Election 2004

[-=VAHE=-]

Azat, did you read the stuff writen about Moore? They have brought him into the mud. They have even writen at least a book about him. "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man." A documentary about him titled: "Michael Moore Hates America." This kind of behavour remind me the Turkish mass mentality, where people call those criticising the nation as those hating it. On the web site of the documentary you read: "A documentary that tells the Truth about a Great Nation."

 

You won't see that sort of things done against any producers here in Canada, or even Europe. This kind of mentality is against freedom of speech... intimidating someone like this and even making fun of his physical appearance, attacking him under the belt just because he criticise the system. They slander anti-Bushists in the worst way possible.

 

This brings me to the conclusion that I will NEVER EVER vote for the Conservative party here in Canada.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

 

Have you seen Moores work and seen his lies and distortment of the truth. Stuff like that should be put down by atleast someone. You don't live in the U.S. and do not see what is said. All the liberal media does is protect Moore and I'm glad there someone to stand up to him because Moore is a bully. If Moore really had it his way then he could'nt live in the condition he does now.

[vava]

--

 

 

Regarding perpetual deficit and a ever-growing national debt:

 

As you've pointed out MJ, operating under a deficit is perfectly acceptable and even beneficial when undertaking additional debt for specific short/medium term goals - revenue growth, productivity increase, employment creation etc... however when the deficits continually add up, and the managability of long term debt seems to take a back seat - this is a cause for concern. Eventually some of that debt has to be paid back , a task that becomes more difiicult as the ratio of debt interest payments to GDP increases. At some point a steady run of surpluses are needed to bring the debt back into check - and often the surplus is at the expense the social programs, taxpayers.

 

I'm not an economist. In all honesty I don't really understand how the macro-economic model that currently exists in western capitalist socities can be sustainable in the long term - it seems that we've trapped ourselves in a system that requires continuous growth of the economy to preserve itself. We depend on growth to pay ourselves out of debt. When the rate of growth slows, it's termed a 'downturn'. What happens when the economy stops growing completely?ç

 

oh, and btw - i've never been called a 'hard-core'-anything before I guess I must be somewhat of a lefty then?

Edited November 6, 2004 by vava

[DominO123]

Have you seen Moores work and seen his lies and distortment of the truth. Stuff like that should be put down by atleast someone. You don't live in the U.S. and do not see what is said. All the liberal media does is protect Moore and I'm glad there someone to stand up to him because Moore is a bully. If Moore really had it his way then he could'nt live in the condition he does now.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I've seen the movie I think you refer to, I even posted my review of it... and I've read his answers to those accusing him... and that make sense for someone having entirly lied about those things.

 

But my point was not about the content of the work... My point was about the way he was attacked.

[MJ]

Vava, to continue, as to your arguments regarding the economic issues, I agree with you as a matter of theoretical argument. However, there is no evidence that it applies to the current circumstances. Furthermore, there is a contrary empirical evidence.

 

You don’t have to be an economist to understand the economic paradigm you have brought up. You have to just understand the concept of infinity. National debt is an important device of market organization. Each year, or more frequently, the government issues so-called zero-coupon bonds, which have an extremely important role, without which the markets cannot operate on the current capacity.

 

As to my “hard-core” comment, first, it meant to be a joke, second, you are a hard-core lefty.

[gamavor]

Azat, did you read the stuff writen about Moore? They have brought him into the mud. They have even writen at least a book about him. "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man." A documentary about him titled: "Michael Moore Hates America." This kind of behavour remind me the Turkish mass mentality, where people call those criticising the nation as those hating it. On the web site of the documentary you read: "A documentary that tells the Truth about a Great Nation."

 

Domino, they should be called neo-communists. True conservatism has nothing to do with peasant provincial mentality, which has become a political norm in USA.

If you follow American politics closely you will notice that many prominent Republicans feel disdain and embarrassment of Bush's administration.

 

The circle that supports Bush are arrogant and aggressive minority (plus FoX TV) within the Republican party with large wallets who care only for their personal well-being. Unfortunately the American democracy is designed in a way that ameba minded people like Bushy can reach the top, while much more knowledgeable and experienced leaders (McCain comes to mind) are put down for petite reasons.

