anxious about than just the economy. Mr. Taylor says he is “scared to death about the situation in the Middle East,” and describes Iran as “ticking-time bomb.” Finally he hopes that the next president will be able to repair America’s suffering image abroad.

Bail bondsman Mike Morgan, who is sitting with a few friends by a wall painted in a life-size effigy of Elvis, is also concerned about the Middle East, although he frames the issue in different terms: “I’m worried about terrorism and these Arab/Muslim extremists,” Mr. Morgan utters. He is convinced that the Iranians “are soon to be a nuclear threat,” and that “they detest America.” Mr. Morgan partially explains the dwindling relations of the United States with much of the rest of the world with America’s inclination to policing the globe. However, he is also persuaded that having a presence abroad is crucial in defending this country’s national security.

A self-proclaimed independent who professes little allegiance to either party, Mike Morgan will vote for Sen. McCain, ultimately swayed by the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate: “I think she is plain spoken; she relates well to little people,” Mr. Morgan says while adding that he shares her views on social issues. He is not troubled by Gov. Palin’s inexperience and cites the fact that Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush were also governors prior to being elected to the White House.

Although Mr. Morgan deems Sen. Obama to be an extremely bright individual, he doesn’t trust him: “I don’t think he says what he really feels.” Moreover Mr. Morgan accuses Sen. Obama of racism, quoting the Senator’s controversial affiliation with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama ended up denouncing, and Michelle Obama’s contentious statement, several months ago, that she was, this year, for the first time, proud of her country.

A soft-spoken sixty-something father of three with an abrasive sense of humor (he approached me while I was taking photos of the restaurant and inquired whether I was a terrorist gathering information to blow the place up), Mike Morgan is also apprehensive about the economy. “Nobody has any money anymore,” he says complaining that, for example, he sometimes can’t afford to pay the 10% cash-requirement that courts have instituted on bail bonds. He agrees that at this point the bailout is a must-do but he scorns at the attitudes of politicians in the White House and Congress: “This is such a typical Washington thing to do; they should have done something years ago.”

The only one that is not overly concerned about the economy, at least on a personal level, is owner Loretta Tacker. Today, Ms. Tacker is wearing a light blue pajama-like blouse dotted with pink hearts and Elvis’s face. “Business is going great,” Ms. Tacker asserts, “People are always going to eat, independent of the economy.” Her 1950’s style restaurant filled with Elvis’ paraphernalia attracts regulars such as Messrs. Morgan and Taylor as well as a steady stream of passers-by traveling between Arkansas and Tennessee on I-55, which essentially runs above Big John’s.

Ms. Tacker is a life-long Republican who seems pleased with John McCain. “He is a down-to-earth, honest man,” she contends. Ms. Tacker also likes President George W. Bush and argues that he has done good things for the country, such as the stimulus package, which was passed this past spring and which resulted in a check between $300 and $600 for each American tax-payer: “It’s not much money individually, but if you think that everybody got it, I think it was a good way of taking care of the country, a good gesture,” Ms. Tacker maintains.

A socially conservative Christian, Loretta Tacker adores Sarah Palin: “She is pretty,” Ms. Tacker says smiling. Her biggest concern is homeland security and she is apprehensive about “terrorists constantly coming up with ways to attack America.” Ms. Tacker also acknowledges that the economic crisis could, after all, impact the lives of everybody: “It’s hard to believe,” she comments, “but we could have the Great Depression again.”

However, Ms. Tacker confesses that she doesn’t follow politics all that much. Big John’s Shake Shack is open from 8 A.M. to 7 P.M. Mondays through Thursdays and until late on Fridays. On Saturdays and Sundays, as well as on Wednesday nights, Ms. Tacker attends a non-denominational Christian church in Marion: “As you see I don’t have much time left for politics,” she remarks before returning to the kitchen to fry more fish.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Washington DC –Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama will battle each other on Friday in the first of three Presidential debates scheduled to take place before Election Day. On the backdrop of the financial meltdown that is sweeping through Wall Street, Friday’s face-off at the University of Mississippi will center on Foreign Policy, and McCain and Obama will have to address issues such as Russia, nuclear proliferation, Iran, energy, climate change and the Middle East.

“Complexity is the key word to describe today’s world, a complexity that could spiral out of control,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski at an event organized last Friday by New America Foundation, a liberal leaning think tank in Washington DC. The former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter dissected the more pressing concerns in today’s foreign policy arena and gave recommendations to the next President of the United States in a discussion with General Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.

