The New Year, for most of us, brings thoughts of hope and prosperity. In this New Year, the United States citizen can feel very good about the new international role that has been carved out using real politik strategies instead of left wing (liberal) denial strategies about the condition of the world. Even our poor Governor Richardson (NM) suffers from this liberal malady and cannot seem to understand international relations even as he tries to tell us how to manage North Korea or the Middle East or even Mexico.

What must be remembered in all that we do internationally is that power is the mechanism by which states compete with each other. United States citizens do not like to hear this fact because we have been so imbued with the ideas that have emanated from liberalism which clearly provoke in us a view of the world that is rather idyllic and one where everyone is rationale. What is needed in order to rectify the world internationally, according to liberals, is simply to create a world of good states and ignore power because it does not exist. This group also believes that by unleashing economic order there will be tranquility throughout the world. As we can see, even democracies can fight among themselves for power. Rules (international legalisms) for conduct guide the states toward cooperation in the idyllic world of the liberal. This is not to say that the rule of law between nations is not a good thing, but that most states ignore the rules when it is convenient to do so, including France and Germany, for example. Since the United Nations has become a weak sister with respect to the rule of law between nations, there is little hope for an outside agency to assist nations in keeping the rule of law consistent.

The realists (real politik) are quite different. Creating a peaceful world is desirable only after we are able to escape the world of competition and insecurity that exists between states. States are the key actors in the realist view of international relations as is the case with liberals, but the analysis from each is quite different. States cause deadly wars to garner power and to seek security. States compete and are always including relative power in their calculus and thinking in international relations. Security-competition is the core around which power is measured among realists. (Morganthau and Waltz, 1948 and 1979 respectively). Realists ask questions like “Who is the governing authority over great powers?” That is why when there is a weak United Nations, states seek their own economic and political security by moving to action. States want to survive and that is why they seek power, and through it, security. According to the realists in international relations, it is the external environment that creates the conditions in international relations with which states must manage their international affairs, not the internal ones as predicted by the theories of the liberal left. As Mearsheimer (2001) has pointed out, “What money is to economics, power is to international relations.”

In this new year of 2004, we will witness the playing out of these two themes in international relations. Former President, Jimmy Carter believes in the liberal point of view as do many of the Democratic Party presidential hopefuls. It is understandable that many United States citizens find the message about liberal international relations appealing. The United States, as collective body sees itself as morally sound and optimistic about the world and our international conditions. Accepting realism is difficult for many because the liberal values are strong at home in our lives. Realism, after all, seems quite pessimistic and without much hope and optimism, doesn’t it? Over time, rationale thought and cooperation will win out over competition and security issues, right?...Wrong, dead wrong. What is the truth in our international relations is that our nation says one thing on the surface, moralistic-legalistic arguments from liberals, but deep in the core of our international work are the actions of the realists who guard our security and power status. The latter diplomatic professionals are the real heroes in our state department and government when they exist.

What we are witnessing today is the acting out of the good (hope) and evil (pessimism) themes. In past history, the Soviet Union was the “Evil Empire” and the U.S. was the good guy with all their capitalism and economic growth. Saddam Hussein is the evil-doer while the U.S. remains the good nation, but now we have a caveat to all this thinking. If that is the case, then why has the international community begun to turn on the U.S. in our effort to rid the world of terrorists, and evil doers like Saddam and Osama? Why indeed? In a recent interview, Daniel Pipes suggests the following:

“I see militant Islam as a true successor of the fascist and communist movements, not just in its totalitarian methods but also in its cosmic goals. There is no way to accommodate any of these ideologies; they will either destroy the civilized world or be destroyed by it. As Abraham Lincoln put it in 1838, "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher."

The serious terrorist challenge that is being attempted by the radical militant Islamic groups is like a bunch of squealing pigs trying to garner milk from the mother. Radical Islam’s own authoritarian religious world has caught up with the modern world and where the two meet, the comparison of one with the other leaves the authoritarians not liking what they see. So they fight, seeking power and security for their own religious, cultural and political convictions. The radicals seek chaos in the world so that their authoritarian and facist views will prevail. Should the U.S. international policy be one where we seek to just talk it out with them, like some of our liberal presidential candidates would have us believe or should our policy be a realist’s approach where we say to them, “no more”…you will not prevail in this fight for power and security as radicals for terrorism!

Europeans see the U.S. international realist policy as much too exceptional to world politics, but only because they see themselves as the new emerging power via the European Union (E.U.). Why would they want the U.S. to have power when they seek hegemonic power themselves? As a result, France and Germany are also like the squealing little pigs seeking the mother’s milk. What is interesting to observe is the new power politics being manifested by the newer nations in the E.U who have clearly thrown in the towel on the side of the U.S. position. This is the optimistic future that is the realist’s position in international relations. These new emerging alliances are exciting for the New Year and promise to offer real hope and optimism in 2004, despite the difficult times still ahead. More than 54 countries see this realist view in the alliance with the U.S.

The U.S. needs the invested money from overseas. The world needs the U.S. power to ensure a safe secure world, not one badgered by chaos created by fascists. The U.S. economic power is also needed by the world actors. Most nations seeking security and power know this fact. The liberal policies may continue to be espoused in the rhetoric of the political campaigns to come in 2004, but be rest assured that the realist positions are the ones that win the day. It is time to make sure that our diplomatic schools keep turning out realists who know that power and security are the key elements for our nation’s future in international relations, not the silly false hopes that the liberals keep fantasizing about. The liberals would be happy to live under fascism or allow others, in the name of relativism (you do your thing so long as you do not bother me), to live under fascism that is the radical Muslim movement.

