One can find examples of this everywhere, but in keeping this relevant to the war you could look at the Reagan Administrations funding of the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion, and their subsequent "abandonment" of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. The short term-goal was to cause problems for the Soviets, which we did. No thought was given to what affect arming rag-tag militias might have on the long-term, and when the Soviets left, no thought was given on what was to become of Afghanistan. Where there are no short-term gains, it seems America is reluctant to act.
Even in the present decade, the focus of Iraq and the under-focus on Afghanistan by Donald Rumsfeld showed extreme short-sightedness. Going beyond the scope of this discussion, alternative energy, investment in scientific research and development, improving education and many other issues with great potential for enormous gains over the long-term are often pushed aside for the more expedient ones. The private sector understands the long-term, the government seems to not. That's really not that surprising though.
When a President, or Congressman enters office, one of the things that must constantly be on their mind is to do all they can to help ensure their re-elected in the next four or two years. From the moment they step into their position they are in a short-sighted mindset. This is an inherent feature of the way our government works, and it certainly is major oversight, in my opinion, by the architects of our country. From an economists point of view, there is almost no motivation for a President or Congressman to support a policy or legislation which does not have any short term gains, or worse yet may have short term losses, despite how great the gains may be in the long-run. Apart from running the country, Congress and the President must also constantly be nurturing their careers, and that means focusing on public opinion now not thirty years from now when, with clarity of hindsight, people may look back fondly on their foresight.
I really don't believe that the American government is stupid, and if I can reason about the long-term than so can they. They do, however, have to make conscious choices about not only how their decision affect the country, but how they affect their own careers. For example, suppose Bush was able to see that invading Afghanistan may result in a huge mess (this is, however, extremely unlikely although I'm sure people around him did) ten years down the road. A man who is only motivated by the interests of the country might reassure his people, who are calling for blood, and attempt to convey the difficulties involved, despite the enormous criticism he may receive. A man motivated by self-interest, however, would see this as an opportunity to show himself as a strong leader and gain large popular support, despite the damage is may cause after he's long gone from office.
This is a problem to me. It's not a problem with the people in government - it is only human nature to want to preserve your own interests - but it is a problem with the structure of the government its self. I suppose the idea originally was prevent the emergence of monarchies and rule by succession that had dominated Europe for hundreds of years, but these things are almost entirely a thing of the past in western society. Is it reasonable to assume that a system which was designed to address the problems of the 18th century will remain adequate for the modern world? I don't think so, and I would propose modifying the way we think about terms and election to address the weaknesses that are beginning to show themselves as the world around us changes.
I would propose eliminating consecutive terms, and merging a president's term to a single term of eight (or possibly ten) years, with no chance for re-election. This really has no disadvantage over the current system (except for keeping bad presidents in power longer, but it seems that two consecutive terms is a growing trend, regardless of actual performance). This at least liberates the President from having to worry about his immediate political future and perhaps some incentive to take political risks which may pay off in the long run. I would propose the same sort of idea for congress as well.
It may be naive to assume that this would have any real effect, and I'm certainly not claiming that my simple suggestion is all it would take or is the only possible solution, but what I am firmly saying is I feel that this is a real issue in American politics, and one which seems to be responsible for many of crisis we face in the coming years (terrorism, climate change, oil and energy, our technological superiority, and the list goes on...), and a blatant example now of the failure of foresight is Afghanistan. The lessons of history are there to be heeded or ignored, and I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail.
No comments:
Post a Comment