Despite the many significant challenges to the role of the United States as the world superpower emerging from the international stage, all predictions are that the crisis of the international financial markets will take the center stage at Friday’s debate and that the two opponents will use every opportunity to bring the discussion back to this issue and tie the global economic crisis with the domestic turmoil, which is the highest priority on the voters’ minds. “This Great Depression 2.0 will redirect the focus of the campaign towards domestic issues,” said Michael Gerson at another similar event organized by the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday and that saw the participation of several of the Council’s Senior Fellows.

The collapse of major institutions on Wall Street during recent months unveiled structural flaws in the foundations of the American economy. A highly-indebted United States, holding a current-account deficit of the value of about 67% of its GDP, is now relying on foreign governments to subsidize its ever-growing debt, hoping that countries like China, Japan and Russia will keep buying dollar-denominated assets. “We should be very worried about this,” said Sebastian Mallaby, Director of the Maurice Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. Mr. Mallaby warned that those foreign governments make investment decisions not simply based on the ratio of risk versus return, but for political reasons as well. “This kind of decisions can always be reversed if new political considerations arise,” Mr. Mallaby noted. If foreign central banks were to start selling their US assets, the value of the dollar would crash, bringing down with it the whole of the American economy. Mr. Mallaby said he hopes to hear McCain and Obama tackling the economic crisis both on the level of immediate crisis management and on that of longer-term restructuring of international finance.

On the background of these dire economic conditions, the next US President will also be faced with many other contentious situations. Michael Levi, Director of the CFR Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, weighted in on nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Mr. Levi portrayed the relation with Iran as being at a very important, yet tense, crossroad: “Negotiations aren’t really going anywhere, sanctions aren’t really going anywhere,” he said. Mr. Levi expects that the candidates on Friday will be asked at least one question on what they would do as President if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon. “I hope that McCain and Obama will both be cautious enough to push a definite stance into the future, saying that they will decide on the situation depending on the conditions at the time something was to happen.” At the discussion hosted by New America Foundation, Mr. Brzezinksi and Mr. Scowcroft had expressed similar opinions: “We have to be serious about negotiating and I don’t think our posture thus far is one of serious negotiations, since we are asking the Iranians to stop enrichment as a pre-condition to talking about enrichment,” Mr. Brzezinksi said. Mr. Scowcroft tied the stand-off with Iran to a wider problem with nuclear proliferation: “If Iran enriches uranium, even if it doesn’t build a weapon, it will trigger proliferation in the region, by countries such as Egypt,” he said, while both speakers worried about the impact of the US-India nuclear deal on this worsening of proliferation activities world-wide.

Sheila Smith, CFR Senior Fellow for Japan Studies, also focused on the nuclear issue, and in particular on North Korea. Highlighting that the US has been grappling unsuccessfully with this problem since the mid-1990s, Ms. Smith noted that the situation is stalled: “I’m not confident that we are moving in the right direction.” New concerns come from the knowledge that Kim Jong Il might be very sick and to some extent incapacitated. Ms. Smith fears that the future holds some sort of regime change beyond the control of the United States and in the context of a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons.

On the upside, speakers at both the Council on Foreign Relations and at New America Foundation emphasized the importance of the relation between the United States and greater Asia, particularly China and particularly from an economic standpoint. “We take this relationship for granted,” CFR Sheila Smith argued, “and it is indeed a positive one.” However, Ms. Smith worries that Washington is not fully aware of how dependent the US is on Asia for its own economic vitality and as a result might not be ready to take the steps needed to continue fostering the relation. General Scowcroft believes that there are many areas in which the US and China could pursue an expansion of their bilateral dealings: “The Chinese work within the system even when they don’t agree with it,” he said, noting that they seem to possess a sense of historical evolution based on optimism that allows them to move slowly and progressively. Mr. Brzezinski agreed: “China is not trying to overturn the world order,” he said pointing to the profoundly interdependent relations with the United States, one in which both actors hold high stakes.

