Thomas Friedman, "We Need a Second Party": But It Takes Two to Tango

I have often be labeled a "neocon," notwithstanding my opposition to the Second Gulf War, my opposition to the US ground presence in Afghanistan, my support for gay marriage, and my pro-choice stance. On the other hand, my years spent in the Middle East and Europe have also taught me not to trust the words of ingratiating dictators, and not to believe in the universality of religions, all purportedly promoting peace, brotherhood and love. These lessons were learned the hard way.

This election's crop of Republican presidential candidates? Dismal, to put it kindly. The absence of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie from the race has indeed allowed persons like Donald Trump, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich to appear as serious contenders. America deserves more, particularly when confronting a catastrophic enconomy, a soon to go nuclear Iran, and a Russia intent upon Cold War revival.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "We Need a Second Party" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/friedman-we-need-a-second-party.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Thomas Friedman suggests that the Republican Party, lacking "constructive conservative proposals on the key issues," might be better off sitting out the 2012 presidential election. Claiming that the Republicans do not offer realistic answers to the challenges of globalization and information technology, America's huge debt, and growing demands for energy, Friedman concludes:

"Until the G.O.P. stops being radical and returns to being conservative, it won’t provide what the country needs most now — competition — competition with Democrats on the issues that will determine whether we thrive in the 21st century. We need to hear conservative fiscal policies, energy policies, immigration policies and public-private partnership concepts — not radical ones. Would somebody please restore our second party? The country is starved for a grown-up debate."

I agree with Friedman that America's debt problem and its need for secure sources of energy should be among the focal issues of the 2012 elections, but should the Republicans simply stand down? What has Obama offered the US electorate in recent days?

Although not a life and death issue, Obama now supports donations to a super PAC that will fund his re-election campaign, notwithstanding that he once termed super PACs a "threat to democracy" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-picks-pragmatism-over-principle-on-super-pacs/2012/02/07/gIQABQbKwQ_blog.html).

Energy? Obama killed Keystone XL, which would have increased planetary greenhouse gas emissions. However, it would have also brought sorely needed jobs and alleviated dependence upon some of the world's worst tyrannies. Instead, this oil will be going to China, from where it will also increase greenhouse gas emissions perhaps to an even worse extent. As observed by Joe Nocera (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/opinion/nocera-the-politics-of-keystone-take-2.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), "The benefits of the oil we stand to get from Canada, via Keystone, far outweigh the environmental risks."

Iran? Convinced of his powers of persuasion, Obama spent his first year in office attempting to reach out to Iran. Recently, after even US Defense Secretary Panetta had acknowledged that Iran is a mere year away from manufacturing its first atomic bomb (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/panetta-iran-is-one-year-away-from-producing-nuclear-weapon-1.409983?localLinksEnabled=false), Obama sought to torpedo Senate legislation mandating sanctions against Iran's central bank (see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democratic-senator-blasts-obama-administration-opposing-iran-sanctions_610853.html).

Russia? As part of his attempt to seek a new start in relations with the Kremlin, Obama abandoned the American missile defense agreement with NATO allies Poland and the Czech Republic. In response, Russia has just vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria for murdering thousands of its citizens, continues to ship arms to Assad, and is warning the US against intervention (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/02/syria-obama-likes-to-watch.html).

Friedman would have us know that the US is "starved for a grown-up debate." Well, that would also require an incumbent whose primary motivating force extends beyond his re-election.