[skhara]

....while much more knowledgeable and experienced leaders (McCain comes to mind) are put down for petite reasons.

 

McCain? McCain is completely insane. The North Vietnamese probably f**ked with his mind or something. If he became president and actually got to do the things that he proposed, Russia may have no choice but to engage in a nuclear conflict. McCain is a real bastard anyway. Fact is they all are a bunch of Jew-controlled pupets. Those who aren't, don't get to debate. God forbid anyone decent would get a word out to the sheeple, it may cause a moral revolution.

[gamavor]

Well, in a country that prides itself with aggresive war, thousands of miles away of her borders, hardly you be able to find a decent candidate.

 

Too bad they don't have anyone like Chocholina. I would have vote for her. At least she was world wide recognized offical prostitute.

[vava]

Canada Reports Increase in Immigration!

 

[Anileve]

Ok, I can't find "Election 2004" for some reason, so I'll post it here since this seems to be a Bush conspiracy thread.

 

Did any of you wonder what ever happened with Ohio and that certain de javu we call "A Decisive-State hold-up"? Well I did, and you bet your cotton knickers I looked into it. Guess what I found? The articles are a bit long but definitely worth looking into. I am all for technology advancement but I do believe that not everything must be replaced with machines until they are perfected if even... So in order for the public not to suspect something fishy about a lack of agreement between the popular votes and electoral the second time around a whole new plan must have been devised. One which is very difficult to detect, Americans haven't had a voting problem for centuries, all of a sudden two elections in a row there is a huge discrepancy, that alone makes a person wonder. Ok, enough of this rant, let's proceed with the articles.

 

First we have this...

 

May 13, 2003

 

DIEBOLD’S TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING SYSTEM A SUCCESS IN LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO

 

NORTH CANTON, Ohio - Diebold, Incorporated (NYSE: DBD) today announced that voters in Lorain County, Ohio, successfully used Diebold Election Systems’ proven AccuVote-TSTM touch-screen voting systems to cast ballots in primary races for mayor, council seats and two ballot issues.  Lorain County election officials evaluated Diebold Election System’s election software and hardware in their search for a comprehensive solution to replace the county’s current punch card system with technology that meets the requirements of the new Help America Vote Act.

 

The Lorain County elections board decided to manually transport results from each precinct instead of utilizing the system’s capability to transmit results over a standard telephone network via modem, which allows for even faster retrieval of results.  The Diebold touch-screen system used in Lorain County, located just west of Cleveland, also has been successfully deployed in many Ohio elections, and in more than 5,100 precincts across the country during the November 2002 gubernatorial election, when more than 33,000 Diebold touch-screen voting systems securely captured ballots from millions of voters.

 

http://www.diebold.com/news/newsdisp.asp?id=2961

 

Then we have...

 

The Trouble With E-Ballots

It's a culture clash between the election world, which prizes reliability, and computer scientists, who obsess over security

By Steven Levy

Newsweek

 

June 28 issue - It's now official: Walden O'Dell is no longer raising funds for George W. Bush. Why should you care? That was Walden O'Dell's attitude last year, when he promised, in his role as rainmaker for Ohio's presidential re-election campaign, to deliver the state to the incumbent. To his surprise, he learned that lots of people did indeed care—once they realized that his day job was running Diebold, a company that makes electronic-voting devices used by millions of voters. So it was prudent for Diebold to adopt a new policy that banned its executives from outside political work, adopted months ago but formally announced just recently.

 

*******

So Diebold bought one of the pioneering companies in the field, and now its elections division is the leader among several firms selling touch-screen devices. It won contracts to supply all of Georgia and Maryland. O'Dell has a stack of documents and video testimonials attesting to the successful elections conducted by his machines (he didn't mention the March 2 debacle in California, where many polls opened late because the devices wouldn't boot correctly).

******

A less rosy perspective emerged last year after a report by Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who got hold of Diebold voting-machine code that was unintentionally exposed on the Internet. He found that the security in the machines was "amateurish" and easily hackable. His findings bolstered the contentions of a growing movement, spearheaded by computer scientists, that the machines are "black boxes" providing no assurance that the vote cast is the one reported, and could in theory be manipulated to swipe an election with total stealth. A "recount" in that case would rely on the same software that secretly swiped the votes to begin with, and simply verify the theft.