Russia instead is a different story and a concerning one at that. Jim Goldgeier, CFR Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations and Russia advisor to the Obama campaign, argued that the vision that the US had for America-Europe-Russia relations after the end of the Cold War, one of a wholesome and free Europe and a peaceful Russia, is not holding up. “Simply saying that Russia is isolating itself is just a lecture but it is not a policy,” Mr. Goldgeier said expressing the hope that the candidates on Friday will talk about a plan to rebuild the US relationship with Russia from the bottom up. Both Mr. Scowcroft and Mr. Brzezinski worried about the imperial nostalgia of the Russians: “Russia went from superpower to a cataclysmic collapse, which has introduced a great sense of humiliation and of grievance,” said Mr. Brzezinski at New America Foundation last Friday, “now they have regained strength and they want to make up for it.”

Finally Obama and McCain should also address energy security and climate change as one issue and frame it in the context of Foreign Policy, where traditionally Americans think of them as separate problems and most often in domestic policy terms. CFR Michael Levi argued that it would be important to acknowledge that this is not necessarily a win-win situation but that there are tensions between these two different facets of the same coin, and candidates must show that they can navigate these tensions.

Amidst the financial chaos, even defense policy has taken the backseat in the Presidential campaign and candidates have been “surprisingly muted so far,” said Stephen Biddle, CFR Senior Fellow for Defense Policy. In Biddle’s opinion, however, this development is mostly positive since a campaign would be the worst possible venue to make specific decisions on military strategy. It is also too easy to use defense policy as a means of threat mongering and, as a result, the fact that other issues are somewhat obscuring war-like talks should not be dismissed as negative. Nevertheless there are a number of bigger questions on which it would be important to hear the candidates speaking: “Are we at war with terrorism world-wide? What scale of risk are we willing to accept to reduce the risk to our homeland? What level of effort are we willing to undertake in order to reduce the risk to our homeland?” Mr. Biddle said.

The list of foreign policy challenges that will confront the next US Administration goes on and proves one important fact: that the campaign has already lived through many unexpected turns and it will continue to do so. This also tells us how hard it is to predict what issues the next President will actually have to deal with: “History makes a lot of choices for you,” said Michael Gerson at the Council on Foreign relations on Monday. As a result the debate will provide an important opportunity for the two candidates to show voters their character, values and judgment, all of which will be determinant of the types of decisions they would make as a President, independent on the actual context.

Finally, experts at both the Council on Foreign Relations and New America Foundation dared addressing the situation in the Middle East, although timidly: “Many problems in the region have become interlocked,” General Scowcroft noted, “the biggest ones of which are Iraq and Iran.” According to Scowcroft the peace process and a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could greatly help with them, by re-energizing a more constructive relation with the Arab world and by isolating groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. However, the peace process has dropped off the radar of the campaign. The fellows at the CFR event explained this by noting that the conflict between Israel and Palestine seems to defy a solution and, hence, that there is no political benefit to be had from engaging in a debate on this issue, other than using it for political platitude.

Pointedly framing the gloomy state of the world one month before Americans will elect their new President, Sebastian Mallaby said: “It is still a mystery to me why anybody would want to win this election.”

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Washington DC – Only a day before early voting begins in Virginia, with a host of other states following next week, a group of Republican-leaning analysts gathered Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — a conservative think tank in Washington DC — to assess the state of the 2008 Presidential Campaign. AEI Fellows Michael Barone, Karlyn Bowman, Norman J. Ornstein and John Fortier discussed issues ranging from the selection of Sarah Palin as the GOP candidate for Vice-President, to the ongoing financial crisis.

“Sarah Palin’s choice undoubtedly electrified the Republican base,” said Norman J. Ornstein, “I think she is the prettiest candidate for Vice-President since John Edwards,” he joked. Although everybody agreed that the selection of the Alaska Governor as his running mate helped McCain’s resurgence in the polls – the Republicans enjoyed a much more significant ‘convention bounce’ than the Democrats – the panelists acknowledged that the Palin effect is already fading. “Now the race looks very much like it did before the conventions,” Senior Fellow Karlyn Bowman commented. “Palin has been a great phenomenon but the polls have already shifted back,” echoed John Fortier, “we know in general that people don’t vote for the Vice-Presidential candidates and the receding of the polls indicate that the Palin effect might be dying down already.”