Charles Murray, in his new book entitled Human Accomplishment reminds us that wars by themselves have not impeded human accomplishment. (Murray, 2003). I suspect that the War in Iraq will enhance human accomplishment over time in the Middle East. The dividends are most evident in Saudi Arabia, where local municipal elections are being held; in Libya where Gadhafi seems to be agreeing to get rid of weapons of mass destruction; in Palestine where the moderates will have to take charge; in Afghanistan, where we have the beginning of order and control; and in Indonesia, where rational Muslims will someday prevail. This has happened under the watch of those who espouse the realist point of view in international relations. In this respect, what the liberals do not understand is that international relations is now about human survival under liberty or fascism. Rational Muslims will join the modern world, the Muslim radicals cannot be allowed to survive with their fascist values in tow.

The New Year in Local and State Politics

At the political level in New Mexico, as a state, and in the counties and municipalities the clash of power over economics and politics are very confounding. Politics is about setting goals that sound good, the liberal approach, and creating programs that seem to be generous and compassionate in their objectives. In the end, these political moves are almost always programmatic and do little to change the economics of our state. For example, Governor Richardson cannot just lower taxes and create stronger revenues through economic growth. He lowers income taxes but increases diesel fuel taxes, gasoline taxes, and mileage charges, thus, hitting the hard working truck driver economically who is just passing through our state and cannot defend himself here. The Governor would rather raid the permanent fund for education, create new budgetary demands for education that will affect this state in future years because the cost of education will rise inside the budget and all the while he will have created the demand for the educational costs through the raid on the permanent fund for education. This is a slight of hand budget increase by using the permanent fund to do it. These decisions have long term consequences that the politician today does not have to face tomorrow. Next year will be more of the same along this line by ignoring the realistic economic needs of this state for incentives and consequences. Education should be competitive and rewards based upon incentives, not the public largess. The state of New Mexico will remain socialistic because Governor Richardson and his left wing colleagues will make it so.

The City Council of Las Cruces and County Commissioners of Dona Ana County are to be congratulated for their work on the privatization of the Memorial Medical Center with Province HealthCare. Why? Because they are moving this region economically into the future via a competitive health system that will offer the citizens wider choice and some cost controls via the free market place. If a non-profit approach is so good, why did our hospital system go broke to the tune of $50 million or more during their watch? The incentives and consequences are in the marketplace economically, not with big government or a public hospital non-profit system. The public health goals can be met with private capital from Province that will go to the family clinics for care of the people who may be most vulnerable. It is a terrific approach.

Why, then, cannot the politicians of this region also see the value of using the same model from health care and hospital deal by offering a convention center that is privately managed and funded rather than have the taxpayer publicly fund the future economic growth in tourism? If the model works in one setting why wouldn’t it work in the other setting for the convention facility? Why not give the people of our region economic growth through the private sector rather than the public sector to save the taxpayer’s money? If we really care about diversity in the economy of Las Cruces, as Mr. Trowbridge suggests on the City Council and in New Mexico, then we should make sure the private sector, not the public sector, gets the option to compete in a free market economy, right? If we care about the “poor people” and jobs, then we should be supporting more private sector development. Big government hurts the poor people the most. Almost 66 percent of the employee base in this region is driven by public sector economics, not private sector economics. Why would we want anymore public sector projects for the foreseeable future in this region and state? Real diversification for tourism means securing private investment in the same manner that it was approached on the hospital project. Go out and see who will invest in Las Cruces for a convention and hotel facility.

These economic decisions unfold over many years. They have consequences, just like our international relations policies. What we need in our state and region are politicians that think beyond the moment for re-election and think into the future economically to grow New Mexico out of its poverty, and insatiable need to tax us on personal income, gross receipts, sales taxes, compensatory taxes, corporate taxes, gasoline taxes, tourism taxes, personal property taxes proposed for non-profit organizations, and so many hidden fees and taxes that it boggles the mind. Why not a flat tax for all New Mexicans? Why not a higher sales tax in favor of no gross receipts taxes? Why not get rid of compensatory taxation on small businesses that prevent businesses from operating in New Mexico at White Sands, for example? Why not? The reason is because most politicians do not think beyond the moment.

We need a new breed of politician that can think beyond the moment and understand clearly the economic consequences that are being put in place by their votes. We need politicians in 2004 and beyond who understand that incentives guide human behavior economically, not more taxes that create flight behavior away from New Mexico! It is time to elect, politicians that really want to make a difference in the economy of New Mexico and start adopting policies that will grow our long term future as a state, county and city. The truth is that most of the public policies in New Mexico have been disastrous in their consequences and they offer few incentives for economic growth, but we will still hear Governor Richardson and other politicians pretending to care about economic growth so long as it means bigger government and more public sector growth, not private growth.

The New Year does offer hope that we can elect the kind of people in our state and region that will take consequences and incentives into consideration for solid economic growth. New Mexico, under the leadership of the left, is not competitive with our neighboring states. This public policy approach must change now, and maybe we can begin that process in 2004. The sad fact is that the private sector (business and industry) leadership is in the pockets of the liberals who also hand out the money in New Mexico.

References for this essay:

Sowell, Thomas (2004) Applied Economics, Basic Books, NY.
Murray, Charles (2003) Human Accomplishment, Harper Collins Publishers, NY
Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W.W. Norton, NY.
Pipes, Daniel, (2003) Miniatures: Views of Islamic and Middle Eastern Politics, Transaction Publishing.

©Copyright NMIRI 2003
This article, from the New Mexico Independence Research Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. NMIRI Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of NMIRI or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send comments to: Editor, NMIRI 2401 Nieve Lane, Las Cruces, NM 88005. Phone (505) 523 8700. We do request attribution be given to both NMIRI and the author when the article is cited.
e-mail is galdridge@zianet.com.