**********

But the certification process, says California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, is "very deficient." He charges that the companies hired to examine the software have a conflict of interest, as they work for the manufacturers. (Shelley, believing that Diebold misled the state during the process, has asked the attorney general to look into possible civil and criminal penalties. Diebold denies misconduct.) In any case, computer scientists like Rubin believe that the companies poring over the code would probably fail to discover any well-written secret subroutines that could steal votes.

O'Dell claims to be "agnostic" on the necessity of providing voters with evidence that their choices are the ones reflected in the count. But the possibility that a future president can attain office mounted on a Trojan horse isn't a philosophical issue: it's a threat to democracy. It's nice to know that Wally O'Dell is no longer working to elect one candidate in particular. It would be even nicer to know, beyond any doubt, that his voting machines weren't, either.

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5251284/site/newsweek/

 

Notice the dates, this was prior to this nail biting election.

 

And finally we have this...

 

Hagel’s financial interest in a voting machine company is a minor issue compared to the connection between President Bush and Diebold Inc. of Canton, Ohio. Diebold is one of the largest manufacturers of voting machines in the country. In a 2003 fund raising letter, Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell felt comfortable in declaring his commitment to “…helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president next year." Public response to the letter chastened Mr. O’Dell  into  pleading ignorance and naiveté. A man who is among the “Pioneers and Rangers” who raise contributions of at least six figures for the Republican party now calls himself a political novice. However, O’Dell was not so chastened that he withdrew his company from consideration for Ohio voting machine contracts.

 

Democrats want election machine firm thrown out

Ohio Legislature

 

By LEO SHANE III

NH Columbus Bureau

 

COLUMBUS -- Democratic leaders want a major Republican fund-raiser blocked from becoming the state's new voting machines supplier, saying his presence puts in doubt the fairness of all Ohio elections.

 

Wally O'Dell, CEO of Diebold Inc., this week sent out letters to central Ohio Republicans asking them to raise $10,000 in donations in time for a Sept. 26 Ohio Republican Party event at his home.

 

His company, which specializes in security and election machinery, is one of three under consideration to supply new, electronic voting machines to replace punch card machines still in use in 71 Ohio counties.

 

http://www.blackcommentator.com/82/82_free...er_vote_pf.html

 

http://blackboxvoting.com/

 

Can you blame me for being suspicious? This has a foul smell of the Watergate.

[Armen]

Eve, this whole stuff you posted is irrelevant. Consider your notion of excess need of humans (greed) and everything will fall in its place. When they say that some day machines are going to take over it is exacly this case. The machine (U.S. electoral system) won over a considerable amount of humans because of the excess need of another half of humans. Edited November 7, 2004 by Armen

[vava]

Note: this topic was taken off-line for clean up. Please try and keep your comments relevant to the subject at hand. Thank you.

[DominO123]

http://hnn.us/articles/1811.html

[MosJan]

so whats next ~ who will be the next in 2008

 

i say ~75% - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://clinton.senate.gov/images/official_portrait_10_02.jpg

 

America will be ready for a change after bushig is don in 4 years - thats if he can stay in office for 4 years

[Harut]

Movses, stop your predictions already...

a few years ago, you said our next governor is going to be Arnold, and he was.

you said kocharian is going to be reelected, and so he was.

you said bush will be reelected, and so he was.

now this...

[MosJan]

HArout you forgat VAno Sirateghyan

remember him ??

 

i was 100% on that one - and yes he is oen of teh top ARmenians - in interpol's web page

 

 

HArout jan i liek to see Hillary saying to Billyy -

Whooooossss your Daddyyyyyyy Now / whos yoru prezident - you liek a cigar ???

 

ya en billy will be dad by year 2050

[shiner]

P.S.  I consider all these conversation on the religious right or “hicks” delivering victory to Bush to be garbage.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

It is true that "hicks" vote republican.

 

But by that theory who votes democrat? You could say the really poor, immigrants who have not integrated themselves in the society they live in, poor minorities, the young (and relatively immature), educated idealogues and socialist elitists (who seem completely out of touch with reality as they preach philosophical bull).

 

So that profile is not necessarily better.

[15levels]

Dear Friends, Ok, it sucks. Really sucks. But before you go and cash it all in, let's, in the words of Monty Python, “always look on the bright side of life!” There IS some good news from Tuesday's election. Here are 17 reasons not to slit your wrists: 1. It is against the law for George W. Bush to run for president again. 2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. 3. The only age group in which the majority voted for Kerry was young adults (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always wrong and you should never listen to them. 4. In spite of Bush's win, the majority of Americans still think the country is headed in the wrong direction (56%), think the war wasn't worth fighting (51%), and don’t approve of the job George W. Bush is doing (52%). (Note to foreigners: Don't try to figure this one out. It's an American thing, like Pop Tarts.) 5. The Republicans will not have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues. Did I say "if the Democrats do their job?" Um, maybe better to scratch this one. 6. Michigan voted for Kerry! So did the entire Northeast, the birthplace of our democracy. So did 6 of the 8 Great Lakes States. And the whole West Coast! Plus Hawaii. Ok, that's a start. We've got most of the fresh water, all of Broadway, and Mt. St. Helens. We can dehydrate them or bury them in lava. And no more show tunes! 7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut. May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan. 8. 88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn't such a long time! If you're ten years old and reading this, your golden years will be truly golden and you will be well cared for in your old age. 9. Gays, thanks to the ballot measures passed on Tuesday, cannot get married in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't have to buy now. 10. Five more African Americans were elected as members of Congress, including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates can't. 11. The CEO of Coors was defeated for Senate in Colorado. Drink up! 12. Admit it: We like the Bush twins and we don't want them to go away. 13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least 3 chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided. 14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out -- and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th grade -- you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his point, avenged his father and kicked our ass. 15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or He will become so cocky and arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office. 16. There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go home crying -- especially when you get to start the next down on the three yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are coming!!! 17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008. Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a wonderful country -- it doesn't even need a president!'" But it needs us. Rest up, I'll write you again tomorrow.

 

Yours, Michael Moore

[Azat]

blah blah blah

 

its this attitude that will hurt us in the future. Hope Democrats dont fall in this trap again and the party reorganizes, realizes who the core are and what needs to be dont to bring back the swing voters.

[Anonymouse]

Again, true as an isolated statement.  But the US has been running large deficits for many years, and appears set to run much more of the same in the coming decades.  At some point, as it already started to happen, its currency would devalue and even China and Japan cannot buy enough of it to keep it afloat.  Then, in order to keep financing its deficit and to attract foreign investment, the interest rates would have to go up to a level that would more than wipe out any stimulant effect of the loose monetary policy of the preceding decades.  America has gotten away with fiscal "sins" that no other country could have because of its "special" status, prestige, and the world's disbelief that it could ever go bankrupt.  Once that assumption is shaken (which is bound to happen at currrent course), the shock to its economy and society would be unbearable.  While it would be nice to be confident that our offspring will be living in Yerevan when that happens, we know that that's unlikely and that they will bear the burden of today's thoughtless policies.

 

Very perceptive and lucid post. Such insights are very rare and show a knowledge of economics. As Paul Hein stated:

 

Political silence notwithstanding, an issue of overwhelming importance is the question of who will issue the world’s "money." We have seen a dozen European countries abandon their own currencies in favor of a single one. Others appear anxious to join the European Union, and use its scrip. For the time being, however, most oil is being sold for dollars. So what?

 

Modern money is not something that is out there, waiting to be harvested, and available to anyone willing to do the work. On the contrary, it is a fictional entity, represented by numbers (credit) created from thin air by the issuing banks – and no one else. You spend your working life to obtain what these fortunate individuals get for nothing; and which they can stop issuing, or issue in great abundance, without any accountability to you, although you will be profoundly affected by their actions. For example, during a recent visit to Spain, we were impressed by the significantly higher prices for food since our previous visit two years ago. The euro-creators have evidently decided on a policy of inflation. If Spaniards are unhappy about it – tough!

 

Yes, the Spanish currency was fiat prior to the euro, and its managers could inflate it, too. But if they did so, the peseta would weaken vis-à-vis the mark or the franc, and large segments of the population might be adversely affected by that, and complain to the authorities, who could, if it suited them, do something about it. But when the currency of not only Spain, but also Germany, France, and nine other countries is being inflated simultaneously, to whom does one turn? It’s just a natural, unfortunate phenomenon, like bad weather. The situation is similar to that which obtained in this country prior to the Federal Reserve: private banks could issue their own notes, some of which were "good," or "strong," while others were "weak," or "bad." The Fed eliminated these pesky variations by making ALL currency equally bad, or good, depending on your point of view.

 

Anselm Rothschild said it first: "Give me the power to issue a nation’s money; then I do not care who makes the laws." Of course! Those who issue a nation’s money own its government; the laws do not apply to them. Today the question is: who is going to issue the world’s money, and thus rule the world? A good question indeed. You won’t hear it asked at any political debate. Some questions are best dealt with, not by circumlocution, but no locution at all.

[Armen]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/05/opi...dkissinger.html

 

Henry Kissinger: Now, back to defining a new world order

By Henry A. Kissinger AFX

Saturday, November 6, 2004

 

 

The election campaign that has mesmerized America - and the world - is over. What remains are the challenges that gave rise to this occasionally frenzied battle and the responsibility of dealing with them.

 

No president has faced an agenda of comparable scope. This is not hyperbole; it is the hand history has dealt this generation. Never before has it been necessary to conduct a war with neither front lines nor geographic definition and, at the same time, to rebuild fundamental principles of world order to replace the traditional ones that went up in the smoke of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

 

George W. Bush will have to lead an effort to define and then maintain an international system that reflects the new, revolutionary circumstances.

 

 

 

I supported Bush during the campaign. But the United States cannot tackle this agenda except in the context of a commitment by all sides to healing. All concerned with the future must find ways to cooperate so that the world will again see Americans working toward a common destiny both at home and in the community of nations. It is to such an effort that this article seeks to make a contribution.

 

No issue requires bipartisanship and international cooperation more urgently than the next phase of Iraq policy. If a radical government emerges in Baghdad - because the United States is defeated or tires of solitary exertions, even more if Iraq falls into terrorist chaos - the entire Islamic world will find itself in turmoil.

 

Other nations should find it in their interest to participate at least in the tasks of political and economic reconstruction. There is no shortcut: The restoration of security in Iraq, especially in areas that have become terrorist sanctuaries, is imperative.

 

The first national elections scheduled for the end of January are the next step. They should be viewed not as a culmination but as the first and least complicated stage in the quest for Iraqi self-government.

 

 

 

The country is composed of three major groups: Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, with the Shiites representing about 60 percent of the population and the other two groups about 20 percent each. For 500 years, the Sunnis have dominated by military force and, during Saddam's rule, with extraordinary brutality. Thus national elections, based on majority rule, imply a radical upheaval in the relative power and status of the three communities. The insurgency in the Sunni region is not only a national struggle against America; it is a means to restore political dominance.

 

The January elections in Iraq, therefore, must be regarded as the beginning of an extended contest among the various groups, involving the constant risk of civil war, or of a national struggle against the United States, or both.

 

In the potential cauldron after the January elections, some degree of internationalization is the only realistic path toward stability inside Iraq and sustained domestic support in America. And meaningful internationalization requires a focus other than security, and the participation of countries other than - or in addition to - NATO.

 

This is not an abdication to consensus. The United States, by virtue of its military presence and financial role, would retain the leading position. After the January elections, an international contact group, under UN auspices, to advise on Iraq's political evolution would be desirable. Logical members would be countries that have experience with militant Islam and much to lose by the radicalization of Iraq - countries like India, Turkey, Russia and Algeria, in addition to the United States and Britain.

 

 

 

While militant Islam is the most immediate and obvious challenge to international order, nuclear proliferation is the most long-range and insidious threat to global survival. The international system is now confronted by the imminent spread of nuclear weapons into the hands of two countries with a worrisome agenda: the odd, isolated regime in North Korea, and Iran, whose current regime has supported a variety of terrorist groups in the Middle East and continues to declare America its principal enemy.

 

On North Korea, the issue is whether negotiations should be conducted bilaterally between the United States and North Korea or in the existing six-party forum in Beijing, comprising North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.

 

Each of the parties in talks has special political and strategic objectives in the back of its mind. Thus the technicalities of nonproliferation pale compared with the objective of elaborating a security system for Northeast Asia. A similar analysis could be made in the case of Iran, for which a forum does not yet exist.

 

In any event, the solution cannot be left to bilateral U.S. talks with the proliferators. The insistence on U.S.-North Korean bilateralism would leave America as the sole enforcer of any agreement at the borders of China. And it would invite Pyongyang to use the new agreement for future blackmail - the pattern it followed after the bilateral agreement of 1994. The same applies in a different context to relations with Iran.

 

For all their importance, the regional crises are dwarfed by the fundamental transfer of power within the international system. Historians agree that the emergence of a unified Germany over a century ago unbalanced the European system by introducing a state stronger than each of its neighbors. In our age, the rise of China as a potential superpower is of even greater historical significance, marking as it does a shift in the center of gravity of world affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

 

To be sure, China will not conduct as imprudent a policy as the Soviet Union, which threatened all its neighbors simultaneously and challenged the United States to a contest of survival. The special case of Taiwan aside, it will seek influence commensurate with its growth by diplomatic and political means.

 

Leaders in both Beijing and Washington have a responsibility to help shape the judgments of emerging generations. With respect to China, the priority should be to keep the nationalism that is replacing Communism from taking a confrontational turn. In America, it is to transcend the temptation to view history through the prism of the most recent experience rather than of the long-range view.

 

China and the United States require a permanent strategic dialogue at a high level seeking a common definition of long-range purposes - to make them compatible where possible, and to reduce the dangers of confrontation when that effort fails. They need to keep the Taiwan issue from undermining the relationship.

 

All this brings us back to Atlantic relations. The political campaign has cast Atlantic disagreements in terms of American short-term tactical errors. This is a misreading of reality. The problem goes deeper than personalities.

 

The impasse is partly due to the fact that the generation that formed the Atlantic relationship has passed from the scene.

 

In Europe, the nations that invented the concept of the nation-state are now in the process of seeking to abandon their sovereignty to a European Union not yet possessing the traditional attributes of the state.

 

All this has generated a witch's brew of mutual misunderstandings. These conditions cannot be removed by consultation on any one individual issue, and require a fundamental change of attitude on both sides of the Atlantic. The nations bordering the North Atlantic need to ask themselves the fundamental question that has always underpinned the alliance - that is, what will the allies do for the relationship beyond the international consensus reflected at the United Nations?

 

Much of European debate today implies that the answer is "very little." To subject common military action to prior approval of the Security Council is incompatible with the very concept of alliance, which implies a special set of obligations. It spells the ultimate disintegration of a world order with the Atlantic partnership as its centerpiece.

 

The Atlantic relationship, to be meaningful, needs to have a special character. The United States and Europe should be prepared to do things for each other in the sphere beyond the immediate dictates of national interest and without insisting on universal consensus.

 

A deepening of the dialogue between the two sides of the Atlantic is imperative. should be supplemented by a new approach to the Palestinian-Israeli problem. For decades, the diplomatic stalemate has been deepened because Europe was perceived to champion the Palestinian claims and America the goals of Israel. But new circumstances permit envisaging how the two positions can be brought closer. In this process, the Atlantic alliance could rediscover its common purpose.

 

The debate between unilateralism and multilateralism must be transcended with this perspective in mind. Unilateralism for its own sake is self-defeating. But so is abstract multilateralism.

 

The dilemma of our age was perhaps best summed up by the philosopher Immanuel Kant over 200 years ago. In his essay "Perpetual Peace," he wrote that the world was destined for perpetual peace. It would come about either by human foresight or by a series of catastrophes that leave no other choice. Which it will be is the ultimate question the newly re-elected president will have to face.