Undoubtedly the story of the week is the financial crisis, the bankruptcy of investment bank Lehman Brothers and the government rescue of insurance giant A.I.G. and of mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. “If the Campaign stays focused on the economy then Obama has a lot of traction,” Mr. Ornstein noted. Economic distress generally moves voters towards the Democratic Party, added Michael Barone. However, he also pointed out, a look at state polls seem to suggest a different reality: “Obama is doing well in economically vibrant places such as Colorado and Virginia, which were not on the Democratic map four years ago. And yet, in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, among the hardest hit by the crisis, the race looks like a dead-heat,” Mr. Barone said.

Despite the depth of the turmoil on Wall Street, the speakers at AEI agreed that it is too early in the campaign to state with certainty whether the financial crisis will remain the most pressing issue on the mind of the voters: “We will have many more surprises ahead that will suddenly shift what’s in front of the voters’ radar screen,” Mr. Ornstein said, “even if only temporarily.”

As far as the electoral map is concerned, panelists’ view on what should be expected diverged. While Mr. Barone predicted a surprising and unprecedented outcome, with states such as West Virginia potentially within reach of the Democrats, “This is a time of open field politics, when voters are moving around, candidates are moving around and many unexpected things happen,” he said. John Fortier argued that, in the end, the map won’t look too different from what it has been in the last few elections cycles. “I see history reasserting itself, especially if the results are close,” he said.

Norman J. Ornstein had a different explanation for the apparently tight race, one that other Conservative pundits have been making recently: “I see many similarities with the campaign of 1980 between President Carter and Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Ornstein said asserting that the desire for change is strong and it is in the direction of Obama, but that voters are still waiting to learn more about him. According to this perspective, support for Obama could be underrepresented in the polls conducted thus far. Mr. Ornstein believes that the reactions to the first of the three Presidential debates, hosted next Friday at the University of Mississippi, should give us a better grasp of what’s to follow.

Although there is still over a month before Election Day, early and absentee voting could impact the results in a way that is hard to predict. “Both campaigns are already targeting those voters whom they want to get to the polls early,” Mr. Fortier said recalling how he has been receiving e-mails from the McCain campaign inviting him to cast his early ballot in Virginia. In truth, most early voters wait until the last two weeks before Election Day. However, the AEI Fellows warned that it is important to remember, when making predictions, that there are Americans who will have voted even before any of the debates scheduled takes place.

Minneapolis, MN – On the sidelines of the Republican National Convention, foreign policy experts gathered at the University of Minneapolis to take part in a weeklong discussion on international affairs. A pool of analysts sketched out the most pressing issues that the new US Administration will have to face, while advisors to the McCain campaign outlined John McCain’s foreign policy view.

The team of advisors defended the concept of democracy promotion and the idea of spreading American-style liberty abroad while suggesting that McCain would pursue a more moderate approach than that which characterized George W. Bush’s Presidency.

Overall, the unanimous assessment was that the next President will inherit a complicated international landscape and will be faced with a series of thorny relationships with other countries, especially in the Middle East.

“Iraqis want us to go, but not immediately,” said Meaghan O’Sullivan, Professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and a former member of Bush’s team on Iraq. The people in Iraq recognize that the US military contributes to the maintenance of improved security. However they also anticipate the moment when they will be able to stand on their own feet. According to O’Sullivan, a set timeline is dangerous because it would revamp sectarian divisions: “It’s been shown that whenever Iraqis think that Americans will leave, they immediately take steps to lock in the gains for their own faction.” In short, the US should wait until the Iraqis are able to find a political bargain for power sharing.

Professor O’Sullivan also addressed the worsening conditions in Afghanistan. She warned that the situation there cannot entirely be equated with Iraq and hence one must be careful in taking the lessons learned in the Gulf and applying them to Afghanistan. In particular, O’Sullivan contended that simply deploying more troops would not be effective: “We would never have enough troops on the ground to stop violence in Afghanistan like we did in Iraq.” Instead, the US should think about other and creative ways to engage with the Afghan people and, particularly, work with tribal leaders, a policy that yielded positive results in Iraq.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Washington DC – It was a black Monday on Wall Street, with the Dow Jones that dropped 500 points – the worst loss in seven years – after a series of dramatic events that hit the US financial system over the weekend. Major investment bank Lehman Brothers went bankrupt; Bank of America abruptly bought off failing Merrill Lynch; and insurance group AIG says it is in desperate need of new cash injections. All of this came only weeks after the government-led bailout of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and of investment firm Bear Sterns.

