April 2008

It is with great pleasure that I introduce you to the third edition of the Hobart and William Smith Colleges Public Affairs Journal. This edition is of particular importance for many reasons, but perhaps the most significant aspect of the third edition is our continued commitment to open dialogue about civic engagement and public policy by beginning a bi-annual release of the Journal. In this sense, releasing a new edition twice a year instead of just once should allow readers and writers to analyze a wider array of ideas, thus allowing for a more engaged and more informed debate about public affairs.

For this edition, we invited submissions from a diverse community of institutions. Between these covers lies the work of students from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Columbia University, and, of course, Hobart and William Smith Colleges. To cap off this wonderful array of diverse pieces, an introduction by Adam Nagourney, a journalist who primarily covers U.S. politics for The New York Times, sheds light on the role of journalism in the public realm.

On behalf of the Public Affairs Journal staff, I would like to invite you to probe the contents of the Journal, and examine, question, and discuss the issues presented in the articles. Beginning an informed debate about public affairs, as is the primary goal of the Journal, can empower us all to contribute in meaningful ways to the future.

My job is, with a team of other reporters, to write about national elections. This year, it is to chronicle the presidential campaign. My goal, in short, is to make certain that by Election Day, readers of the New York Times have enough information about the candidates – their views, record in government, biography, and character – to make an informed decision about who to support on Election Day.

There are all kinds of ways we try to accomplish this, both in the newspaper but also on our Web site. The first task is to chronicle the story of the campaign itself. This means following the rise (and fall) of various candidates; identifying issues and concerns that appear to be critical to candidates and voters; writing about various states and why they are important to the nominating process; and identifying voting or demographic trends that could affect the outcome of the race. It means exploring differences among the candidates on all the major issues to get at what they would do as president (and in some cases, it means pointing out when candidates’ views have, shall we say, evolved over the years).

For me, this could mean spending a month in Iowa – which I did – reporting all the preparations leading up to the caucuses. It could mean spending a few days following a candidate around, reporting what they are saying and how they are presenting themselves to voters, and what kind of reception they are getting. What are voters asking about? What are the candidates talking about? Are they saying one thing in one part of a state and something else somewhere else?

Part I: New American Foreign
Policy Goals in the Middle East

A great deal has changed in the politics of the Middle East and Iraq in the past half century. American foreign policy initiatives in the region have altered with new leaders, crises, and wars. This is to be expected. What is unforeseen, however, is a recent alteration of American goals in the region with the bungling of the Iraq War.

Traditionally, the United States’ foreign policy goals in the Middle East and Iraq have been twofold, security and economic: the security of Israel and American interests, and guaranteed access to cheap oil.1 While these goals remain unaffected, and will still be of concern in ten to fifteen years, a new, less tangible goal has entered into the complex equation of American foreign policy in the Middle East: that of perceived American victory and competence in Iraq. We must save face.

When a disaster strikes, the moment is so chilling that even people not directly involved often can remember for decades what they were doing when the tragedy transpired. Who does not remember where they were when the first plane had struck the World Trade Center or the levees broke in New Orleans? Instead, if the United States government could describe where it was during recent disasters, it would likely respond, “out to lunch.”

Over the past twenty years, the U.S. government has remained a spectator while citizens have dealt with the effects of disasters. The debate over how to handle disasters is often between those who assume that major catastrophes are unlikely to happen, and those who think the government should go to great lengths to prevent all possible tragedies from occurring.1 Republicans tend to favor prevention when the potential disaster is a terrorist attack, while Democrats downplay the likelihood of future attacks.

What is baffling is that the two political parties tend to switch sides when the discussion shifts to natural disasters. The loser in these debates is the American people. Absent from these deliberations is the question: Is a homeland security policy almost entirely based on prevention the best approach? I will argue in this paper that the U.S. should revamp its policy based on prevention to one based on disaster mitigation. Homeland security policy needs to take a more realistic approach or American lives will continue to be lost due to a false sense of security.