Dear Obama, Keep Trade.

Clearly, Barack Obama and his team will face many serious challenges from the start. Accordingly, there's no shortage of advice coming from all corners of academia. An impressive volume of articles and books has been published recently, all written in hopes of nudging the new president in one direction or another. I had the honor of participating in the editing process for one such book due out in February entitled "International Trade: America's Destiny" by Dr. Patrick Mendis. The book explores America's founding and the importance of international trade in its development. Mendis suggests that trade is not only good for America, but for the world. This is not a new argument. What is new, however, is Mendis's multilayered approach. That America should maintain (if not increase) its free trade activity is suggested in the nation's architecture, its constitution, and in the founding fathers' vision for the new nation.

During his campaign, Obama hinted that he would pursue protectionist policies in order to keep jobs in America. Most foreign policy scholars, including Mendis, believe this would be a mistake. This book is a convincing reminder for Obama (and any student of government or economics) that international trade is written into the DNA of America - with good reason.

http://patrickmendis.blogspot.com/

The Problem With Lower Oil Prices

There are several downers about high oil prices. Gas is more expensive and so are groceries. Geopolitically, oil-producing countries - some run by dictators - gain power through wealth acquisition. I can count on one finger the number of reasons why a U.S. president would personally visit Saudi Arabia with hat in hand: to request lower oil prices, as Bush did earlier this year.

Yet, there is a substantial benefit to uncomfortably high oil prices: people begin to change their habits. And now, just when Americans are using more public transportation, when biking suddenly makes sense... just when hybrid and low-emission vehicles are taking off and Detroit is "bolt"ing for electric vehicles - just when we were essentially becoming better stewards of the environment, gas has dropped from over $4 a gallon to about $2 in less than six months. Now, there is a side of me that really likes seeing lower gas prices. I call it the "I-didn't-buy-a-Yaris-to-still-be-paying-$40-to-fill-it-up" side. But lower gas prices inevitably means less desperation among consumers, and subsequently, less openness to alternatives.

Geopolitics aside, expensive oil is necessary if Americans are going to become sufficiently primed for alternative energy. Yes, businesses and entrepreneurs are innovating. A "green" movement has begun, but the general public must get on board. Having to pay more at the pump will push us to embrace these innovations more quickly, both as consumers and as voters. It will force us to make environmentally wise decisions, even if initially we're just trying to save some money.

Fortunately for our wallets, gas is down. Unfortunately for the environment, gas is down.

Back Down To Earth

This week's election of Barack Obama for U.S. president has set off an impressive surge of patriotism and excitement across the country. Even many of his political opponents have acknowledged the immensity of this moment in U.S. history.

But while there is a time and a place for "Obamamania," we must not get carried away. He is, after all, human - and a politician at that. Supporters and critics alike must continue to hold his feet to the fire. Americans should be pragmatic, acknowledging a good decision, regardless of whether it comes from a Democrat or Republican, while at the same time recognizing and pointing out poor choices.

Obama has already made several mistakes in his first three days as president-elect. First, during his acceptance speech, Obama used language that is frighteningly reminiscent of Bush's "us vs. them" worldview that has isolated entire societies. "To those who would tear this world down," Obama said, "we will defeat you." Second, he chose Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff. The Chicago politician is known to be intense and abrasive. This is unlikely to foster the bipartisanship that Obama has promised. Furthermore, Emanuel's overtly pro-Israel position could hinder an already elusive Middle East peace agreement. Finally, Obama made an insensitive remark about Nancy Reagan in his first press conference on Friday. He has since apologized.

As Obama sets out on what, in all fairness, will be an incredibly challenging first term, Americans should exercise mental discipline by maintaining a supportive, yet watchful attitude. If you are a fan of Obama, please know that he would welcome such an approach. In fact, throughout his campaign, Obama was the epitome of discipline. His critiques were typically fair. He remained focused on the big picture and he never got carried away. The result was success. If you voted against him, be fair and productive in your criticisms. Find some common ground while at the same time maintaining a watchdog posture. Republicans will have front-row seats for an important job over the next four years: Holding the Obama administration accountable.

But in fact, it's everyone's job - even those still chanting "Yes we did!"

A Fascinating Election... In the Maldives

With all the media focus in the past months on the U.S. presidential election, one might not know that other countries have recently held elections, too. Canada, for example, re-elected Stephen Harper just weeks ago. And as of yesterday, the Maldives has elected a new president, Mohamed Nasheed.

This details of this election are fascinating. The tiny, rich South Asian country had been ruled by Maumoon Abdul Gayoom for thirty years, the longest such tenure in Asia. Only in recent years, following violent protests, has Gayoom slowly allowed democratic reforms, culminating with this year's election. Not only has the country successfully conducted the first national election in its history (it gained independence from Great Britain in 1965), but it has done so by collecting polling data from inhabitants of over 250 tiny islands.

The initial round of voting three weeks ago ended with Gayoom holding a 15 percent lead over Nasheed (40%-25%), his nearest of five competitors. However, as is the case in many countries (but not the U.S.), a winner is only declared when a candidate has over 50 percent of the vote. In the run-off, Nasheed was declared the winner with 54 percent. Clearly, in both rounds of voting, Maldives citizens expressed a desire for change.

In an interesting twist of justice, Gayoom was defeated by one of his former polital prisoners. Despite the history between the two, there has been no election-related violence since the results were released Tuesday. Democracy, as some define it, can only exist through a peaceful transfer of power. Though time will tell for sure, this tiny island nation seems to have met that important criteria.

What's in the Cabinet?

In his new book, "Where Have All The Leaders Gone?" former auto executive Lee Iacocca recommends that presidential candidates reveal their cabinet choices prior to the election. His argument, and I agree, is that this would help voters gain significant insight into the candidates' leadership styles. Consider what we have learned about McCain and Obama since their vice-presidential choices. Americans have paid attention to these decisions, as reflected in the polls. But we need more to go on. We cannot tell how well the football team will perform based solely on the quarterback and his best wide-receiver.

Yes, the president is the ultimate "decider" in the executive branch, as George W. Bush has said, but he does not exist in a vaccuum. His advisers are appointed experts who influence domestic and foreign policies. They include, among others, the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, and Defense, as well as the Attorney General (and the National Security Adviser, who is not technically a "cabinet" member). These are extrememly powerful individuals, especially with a weak president, such as the current President Bush. Also, though less significant, the cabinet determines presidential succession.

When voters elect a president who has chosen his or her cabinet (at least to begin the term), they have a much clearer idea of what they are getting. Will it be merely a team of "yes men"? Or will it be a diverse group of qualified, free-thinking public servants. Sure, it might be awkward for those chosen by the eventual losing candidate, but that's politics. What's easily more important is that the voting public be as informed as possible about who - specifically who - will be leading their country.

A Solution No One Is Talking About

In last night's presidential debate, the candidates were asked the following question: "What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?" The responses from each candidate were ho-hum. McCain said Americans should "understand that there are some programs that we may have to eliminate," and that's about it. Obama, after criticizing Bush for failing to call upon Americans after 9/11, said something about saving energy and civil service. Neither response inspired me. How can a president ask the people to let go of something without stirring them to action? Give us something specific. Communicate the urgency. Convince us.

And by the way - try this one: Ask us to pay more taxes. Seriously.

Typically, advocating higher taxes would approach political suicide in the midst of a campaign. But honestly, how do we expect to pay for this $700b Wall Street bailout or the $600b Iraq War, or even pay off our $10 trillion national debt? Taxes. Sorry, but that's where we are. I'm not suggesting a sharp tax increase. But it's ridiculous for candidates to promise tax breaks at a time like this! Look, few people actually enjoy paying taxes. But isn't it a necessary patriotic duty? How else would we pay for our public welfare: education, defense and research?

Taxation: it's the best solution no one is talking about.

Pointing fingers about who's to blame for the economic hole we are in does little to solve our current problem. We need to collectively dig ourselves out. Let's get to work. To do this, we need our next president, whoever it may be, to inspire Americans to step up - not unlike FDR did in his fireside chats during the Depression. We need our leadership to help us shed our hubris, convince us that our sacrifice is patriotic, and reassure us that our government will honor our sacrifice with fiscal stewardship. What sacrifices is this generation of Americans capable of? Who knows? No one has asked us yet.

Bolivia: Morales' Prerogative

The United States has spent a reported $125 million dollars to back a secessionist movement in the eastern provinces of democratic Bolivia. The U.S. has an ugly history of meddling in the affairs of Central and South American countries (though typically through covert CIA operations). So, given this history, Morales is justified in expelling Ambassador Goldberg as part of his plan to unite the country - especially if he believes Goldberg is instigating separatism. The situation is tense. While the wealthy, white eastern Bolivians seek autonomy - and exclusive rights to the natural gas revenues - Morales is advocating for a united Bolivia with wealth redistribution to lift up the poor indigenous population in the west. If those in the east were seeking to secede out of oppression, that would be one thing. But they are merely attempting to hoard their natural gas at the expense of their countrymen - and with the help of the U.S. But Morales will have none of it - nor should he.