Benn Steil and Sebastian Mallaby, from the Council on Foreign Relations, held a media conference call in the afternoon to explain the significance of this chain of events. “The stakes of this current crisis go well beyond just a few financial institutions,” said Mr. Mallaby, Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geo-economics. According to the former Washington Post columnist, the US role on the global stage is at risk. The world is watching the American model of free-standing investment banking and innovative financial engineering taking a serious hit and being outperformed by the more conservative European approach. While some of the most important financial institutions in the world collapse under the weight of debt they don’t have the cash to repay, “New York’s position as the pre-eminent go to place for ambitious young financiers is at risk.” As a longer-term result, the US might be losing economic competitiveness if highly innovative industries such as software and finance start migrating elsewhere.

According to Benn Steil, Director of the International Economics Council on Foreign Relations, the biggest concern for the US Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve is to salvage the credibility of dollar-denominated assets and prevent flight of capital abroad. “We do need to be concerned about the future of the Fed and Treasury, especially as they keep expanding their lending activities and last resort interventions,” Mr. Steil said. Inflation spurred by the need of the Federal Reserve to guarantee an excessive number of bad assets – by injecting increasing liquidity into the market — could motivate investors to abandon the US and pour their money onto Europe, for example. And, not coincidentally, the European Central Bank is already imposing much stricter restrictions on the kind of assets it takes as collaterals for its loans. In this sense, the decision by the US Government to refrain from intervening in the case of Lehman Brothers tried to send the message that the American financial system is still on solid footing with the exception of a few bad apples: “It was the right decision of the Fed and the Treasury not to step in with any sort of financial guarantees for Lehman Brothers and to let them go if that needed to be the case,” Mr. Steil commented.

The current financial crisis could potentially have a distressing effect on the already dwindling value of the dollar. High-level Chinese officials are among those concerned, especially over the exceptionally loose US monetary policy. China is particularly affected by it, since it continues buying US Treasury bonds in order to keep the value of the Yuan stable while the demand for Chinese exports increases. Benn Steil explained that the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae stemmed from precisely this consideration. The main appeal of US Government bonds for foreign investors is that those assets are some of the most risk-free, since the Federal Reserve will always have the money to guarantee them, “at least in the sense that they can print the dollars needed to back those liabilities,” Mr. Steil noted. Worried that letting go of those investments could seriously damage the reputation of dollar-denominated assets, hampering capital inflows to the US from abroad, the government had no choice but to intervene in the case of Freddie and Fannie – which were always partially government owned.

In any case, it is expected that foreign governments will be careful in abandoning the US market, since many of them hold the majority of their national reserves in dollar-denominated assets. It would be counterproductive for them to diversify at a rate that would contribute to a sudden crash of the dollar and hence undermine the value of their own reserves. However, because foreign governments have accumulated enormous stocks of US assets in the past, “the threat of selling them does have the potential of becoming an important leverage in foreign policy,” Mr. Mallaby explained, since they could threat to disrupt the US financial markets at any time.

News of the financial meltdown, of course, reached the campaign trail and both Barack Obama and John McCain made the economy the centerpiece of their stump speeches on Monday. However, according to Mr. Mallaby, it would be unreasonable to ask them to introduce specific solutions in these remaining two months of the campaign, when it becomes very hard to talk about real policy issues and even more so about technicalities such as derivatives and collateralized securities: “They don’t want to look like they are indifferent but at the same time they don’t want voters to roll their eyes,” Mr. Mallaby said. As a result we should expect both candidates to focus on the more easily understood consequences that the financial turmoil will have on the real economy.

Finally, it remains to be seen whether the American electorate will hold the Bush Administration at all responsible for the turmoil on the financial markets. Although Mr. Mallaby and Mr. Beil said this would not be entirely fair, since the roots of the crisis are much deeper than whatever regulatory stance taken by George W. Bush in the past eight years, they acknowledged that this could very well happen. “I would think that there is always a risk for an incumbent party, especially for one that has been in office for two terms,” Mr. Mallaby concluded.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Saint Paul, MN – According to Judy Hodge from Dallas, Texas, the most fitting parallel to the relationship between a citizen and the President is that between a costumer and a travel agent. “When you sign up for a cruise, you expect that your agent will put you on a flight that gets you on time to the port of boarding. Then you expect a nice ship where the staff takes good care of you and to have a vast choice of things to do during your vacation, from massages to the gym to the swimming pool,” Ms. Hodge told me at the Excel Energy Center – the site for the Republican National Convention – last week.

Judy Hodge is a middle-aged woman who attended the Republican National Convention in Saint Paul as a guest, accompanying her 81 year-old mother-in-law Pauline – who was attending her third convention as a delegate and has been active in Republican politics since 1952. Ms. Hodge says she is an independent, confesses to have voted for fellow Texan George W. Bush both in 2000 and in 2004, but swears that she is still undecided for this year’s election. As for as her mother-in-law, Pauline Hodge has finally accepted the nomination of John McCain, although for a long time she was a supporter of Rudy Giuliani. “My mother-in-law loves Rudy,” Ms. Hodge told me, “at the Republican Convention in New York in 2004, Rudy was so nice to her. He met my mother-in-law and kissed her hand. And this year we bumped into him again and he recognized her.”

The enthusiasm with which Judy Hodge recalls this episode is indicative of the way she relates to politics. What really matters to her is the personal story of a politician, how he behaves in private and, possibly, the personal relationship that he entertains with his supporters. “I look at the person, I try to listen and I want to understand who these candidates really are,” Ms. Hodge said, “I’m not interested in big talks and policy proposals; those are only part of the campaign rhetoric.”

Ms. Hodge likes George and Laura Bush because she knows them personally. First Lady Laura and Ms. Hodge attended the same college in Texas, and Mrs. Bush was only a couple of years ahead of Ms. Hodge. At the time when Ms. Bush was still working as a librarian, “you should have seen her: she was a perfect woman, for grace, intelligence and kindness,” Ms. Hodge recalled. “George and Laura are wonderful people, they really tried hard during these last eight years and I know they love this country so much,” Ms. Hodge said. But Judy Hodge also liked John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacquie, who “had such class and elegance.” And, while calling Cindy McCain “the best woman I’ve ever seen,” she also respects the Obamas: “It’s really too bad that the campaign decided to reshape Michelle’s image so that she would look more comforting and less aggressive. I liked her as she was. And what’s wrong about being spontaneous?” According to her, Barack Obama shows his best side when he interacts with his wife and his two daughters: “Watching him in that context, he really looks like a sweet, compassionate human being.”

Judy Hodge also told me that the media — both left and right leaning — upset her, because they always concentrate on the negatives. And the same is true of politicians, when they start fighting with one another: “Why can we not just agree and work together to make this a better country?” Ms. Hodge wondered.

In the case of Judy Hodge, undecided does not mean uninformed. She not only attended the Republican National Convention, but she also taped at least six hours a day of the Democratic National Convention that took place the week before in Denver, Colorado. She is familiar with Republican politics and Republican gatherings because of her husband’s family and the activism of her mother-in-law, but she says she listens to all sides and has been to a rally of Sen. Obama’s during the primaries.

Her political philosophy truly is a combination of conservative and liberal ideals. According to Ms. Hodge, the White House and Congress exist to protect the citizens of America from outside attacks. Also, the Federal Government must guarantee the right of all individuals to make a better life for themselves and for their family. While upholding beliefs that are traditionally associated with the American right, Ms. Hodge is also a working woman, with a high-profile career in the insurance and finance industries, and one who was never able to have children because she “was working eighty hours a week.” Not surprisingly, she shows admiration for strong women, including Hillary Clinton, whom she would have preferred as the Democratic nominee. Ms. Hodge is staunchly pro-choice and she told me that “the body of a woman is the woman’s property and the government should have no say in what she chooses to do with it.” Then she added: “I don’t like the religious right.” And yet, Judy Hodge is very pleased with John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate and she believes that Palin’s pro-life convictions are only a personal matter and not a political stance.

Ms. Hodge holds a similar mixed approach to climate change. While acknowledging that human activities might be contributing to global warming, she does not like some of the exaggerations that she says she hears from the media and the Democrats. “They say that the polar bears are at risk of extinction, but that is also a matter of natural conditions. There are only so many seals that they can eat,” Ms. Hodge said. As a result, although deeming the protection of the environment an important issue, she agrees that the US should start drilling at home to address rising gas prices.

After quitting her job in the financial services industry a few years ago, Judy Hodge started a business – a travel agency– and she must now pay for her own health insurance — about $11,000 a year plus some other out-of-pocket expenses. She does not seem to mind: “If I’m sick, I’m willing to pay to get better.” For all those that might not have the money to afford private health insurance, Ms. Hodge thinks we should rely on charity and people’s generosity. “It’s always a matter of people helping other people, of compassion between human beings,” Ms. Hodge told me and listed a number of medical establishments in Dallas that offer free consultations to the poor thanks to the philanthropy of the rich. The government should be careful in dispensing economic aid, because it could be distracted from more important matters such as protecting America’s national security, and because if we give too much to those who don’t have a job, then they won’t have any incentive to start working again: “If you invite me to eat for free at an all-you-can-eat everyday, then I will stop cooking,” Ms. Hodge said.

Finally, Judy Hodge doesn’t hide her real devotion to the US armed forces. When she is in Dallas, she regularly goes to the airport to welcome the troops that are coming back from Iraq. In our interview, she lamented the fact that ever since the Vietnam War – which Ms. Hodge opposed – the military has not received the respect that it used to at the time of World War II. Ms. Hodge told me she likes Al Gore, but that she was happy that when the terrorist attacks of September 11^th unfolded, it was George Bush and not him at the White House, since Gore had never served. The same is true for this year’s election. In such a delicate international environment, “from just the standpoint of ‘Commander in Chief’ McCain might be better than Obama.”

Born in a Democratic household but married to an ultra-conservative man, Judy Hodge swears that she will not make a decision on who to vote for until she goes to the polls on November 4^th.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Minneapolis, MN – “Any new enlightened American policy towards Iran should begin with a deeper understanding of the complex legal and political structure of the Islamic Republic,” John Vafai, a delegate to the Republican National Convention from District I of New York, told me Wednesday afternoon. “The Bush Administration did not understand the situation well and they approached Iran exclusively through the lenses of a Western perspective,” continued the legal scholar referring to the emphasis Washington places on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

John Changiz Vafai is a graduate of Teheran University School of Law, Yale Law School and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He left Iran after the Islamic Revolution, at a time when he was a Professor of Law at Teheran University. He’s been an academic, and alternated that with private practice, in Honolulu, New York, Moscow, and Baku in his native Azerbaijan. Today, Mr. Vafai lives in New York and has a private law firm advising Americans who want to start businesses in the former Soviet Union. He has been active within the Republican Party for a few years, and in 2004, he was part of a team of lawyers the GOP dispatched to Ohio to oversee voting procedures and prevent frauds.

During the interview, Mr. Vafai emphasized the need to understand the dual and parallel structure of the Iranian government, where religious institutions control — from behind the scenes — their secular counterparts. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic, which Mr. Vafai contributed to translating into English, “asserts that the sovereignty of the Republic is derived from God and not from the people, as is the case with the majority of the world’s democracies,” Mr. Vafai said, outlining how secular institutions such as the Presidency and the Parliament must abide by the principles of Islam as set forth by the religious leadership. “The President and the Representatives to the Parliament are elected by the people, but only those who have been previously vetted by the clergy are allowed to run for office,” John Vafai said.

Understanding the multiplicity of sources of power and the limited influence held by the office of the Presidency is a first step to more sound policies towards Teheran: “First and foremost, Washington needs to understand that policy announcements coming from Iran don’t always come from the same compact block, but that there are instead different factions vying for power, from the more liberal to the more conservative,” Mr. Vafai explained. This would allow leaders in the United States to target those groups with which dialogue is possible.

Vafai is also convinced that America must tap into that large reservoir of young, educated Iranians who are disillusioned with the system and disappointed at the economic performance of the Islamic Republic, where growth is stagnant and inflation is rampant.

Because of the tremendous opportunity to reach out to those Iranian constituencies that would welcome a dialogue with the US, Mr. Vafai believes that a military strike, whether a direct one, or one using a proxy such as Israel, would be a terrible mistake. “It would galvanize Iranians to rally behind the regime, which they might not like right now,” he told me. The possibility that Israel might attack first represents an even worse scenario because it would trigger a reaction from the Arab world at large.

Finally, whether or not one agrees with the use of hard power, a successful attack would have to be a perfect strike taking out all Iranian military infrastructures in one go, “but there isn’t such a thing as a perfect strike,” said Vafai.

According to him, a military attack on Iran would also hamper the progress made in Iraq, because Iran could meddle even more in Iraq’s affairs, and Baghdad could potentially be lost to Tehran. On the other hand, if Iraq is given the time to stabilize as a democracy it will most likely not be friendly to the regime in Teheran.

There is little doubt that John Vafai prefers the use of soft power as a means to engage with people in Iran and hopes for a pro-democracy movement from within. Only pursuing a peaceful strategy and by educating a new friendly generation of Iranian leaders could the US tackle the nuclear issue. “My suggestion would be to establish international organizations within Iran to help educate young people,” Mr. Vafai said, mentioning that he already made contacts with American higher education institutions with the idea of creating partner centers in Iran. “If the project is neutral, I don’t think Teheran would have objections,” he believes.

His philosophy is to engage the private sector to foster people-to-people relations, leaving out open government intervention that could anger the Islamic Republic. “It will take time, but the impact will be solid,” Mr. Vafai believes, “but this takes serious and regular communication; we can’t just expect to sit down with a couple of religious leaders and strike a deal, that won’t happen.”

John Vafai is a supporter of John McCain and has informally advised the campaign on Iran: “I think John McCain is not a typically conservative Republican and would pursue independent policies both in the realm of the economy and in foreign policy, using different advisors to those who worked in the Bush Administration.” Of the comment John McCain made about bombing Iran, Vafai says the Republican candidate to the White House was completely misunderstood. About Barack Obama, Mr. Vafai thinks his platform on Iran has two faces — a campaign face and one that we will see only if he is elected. “Obama is saying now that he has no fear of negotiations but if he becomes President he will face all of the complexities of the structure of Iranian power.”

Instead, relying on a new and better circle of advisors, McCain will be able to take a fresh look at the standoff.

The official campaign position on Iran is not as clear-cut and as diplomacy-oriented as John Vafai seems to believe. At a news conference held on Wednesday evening at the Excel Energy Center, McCain’s Deputy Foreign Policy Advisor Kori Schake told the foreign press that President McCain “would be delighted if Teheran accepted the most recent offer made by our friends the Europeans.”

However, she added, “an Iran with nuclear weapons would be an unacceptable threat to the United States, and I will not say more than this.”

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Saint Paul, MN – For the delegates to the Republican National Convention Russia, Iran and Iraq rank top among their foreign policy concerns, followed by energy independence and Afghanistan. There is little agreement however on how to pursue policies on those issues. Disagreements are even more pronounced on the topic of dealing with Iran, some citing a preference towards diplomacy and some towards the use of force.

“I would back the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear power, even in the short-term,” says Dennis Buchholtz from Warren, Michigan, delegate and Chair of the 12^th Congressional District for the GOP. “I’m afraid that if we wait too long and Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel will be first and we don’t know who will be next.”

Mr. Buchholtz appreciates the fact that John McCain is an advocate for a strong military while believing that Obama wants disarmament: “We wouldn’t have won the Cold War had we disarmed; you can never defeat an enemy if you look weak.”

State Senator Karen Brownlee from Kansas does not express the same propensity toward the use of force: “We must be very vigilant, we have a pretty good sense that Iran has nuclear weapons,” she says, “but I wouldn’t want to see a military attack,” Sen. Brownlee believes, although admitting that there might come a time when the US “will have to put its foot down.”

“I’m worried about Iran and I would hate to see them with nuclear weapons” says Amy Borden from Georgia. “I agree that all options must be on the table, but the emphasis should be on diplomacy now,” Ms. Borden thinks.

“Unfortunately there are some people who want to do harm to freedom-loving people,” Arlene Krings, an interior designer from Kansas, tells me. “Honestly I don’t trust their leader, he has already threatened to flatten Israel and wants to make everybody else hostage,” Ms. Krings says referring to Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only reason why Iran has not yet been attacked, according to Ms. Krings, is that the US recognizes that there are freedom-loving people inside Iran as well and it wants to help them organize: “It’s a matter of time, however. If you negotiate and the people you negotiate with only want to eat you for lunch, then you have to change approach.”

There is complete agreement again when delegates are asked to assess the performance of George W. Bush in the foreign policy arena. “He did an excellent job,” Arlene Krings believes, “If anything, he waited too long to go into Iraq since we knew of their bad intentions, that they were shielding Al Qaeda terrorists and that they had nuclear weapons that then got moved to Syria.” Amy Borden is also pleased with Bush’s job as the Commander in Chief: “It has been seven years since September 11 and we haven’t had any other terrorist attack.”

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism