(1) swing states.
(2) age - % likelyhood of voting in a US prez election is approximately equal to age
(3) primaries. you can't win the general election without clearing the primaries. people who bother to turn up at the primaries have veto power over people who don't.
(4) Republicans have been consistently making an attempt to bring in the hispanic vote. Somewhat socially conservative on average, quite willing to buy into the "work hard / individual responsibility" line of attack, and most importantly, rising demographic (but due to age bias, the currently young hispanic population will not register in votes in a big way for probably another 30 years). Anyway-
- long story short here - fear the Trump-Rubio lovechild, if there is ever to be one.
+1. There's simply no excuse for this. In addition to acknowledging and ending the racial disparities of the "war on drugs", it should also be acknowledged in the staffing composition and culture of the criminal justice system itself, and last but not least, in our foreign policy and the tortured, often plainly contradictory justifications, on which it is based.
The trick is to harmonize the presentation with the political realities in the US. One can maintain quite a few culturally inherited prejudices without rising to the level of malice, or condoning institutional abuses and exploitations. I think that Most Americans fit that description.
One must present : #1, a common ground , and #2, the possibility for an improvement. That is clearly something we find in the economic justice angle. It is one reason that more people voted for Obama than Clinton. It is the reason Sanders is the most popular national politician today.
I'm afraid that lesson is still, after everything we've seen in the past year, lost on mainstream Democrats.
Hmm, back during the Geneva Convention era, a naval blockade (in particular, one executed as a unilateral act) was considered a belligerent operation, an act of war... Now just a diplomatic spat. Interesting precedent. Saudi Arabia is once again exempt from supposedly universal norms.
Exactly. They booted a passenger to shuttle a flight crew to another airport, in all likelyhood to make up for an overly aggressive scheduling policy that caused the other airport to be short a flight crew. This is something that will happen to you probably about 20% of the time in US air travel ... being delayed while they "find another plane" or "wait for your crew to arrive".
Operations just isn't a strong point for these companies, unfortunately. That is ok. Beating a passenger up to make up for it is not.
The tragedy is that all these guys were looking hard (and justifiably) for a valid reason to impeach Trump, and now that one finally comes along - they all drop to their knees for him.
And the Leonard Cohen quote. Dang.
Somehow the thought of BW listening to LC and totally not getting is .... a gently disturbing, an unsurprising idea that generates an entirely novel and surprising shape of fractal irony... Kindof like the first time you try to follow the curve of a klein bottle or something... it has this zen-simple elegance as a capsule expression of where the media seems to be at in relation to their turn with the relationship to Trump now.
Regarding continuity- Sure - but the concept of continuity is stretched, given the lack of coherence of Syria policy under the Obama administration.
Granted, with every regional "frenemy" of the US pulled into Syria, it was inevitable that US policy came off as somewhat schizophrenic. But what's to come? In terms of regional power and pipeline politics, the lowest common denominator "solution" remains the status quo - a marginal conflict-fraught state. Too weak for independence, so as to guarantee that any development in favor of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia &Gulfies can by blocked by the others. Russia, the US, and Israel too are part of such an arrangement, by an unlikely convergence.
As for any novel approach by the Trump administration, the Bush-Obama spectrum of care and foresight in middle east policy didn't exactly leave much new ground to break. If we are lucky, the current crew will be too busy to try anything too creative.
Reasonable, I agree with most of this. A few too many patriotic's in there but we'll overlook it for now.
The interesting thing is, the D party itself used to stand for much of this until it was coopted by the various offspring of the quite successful Mount Pelerin Society. If the political disasters of 2016 cause them to contemplate some humility, for a minute or for an hour or even for a year, there is a chance here.
In more practical terms, supporters of Sanders vision of social democracy in the US should NOT leave any such choice to current/previous generation Democratic party leaders. A wholesale replacement of D party leadership is appropriate for there to be viable opposition to Trump, and rebuilding after 2020 (2018 is a non-starter due to the mix of senate seats in play). Keep in mind, Trump won on the strength of northern (post) industrial states - Sanders' core area. Keep in mind also that the US political system is, throughout, based on states, and balance-of-power through obstruction.
Lastly, to open up the debate for the future, support the development and empowerment of 3rd and 4th parties, and invite them to debates. This will help (i.e., force) in-party Democrats stick to a policy mix with popular appeal, as they most certainly did not do in 2016. Bipartisanship = political dead end, a pattern that brings us closer to the "1-party state".
It's not just a *lack* of a Muslim Will & Grace or Simpsons or whatever, although that is a great point, maybe even an absolutely necessary starting point.
I'm personally much more taken aback by the positive acceptance / official encouragement of bigotry against Muslims by the MSM and US government, and even a portion of US pop entertainment culture -- ever since the period following 9/11/2001. That embrace of bigotry was done for the lamest and most ordinary reasons - to drum up political support for NeoCon jingoism.
And Democrats currently outraged against Trump, you either remember some pretty heavy heartbreak (circa 2004 election, for example), or you're about to notice it for the first time -- when you realize that the D party bigwigs, by and large, are able and willing to play along with whatever media messaging is used to manufacture support for the a given year's foreign policy adventure action item.
Education is another factor. There was a thing in NYC in the 80's and 90's at least, where a distinct effort was made, in primary education, to teach kids the importance of tolerance, together with extra emphasis on some the darker episodes of American history to serve as counterexamples from which we can learn. It was made fun of ("rainbow curriculum") because it was at times cheesy and rose to the level of indoctrination, but it was something much needed, and I think it worked for a lot of people. If you're going for public opinion, start young.
definitely 2020... not enough vulnerable Republican Senate seats are on the table in 2018 (and quite a few vulnerable Democrat seats actually - a replay of this year's swing states with D incumbents).
"All we can do is resist normalization, first of all in our own minds and then in our social circles and on social media."
That won't accomplish much. You would need to contribute to a viable alternative, with an eye on denying Republicans a Senate majority in 2018 or 2020 as a backup. This means a national Democratic party more along the lines of Sanders / Ellison and less along the lines of Clinton. Otherwise all the harsh words will do is make Trump voters rally around their leader leading to continued electoral losses. (which should've been obvious after the past year, but I guess it's not obvious enough).
by "hack-the-election", I meant allegations that it was the Russian government who gave Wikileaks the Podesta archives. No evidence at all of attacks on electronic voting machines. (And why are some states using paperless electronic voting? Machines with paper master records (still digitally scanned) are much safer, and just as fast.)
Anyway, there are lots reasons this is a sideshow story. Sorry this is going to get long.
First, accusing Russia or any country of trying to infiltrate your electronic systems sounds awful, but when you're doing the same, there's no moral ground to stand on anymore. It doesn't make it right, but it ends up about the same as one spy accusing another spy - pointless.
More serious, maybe, is the hypothetical question of whether sneaky actions to influence public opinion in another country's election crosses a "red line"? Or at the very least whether it is a severe insult? I would think yes, but again, after the last 15 years, the hypocrisy factor makes a tragic mockery of that too.
A sideshow within the sideshow is how the released materials actually did their alleged damage. It was because they revealed sneaky actions by Podesta et al, which manipulated the public during the election, complete with receipts for 8-figure sums donated by dubious foreign governments.
So the whole thing is just a show of outrage for politics, which I get. I think the effect of this will be to somewhat reinforce cohesion within both the R and D parties, in the face of their respective challenge by each of their anti-establishment wings.
Remember, every time one party says something bad about the other party's candidate, that candidate's party rallies around them.
So Obama accuses Trump, and Republicans support him (ignoring the massive bait-and-switch played on anti-establishment Republicans). Similarly, Trump will bite back, or perhaps Putin will do so, which drives anti-establishment Democrats back toward the mainstream D politicians.
It's a fantastic parting gift from Obama to both main parties. Incoming Sec of State Tillerson also gets a nice little nugget to use in XOM's future negotiations with Russia (repeal sanctions etc in exchange for oil related concessions).
IMO, the hack-the-election storyline, just like the faithless-elector storyline, have a blocking effect, or an opportunity cost if you like. During all the time taken up by these stories, more meaningful criticisms of Trump are buried into the back pages or displaced completely.
For instance, Trump's cabinet picks are a very thorough repudiation of his own base among voters, as far as being anti-establishment. This ought to be a lead news item. In contrast, his base almost completely discounts the hack-the-election story, so Democrats have almost no traction to damage Trump politically along that line.
Trump's foreign policy team appear to be neo-con's every bit as kooky as Clinton' team. This was an angle that resonated with some voters. Would also make a better lead item, IMO, than pot-to-kettle accusations between US/Russian spy services.
As for the actual merits of the hack-the-election story... If the US did just get regime-changed as a result of Podesta falling for a phishing scam straight out of 1996 AOL, that would of course be terrifying. If Obama couldn't release his evidence because his only evidence was obtained by hacking the Russians, that would be kindof funny (but sad-funny).
I'm inclined to agree that it's an ass-covering sideshow, however. It all comes back to ... if the Democrats wanted to win bad enough, they wouldn't have insisted on nominating Clinton.
Ok, good. Now why wait until his last month in office? Doing so makes it seem like a political rather than principled action. (good either way, but does not reflect highly on the Obama administration -- politically motivated actions can just as easily swing in the other direction and be the position which is the opposite of the the principled position).
Ooh Ooh let me guess. Another proxy war with an unrelated country in the middle east?
The list is running low, but there are still 3 or 4 coutries left:
Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia haven't had wars in a while. None are Russia allies but whatevs. Something must be done.
I might add, that given Trump is pretty much the ultimate evil to Democratic voters, why, oh why would the democratic party nominate as weak a candidate as Clinton?
The primaries were crystal clear that the electorate wanted change, and at the end of the day, details be damned, there was only one major-party candidate offering this.
And, what a shock it was to discover that in the US, the Presidency is decided in about 10 states, in which Clinton did not win the majority of the votes. The DNC should be the target of any blame, but the wikileaks did have one newsworthy revalation -- that the DNC was in Clinton's pocket. Game, Set, Match.
1. To insist on such a black and white portrayal of voter motivations strikes me as a cynical thing in and of itself.
2. Even if your view of voter motivations is correct, your strategy is likely to be self-defeating -- take a crowd that is 50% for you and 50% against you, and loudly announce that those who oppose you are stupid/evil. Even if you can prove your case, you'll soon end up alienating a decent number of those who you could've won over with a more positive approach. Inept salesmanship, to be blunt.
3. One other thing to consider. Did Trump win over the deplorable vote more than Romney? Nope. Trump got 60MM. Romney got 61MM. The difference was that Clinton got fewer (60MM) than Obama (66MM). The numbers suggest that rather than Trump attracting the deplorables, Clinton alienated normals (using the terminology that your comment is suggesting). Unless perhaps there are 6MM more mysoginists alienated by Clinton than racists alienated by Obama. But I have yet to hear anyone advance *that* theory. I think you'll have a hard time squaring the numbers with any simplistic racist/fascist/mysoginist explanation of why Clinton lost.
Ah. Glad we're done painting voters who prefer a populist to a "mainstream Democrat" as motivated by racism, fascism, or misogyny.
As a Sanders/Stein supporter who was frankly annoyed by the way the Clinton campaign presented itself, I'm trying to phrase this carefully. My intention is not to rub it in. However, I think it's pretty important for the D party to learn from this election.
So remember, for 2020: To accuse a large group of people of some moral flaw is not effective rhetoric (even if you were not exaggerating greatly). There are probably stone tablets from the ancient world saying as much. Somehow the Clinton campaign missed this. That was a warning sign.
The main handicap that the Clinton campaign had was that there were areas of policy and substantive debate where she was basically not allowed to go due to whatever long time allegiances she had. Sanders and Trump were both free in a way Clinton was not, and most people could see it clearly.
The D party will hopefully recognize this, and make substantive compromises in the future, with its own base, if it hopes to win.
So the upshot is, instead of a nuclear war we should expect more proxy success stories? Those have side effects, remember? Iraq spawned a wave of global terrorism. Tacitly encouraging the "regional powers" to overthrow Assad resulted in a refugee wave that torpedoed the EU project. The next side effect might come this way.
You talk about the great negotiating experience that comes with being Sec of State. I'm trying to find it in her record in Libya... I must say, it is very well hidden.
Much respect for most of your work but aside from debunking Trump's exaggeration, this piece strikes me as intentionally avoiding some very deep unpleasantness about Clinton and the NeoCon way of internatoinal relations.
The Republican field was supposed to be Bush + a field of clowns. The clowns won, nobody wanted a 3rd Bush presidency. Trump happened to be the most entertaining clown.
And on the other side we have Hillary. Nice lady no doubt, but let's be real, she got to the Senate as a courtesy to Bill, and again to Sec of State as a consolation prize for stepping aside for Obama. Take note there, the D party recognized in 2008 that they needed someone like Obama to actually win. Her qualifications? The ability to score high positions and raise funds, and being less heinous than Trump. Her liabilities? Being in the pockets of the folks that brought you deregulation and then the 2008 economic crisis, and Iraq, and Libya, and we could go on.
So again, who's fault is it? You tell me. I don't think it's the media though.
If it was an error, then whichever governments are responsible (Australia, US, whoever) should have their license-to-bomb-countries-they-weren't-invited-to revoked for at least 6 months.
Yes indeed. This whole thing is becoming quite silly, isn't it?
Personally I think the blame lies with the lock-in which the Republican-Democrats have on US politics. Without any viable competition, the pair have mutually evolved into the trash heap we now face as our two choices.
Let's remember too, that if it wasn't for Trump's unexpected-and-disturbing success, we would be facing a Clinton-Bush general election, which would be just as pathetic a failure of the US political system to advance our "best" to the top, if you ask me it.
The two-party duopoly system itself has let us down. It is a structure that promotes the "Idiocracy" model of national government.
re: nukes: So do we. So do some allies. Doesn't make a country any better or worse, despite any trash talk you might've heard directed at Iran and North Korea.
Well apologies for introducing the obvious again, but the Saudi government by most objective measures is far less desirable than the Russian one -- more authoritarian (absolute monarchy), more illiberal (being gay punishable by death), more barbaric (beheads people), for years led the active rigging of the most significant global markets (OPEC), more likely to geopolitically interfere in nearby states, up to and including direct invasion (Yemen), more likely to have a strong negative influence on the US government (we cowered for years against releasing the 28 pages, the Bush's, NeoCon's, and possibly Clinton's are said to be in their pockets). Yet we speak kindly of them as allies and coalition partners all the time.
Food for thought. Tells you something about the how well US policy aligns with our values.
I am not suggesting anyone vote for Trump. I am saying that Clinton has a existing, proven track record of the same. Therefore, the only legitimate choice is to not vote for either one, but a 3rd party.
Trump is like this living strawman who is effectively providing an excuse for every idiotic piece of nationalist and corporatist BS out there.
In the case of this poor family who lost their son, who served honorably, but unfortunately and through no fault of his own, his honorable sacrifice was in service of leaders who lied to the entire country and send him off to get killed in what at the end of the day was a criminal endeavor based on utter lies, under GW Bush.
So Clinton, after repeating quite similar course of action in Libya, is hiding behind this poor family? Shame!
Trump's foolery is just distracting from these more basic facts. He is as poor a figurehead for the anti-war movement as Hillary is for the Democrats, but nevertheless Trump, for all his awful character flaws, did not actively push for and successfully implement policies that killed thousands of people. Not that I have high expectations of him. But this debate has been derailed too far from what is important.
I think I'm being pretty specific. The Clintons are the all-time champions of raising money from exactly those less-than-benevolent subsections of the elite who benefit from government favoritism. While this gives them a certain amount of credit in terms of political savvy, it does NOT do so in terms of their progressive bona-fides, which I was talking aobut. It is not impossible that they will be *forced* to adopt progressive policies, but the chances of that happening are better with just about anyone else.
Understand: I am saying this from the point of view of a progressive. From this point of view, the "electability" argument for the lesser-evil vote is now deader than a doornail, and it's time my liberal friends recognized it.
"A more liberal court could well overturn Citizens United."
That's a nice dream. You may be confusing liberal with progressive. You don't fundraise hundreds of millions from free-market-purist corporate america and then just flip flop on a key issue like campaign finance. Dem's are talking the talk now because Clinton's numbers are sliding and they're scared of losing to Trump. Obama talked the talk too (and far better than Hillary), as did MIchelle, as did Bernie, and sadly, even Trump. Without big spending and pay-to-play networks of influence, Hillary would be dead in the water.
Clinton will appoint judges who are left on social-justice issues, to the Democratic party's credit, and staunchly pro-status-quo on economic-justice. Any concessions to progressive needs, outside of non-economic social issues, will happen if and only if her sponsors think it is appropriate. To what degree they would be inconvenienced by a Trump presidency is an open question. I have a feeling, not as much as the inconvenience of adopting the full range of Sanders proposals (regardless of what goes into the platform).
The voters get this quite clearly this year. It took a decade and a half of glaring incompetence to pull the curtain back but here we are. The only way back is a competently executed bait-and-switch, which is now under way.
The case of the civil war is interesting. The abolition of slavery was only accomplished over the biggest pile of dead bodies the US has seen in war, and that some 80-90 years after it was a done deal in Europe.
So liberals always win, in the sense that all progress that has been made in the past is an example of progress that was successful. I applaud the positive spirit of this article, but the example of slavery is not one that makes you think our society is inherently progressive.
Liberals always win, after an extra long time is spent making half-assed unsuccessful efforts.
That semantic argument about "declaring" vs "waging" war is important.
It was directly addressed by Congresss when they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, overriding Nixon's veto. The law was specifically intended to fill this loophole in response to "police actions" such as Vietnam.
As you can see in the article, there is plenty of debate - in my opinion consisting of extremely contorted arguments by those who say the original wording means "yes, wage any war you want as long as you don't declare it".
No doubt they theorize about Hillary's hawkish record, and the unrelated coincidence that hawkish policies happen to be followed a short time later by chaos and destruction in muslim countries... aw heck, what if it wasn't a coincidence?
agreed ... The sites of the land reclamation in question are at best "disputed territory".
That said, the Chinese activity in question here is one of construction, and not threat of violence or political subversion, which is what people usually mean by "aggression", when uttered in the style of GHWBush. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyLdtG7KZvw
Sanders recently came in first in MoveOn.org's straw poll of how its members would vote in a Democratic primary. Among this base of relatively well-motivted Democrats, Clinton got waxed, with Sanders taking 78% of the 300,000+ votes cast online this past weekend.
It's going to be an interesting campaign. As of now, Sanders beats Trump. Trump beats Clinton. Clinton beats Cruz/Rubio, and Cruz/Rubio may beat Sanders. Kind of a 4-way rock/paper/scissors situation...
Well a series of boring meetings resulting in a boring compromise and a boring peace - that would be quite nice.
The author touched on the somewhat questionable crew of "friends" that US diplomats working on our relationship to the ME have gathered over the years. Maybe that aspect deserves some boring meetings of its own.
One thing not mentioned -- that "action" can take a variety of forms, but here, we went straight into bombing and supplying arms. There is a more boring form of action that I am struggling to stay awake to remember. Oh yes- economic sanctions. How bout some economic sanctions on the IS? Maybe make an attempt to deprive them of weapons and cash? Booooooooring.
Well here's what I think: The problems of the middle east have 1 long term source and 1 short term one.
The short term one is *war*.
The long term one is and the *residue of racism* embedded in post-colonial international relations, in that neither the west, nor, in its day, the USSR, ever applied the positive principles of their home countries to client-allies in the region -- namely: respect for human rights, whatever flavor of equality (social, economic) was preached at home, self-determination, sovereignty, democracy (in the West), guaranteed social services (in the USSR). I realize reality differed from these principles a lot, but at least there were token efforts. Not so in the ME.
So for me, given that I consider that short term war and a long term barrel-aged distillation of colonial racism ARE the causes of the blowback now coming out of the ME, there is NO CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER in opposing IS, and opposing its root causes. The contradiction comes only from the twisted thoughts of TV commentators, who insist on portraying the story in a way that removes its root causes. This is getting harder and harder to do, and the contradictions show that the level of rhetorical finesse required now exceeds the abilities of those who write the talking points.
Rather than a contradiction, the mental discomfort we feel is that of an incipient awakening. A very unpleasant awakening to ugly realities among the western population.
Hopefully this process will complete and will result in genuine improvement, rather than mass denial and reversion to jingoism or fascism, just so that the population can protect its fragile ego.
GHW was in charge of the CIA and then VP to Reagan (just like Cheney to GW), during some of the uglier foreign relations episodes of the 70's and 80's. What he lacked in incompetence he made up for in other ways.
But good commentary nonetheless. The NeoCon's influence needs to go, if we hope to end the pattern of one interventionist disaster after another.
I have a feeling that beneath the rhetoric, all the outside powers would be perfectly happy with a despot in charge, so long as they sided with each of the respective outside power.
My top cringe moment was when Jeb was asked whether or not he would've started the Iraq war. In response, he accused Obama of creating the IS/Daesh mess by withdrawing from Iraq.
Which brought on multiple dimensions of cringe.
First of all, what Jeb said is false, since GW Bush negotiated the withdrawal as well as starting the war
Second, he evaded the question, although that's to be expected.
Third, in blaming Obama, he is actually partly right, since the Obama administration stirred up enough trouble in Syria to give IS/Daesh a big hand up.
And fourth, although of course GW Bush holds the majority of the blame in this situation, we have to also remember GHW (papa) Bush was involved, as head of CIA, and Reagan's VP, in US support of Saddam when he was at his worst -- only to go to war with Saddam when he became President.
This is the primaries. You have to look at it from the perspective of the appropriate audience.
So I'm going to just cut to the chase. The only Repub. who will stand up to Trump's antics is probably Chris Christie. By the standards according to which they're going to be judged, the rest are a bunch of [derogatory term for female genitalia]'s.
Although audiences would no doubt enjoy watching the undercards, I'm thinking ahead here.
Christ Christie must challenge Trump to a manly feat of strength, (which he should win easily due to his greater weight). However, Trump would have no option but to accept.
To make it work, the challenge must have the following stipulation: winner gets to become president, and the loser must, if the loser is Christie, eat nothing but health food and attend yoga classes for a year, and if the loser is Trump, get his head shaved on national TV! Ha! This would naturally raise the stakes for Trump.
And in fact there is precedent for exactly this. Trump has participated in a similar challenge in the past, although he won. See here (watch the whole video! Trump appears about a miute into it. This clip shows how the other repub. candidates besides Christie really aren't going to have a chance in this reace):
I should add, it's a very good thing the US isn't getting more involved. Every time we get more involved things get worse.
From the looks of it, the dysfunction in US foreign policy decision-making system will take decades to heal (i.e., we have to wait until all the senior people who got to their current positions in the last 15 years retire).
Until then, the minimum-ruin-things path for US policy would be to do absolutely nothing.
I dunno. From the system of logic I deduced from observing our ME foreign policy, there is no problem here whatsoever with a purely Iran vs IS battle.
2 currently real power centers fight each other and create chaos, eliminating each other and preparing a fertile ground for {your dream of the future goes here}.
From the section regarding then-hypothetical development of a proxy war in Syria: 7B:
...WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS [i.e., the opposition, no distinction made between moderates and crazies].
section 8C goes on to describe the then-hypothetical result.
Did the western powers, which i imagine includes the US, support the Syrian opposition (not specified whether moderate or extremist), as the analyst hypothesized they might? Did the result the analyst hypothesized happen, with extremists filling the vacuum once Assad's regime was displaced?
Thanks for the useful numbers.
Some caveats:
(1) swing states.
(2) age - % likelyhood of voting in a US prez election is approximately equal to age
(3) primaries. you can't win the general election without clearing the primaries. people who bother to turn up at the primaries have veto power over people who don't.
(4) Republicans have been consistently making an attempt to bring in the hispanic vote. Somewhat socially conservative on average, quite willing to buy into the "work hard / individual responsibility" line of attack, and most importantly, rising demographic (but due to age bias, the currently young hispanic population will not register in votes in a big way for probably another 30 years). Anyway-
- long story short here - fear the Trump-Rubio lovechild, if there is ever to be one.
+1. There's simply no excuse for this. In addition to acknowledging and ending the racial disparities of the "war on drugs", it should also be acknowledged in the staffing composition and culture of the criminal justice system itself, and last but not least, in our foreign policy and the tortured, often plainly contradictory justifications, on which it is based.
The trick is to harmonize the presentation with the political realities in the US. One can maintain quite a few culturally inherited prejudices without rising to the level of malice, or condoning institutional abuses and exploitations. I think that Most Americans fit that description.
One must present : #1, a common ground , and #2, the possibility for an improvement. That is clearly something we find in the economic justice angle. It is one reason that more people voted for Obama than Clinton. It is the reason Sanders is the most popular national politician today.
I'm afraid that lesson is still, after everything we've seen in the past year, lost on mainstream Democrats.
Hmm, back during the Geneva Convention era, a naval blockade (in particular, one executed as a unilateral act) was considered a belligerent operation, an act of war... Now just a diplomatic spat. Interesting precedent. Saudi Arabia is once again exempt from supposedly universal norms.
Exactly. They booted a passenger to shuttle a flight crew to another airport, in all likelyhood to make up for an overly aggressive scheduling policy that caused the other airport to be short a flight crew. This is something that will happen to you probably about 20% of the time in US air travel ... being delayed while they "find another plane" or "wait for your crew to arrive".
Operations just isn't a strong point for these companies, unfortunately. That is ok. Beating a passenger up to make up for it is not.
The tragedy is that all these guys were looking hard (and justifiably) for a valid reason to impeach Trump, and now that one finally comes along - they all drop to their knees for him.
And the Leonard Cohen quote. Dang.
Somehow the thought of BW listening to LC and totally not getting is .... a gently disturbing, an unsurprising idea that generates an entirely novel and surprising shape of fractal irony... Kindof like the first time you try to follow the curve of a klein bottle or something... it has this zen-simple elegance as a capsule expression of where the media seems to be at in relation to their turn with the relationship to Trump now.
Another feather in Brian Williams' hat I guess.
Regarding continuity- Sure - but the concept of continuity is stretched, given the lack of coherence of Syria policy under the Obama administration.
Granted, with every regional "frenemy" of the US pulled into Syria, it was inevitable that US policy came off as somewhat schizophrenic. But what's to come? In terms of regional power and pipeline politics, the lowest common denominator "solution" remains the status quo - a marginal conflict-fraught state. Too weak for independence, so as to guarantee that any development in favor of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia &Gulfies can by blocked by the others. Russia, the US, and Israel too are part of such an arrangement, by an unlikely convergence.
As for any novel approach by the Trump administration, the Bush-Obama spectrum of care and foresight in middle east policy didn't exactly leave much new ground to break. If we are lucky, the current crew will be too busy to try anything too creative.
**Until America goes through some kind of truth and reconciliation process**
Yes. Precisely what is needed, a nice polite curtain call for the whole cast of characters in this 25+ year long neo-con/neo-whatever spectacle.
Reasonable, I agree with most of this. A few too many patriotic's in there but we'll overlook it for now.
The interesting thing is, the D party itself used to stand for much of this until it was coopted by the various offspring of the quite successful Mount Pelerin Society. If the political disasters of 2016 cause them to contemplate some humility, for a minute or for an hour or even for a year, there is a chance here.
In more practical terms, supporters of Sanders vision of social democracy in the US should NOT leave any such choice to current/previous generation Democratic party leaders. A wholesale replacement of D party leadership is appropriate for there to be viable opposition to Trump, and rebuilding after 2020 (2018 is a non-starter due to the mix of senate seats in play). Keep in mind, Trump won on the strength of northern (post) industrial states - Sanders' core area. Keep in mind also that the US political system is, throughout, based on states, and balance-of-power through obstruction.
Lastly, to open up the debate for the future, support the development and empowerment of 3rd and 4th parties, and invite them to debates. This will help (i.e., force) in-party Democrats stick to a policy mix with popular appeal, as they most certainly did not do in 2016. Bipartisanship = political dead end, a pattern that brings us closer to the "1-party state".
Love the title...
Yeah - Well spoken guy.
It's not just a *lack* of a Muslim Will & Grace or Simpsons or whatever, although that is a great point, maybe even an absolutely necessary starting point.
I'm personally much more taken aback by the positive acceptance / official encouragement of bigotry against Muslims by the MSM and US government, and even a portion of US pop entertainment culture -- ever since the period following 9/11/2001. That embrace of bigotry was done for the lamest and most ordinary reasons - to drum up political support for NeoCon jingoism.
And Democrats currently outraged against Trump, you either remember some pretty heavy heartbreak (circa 2004 election, for example), or you're about to notice it for the first time -- when you realize that the D party bigwigs, by and large, are able and willing to play along with whatever media messaging is used to manufacture support for the a given year's foreign policy adventure action item.
Education is another factor. There was a thing in NYC in the 80's and 90's at least, where a distinct effort was made, in primary education, to teach kids the importance of tolerance, together with extra emphasis on some the darker episodes of American history to serve as counterexamples from which we can learn. It was made fun of ("rainbow curriculum") because it was at times cheesy and rose to the level of indoctrination, but it was something much needed, and I think it worked for a lot of people. If you're going for public opinion, start young.
definitely 2020... not enough vulnerable Republican Senate seats are on the table in 2018 (and quite a few vulnerable Democrat seats actually - a replay of this year's swing states with D incumbents).
"All we can do is resist normalization, first of all in our own minds and then in our social circles and on social media."
That won't accomplish much. You would need to contribute to a viable alternative, with an eye on denying Republicans a Senate majority in 2018 or 2020 as a backup. This means a national Democratic party more along the lines of Sanders / Ellison and less along the lines of Clinton. Otherwise all the harsh words will do is make Trump voters rally around their leader leading to continued electoral losses. (which should've been obvious after the past year, but I guess it's not obvious enough).
@David:
by "hack-the-election", I meant allegations that it was the Russian government who gave Wikileaks the Podesta archives. No evidence at all of attacks on electronic voting machines. (And why are some states using paperless electronic voting? Machines with paper master records (still digitally scanned) are much safer, and just as fast.)
Anyway, there are lots reasons this is a sideshow story. Sorry this is going to get long.
First, accusing Russia or any country of trying to infiltrate your electronic systems sounds awful, but when you're doing the same, there's no moral ground to stand on anymore. It doesn't make it right, but it ends up about the same as one spy accusing another spy - pointless.
More serious, maybe, is the hypothetical question of whether sneaky actions to influence public opinion in another country's election crosses a "red line"? Or at the very least whether it is a severe insult? I would think yes, but again, after the last 15 years, the hypocrisy factor makes a tragic mockery of that too.
A sideshow within the sideshow is how the released materials actually did their alleged damage. It was because they revealed sneaky actions by Podesta et al, which manipulated the public during the election, complete with receipts for 8-figure sums donated by dubious foreign governments.
So the whole thing is just a show of outrage for politics, which I get. I think the effect of this will be to somewhat reinforce cohesion within both the R and D parties, in the face of their respective challenge by each of their anti-establishment wings.
Remember, every time one party says something bad about the other party's candidate, that candidate's party rallies around them.
So Obama accuses Trump, and Republicans support him (ignoring the massive bait-and-switch played on anti-establishment Republicans). Similarly, Trump will bite back, or perhaps Putin will do so, which drives anti-establishment Democrats back toward the mainstream D politicians.
It's a fantastic parting gift from Obama to both main parties. Incoming Sec of State Tillerson also gets a nice little nugget to use in XOM's future negotiations with Russia (repeal sanctions etc in exchange for oil related concessions).
IMO, the hack-the-election storyline, just like the faithless-elector storyline, have a blocking effect, or an opportunity cost if you like. During all the time taken up by these stories, more meaningful criticisms of Trump are buried into the back pages or displaced completely.
For instance, Trump's cabinet picks are a very thorough repudiation of his own base among voters, as far as being anti-establishment. This ought to be a lead news item. In contrast, his base almost completely discounts the hack-the-election story, so Democrats have almost no traction to damage Trump politically along that line.
Trump's foreign policy team appear to be neo-con's every bit as kooky as Clinton' team. This was an angle that resonated with some voters. Would also make a better lead item, IMO, than pot-to-kettle accusations between US/Russian spy services.
As for the actual merits of the hack-the-election story... If the US did just get regime-changed as a result of Podesta falling for a phishing scam straight out of 1996 AOL, that would of course be terrifying. If Obama couldn't release his evidence because his only evidence was obtained by hacking the Russians, that would be kindof funny (but sad-funny).
I'm inclined to agree that it's an ass-covering sideshow, however. It all comes back to ... if the Democrats wanted to win bad enough, they wouldn't have insisted on nominating Clinton.
That's the war on fake news for ya...
Ok, good. Now why wait until his last month in office? Doing so makes it seem like a political rather than principled action. (good either way, but does not reflect highly on the Obama administration -- politically motivated actions can just as easily swing in the other direction and be the position which is the opposite of the the principled position).
Hopefully closing Gitmo will be next.
Ooh Ooh let me guess. Another proxy war with an unrelated country in the middle east?
The list is running low, but there are still 3 or 4 coutries left:
Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia haven't had wars in a while. None are Russia allies but whatevs. Something must be done.
I vote for Jordan, it sounds like the safest.
Right on. Wish you were here 8 months ago, but better late than never.
One of these days we'll have to start asking questions about how the fact that our system gives us only 2 choices contributes to this situation . . .
I might add, that given Trump is pretty much the ultimate evil to Democratic voters, why, oh why would the democratic party nominate as weak a candidate as Clinton?
The primaries were crystal clear that the electorate wanted change, and at the end of the day, details be damned, there was only one major-party candidate offering this.
And, what a shock it was to discover that in the US, the Presidency is decided in about 10 states, in which Clinton did not win the majority of the votes. The DNC should be the target of any blame, but the wikileaks did have one newsworthy revalation -- that the DNC was in Clinton's pocket. Game, Set, Match.
lol. too true. :-/
@Larry,
1. To insist on such a black and white portrayal of voter motivations strikes me as a cynical thing in and of itself.
2. Even if your view of voter motivations is correct, your strategy is likely to be self-defeating -- take a crowd that is 50% for you and 50% against you, and loudly announce that those who oppose you are stupid/evil. Even if you can prove your case, you'll soon end up alienating a decent number of those who you could've won over with a more positive approach. Inept salesmanship, to be blunt.
3. One other thing to consider. Did Trump win over the deplorable vote more than Romney? Nope. Trump got 60MM. Romney got 61MM. The difference was that Clinton got fewer (60MM) than Obama (66MM). The numbers suggest that rather than Trump attracting the deplorables, Clinton alienated normals (using the terminology that your comment is suggesting). Unless perhaps there are 6MM more mysoginists alienated by Clinton than racists alienated by Obama. But I have yet to hear anyone advance *that* theory. I think you'll have a hard time squaring the numbers with any simplistic racist/fascist/mysoginist explanation of why Clinton lost.
Ah. Glad we're done painting voters who prefer a populist to a "mainstream Democrat" as motivated by racism, fascism, or misogyny.
As a Sanders/Stein supporter who was frankly annoyed by the way the Clinton campaign presented itself, I'm trying to phrase this carefully. My intention is not to rub it in. However, I think it's pretty important for the D party to learn from this election.
So remember, for 2020: To accuse a large group of people of some moral flaw is not effective rhetoric (even if you were not exaggerating greatly). There are probably stone tablets from the ancient world saying as much. Somehow the Clinton campaign missed this. That was a warning sign.
The main handicap that the Clinton campaign had was that there were areas of policy and substantive debate where she was basically not allowed to go due to whatever long time allegiances she had. Sanders and Trump were both free in a way Clinton was not, and most people could see it clearly.
The D party will hopefully recognize this, and make substantive compromises in the future, with its own base, if it hopes to win.
So the upshot is, instead of a nuclear war we should expect more proxy success stories? Those have side effects, remember? Iraq spawned a wave of global terrorism. Tacitly encouraging the "regional powers" to overthrow Assad resulted in a refugee wave that torpedoed the EU project. The next side effect might come this way.
You talk about the great negotiating experience that comes with being Sec of State. I'm trying to find it in her record in Libya... I must say, it is very well hidden.
Much respect for most of your work but aside from debunking Trump's exaggeration, this piece strikes me as intentionally avoiding some very deep unpleasantness about Clinton and the NeoCon way of internatoinal relations.
nice
bingo... that is the #1 main reason.
The Republican field was supposed to be Bush + a field of clowns. The clowns won, nobody wanted a 3rd Bush presidency. Trump happened to be the most entertaining clown.
And on the other side we have Hillary. Nice lady no doubt, but let's be real, she got to the Senate as a courtesy to Bill, and again to Sec of State as a consolation prize for stepping aside for Obama. Take note there, the D party recognized in 2008 that they needed someone like Obama to actually win. Her qualifications? The ability to score high positions and raise funds, and being less heinous than Trump. Her liabilities? Being in the pockets of the folks that brought you deregulation and then the 2008 economic crisis, and Iraq, and Libya, and we could go on.
So again, who's fault is it? You tell me. I don't think it's the media though.
If it was an error, then whichever governments are responsible (Australia, US, whoever) should have their license-to-bomb-countries-they-weren't-invited-to revoked for at least 6 months.
Yes indeed. This whole thing is becoming quite silly, isn't it?
Personally I think the blame lies with the lock-in which the Republican-Democrats have on US politics. Without any viable competition, the pair have mutually evolved into the trash heap we now face as our two choices.
Let's remember too, that if it wasn't for Trump's unexpected-and-disturbing success, we would be facing a Clinton-Bush general election, which would be just as pathetic a failure of the US political system to advance our "best" to the top, if you ask me it.
The two-party duopoly system itself has let us down. It is a structure that promotes the "Idiocracy" model of national government.
re: nukes: So do we. So do some allies. Doesn't make a country any better or worse, despite any trash talk you might've heard directed at Iran and North Korea.
Well apologies for introducing the obvious again, but the Saudi government by most objective measures is far less desirable than the Russian one -- more authoritarian (absolute monarchy), more illiberal (being gay punishable by death), more barbaric (beheads people), for years led the active rigging of the most significant global markets (OPEC), more likely to geopolitically interfere in nearby states, up to and including direct invasion (Yemen), more likely to have a strong negative influence on the US government (we cowered for years against releasing the 28 pages, the Bush's, NeoCon's, and possibly Clinton's are said to be in their pockets). Yet we speak kindly of them as allies and coalition partners all the time.
Food for thought. Tells you something about the how well US policy aligns with our values.
I am not suggesting anyone vote for Trump. I am saying that Clinton has a existing, proven track record of the same. Therefore, the only legitimate choice is to not vote for either one, but a 3rd party.
Omg I had enough of this.
Trump is like this living strawman who is effectively providing an excuse for every idiotic piece of nationalist and corporatist BS out there.
In the case of this poor family who lost their son, who served honorably, but unfortunately and through no fault of his own, his honorable sacrifice was in service of leaders who lied to the entire country and send him off to get killed in what at the end of the day was a criminal endeavor based on utter lies, under GW Bush.
So Clinton, after repeating quite similar course of action in Libya, is hiding behind this poor family? Shame!
Trump's foolery is just distracting from these more basic facts. He is as poor a figurehead for the anti-war movement as Hillary is for the Democrats, but nevertheless Trump, for all his awful character flaws, did not actively push for and successfully implement policies that killed thousands of people. Not that I have high expectations of him. But this debate has been derailed too far from what is important.
Well one thing's for sure - you can always identify the terrorists by their style of hair covering.
I think I'm being pretty specific. The Clintons are the all-time champions of raising money from exactly those less-than-benevolent subsections of the elite who benefit from government favoritism. While this gives them a certain amount of credit in terms of political savvy, it does NOT do so in terms of their progressive bona-fides, which I was talking aobut. It is not impossible that they will be *forced* to adopt progressive policies, but the chances of that happening are better with just about anyone else.
Understand: I am saying this from the point of view of a progressive. From this point of view, the "electability" argument for the lesser-evil vote is now deader than a doornail, and it's time my liberal friends recognized it.
"A more liberal court could well overturn Citizens United."
That's a nice dream. You may be confusing liberal with progressive. You don't fundraise hundreds of millions from free-market-purist corporate america and then just flip flop on a key issue like campaign finance. Dem's are talking the talk now because Clinton's numbers are sliding and they're scared of losing to Trump. Obama talked the talk too (and far better than Hillary), as did MIchelle, as did Bernie, and sadly, even Trump. Without big spending and pay-to-play networks of influence, Hillary would be dead in the water.
Clinton will appoint judges who are left on social-justice issues, to the Democratic party's credit, and staunchly pro-status-quo on economic-justice. Any concessions to progressive needs, outside of non-economic social issues, will happen if and only if her sponsors think it is appropriate. To what degree they would be inconvenienced by a Trump presidency is an open question. I have a feeling, not as much as the inconvenience of adopting the full range of Sanders proposals (regardless of what goes into the platform).
The voters get this quite clearly this year. It took a decade and a half of glaring incompetence to pull the curtain back but here we are. The only way back is a competently executed bait-and-switch, which is now under way.
The case of the civil war is interesting. The abolition of slavery was only accomplished over the biggest pile of dead bodies the US has seen in war, and that some 80-90 years after it was a done deal in Europe.
So liberals always win, in the sense that all progress that has been made in the past is an example of progress that was successful. I applaud the positive spirit of this article, but the example of slavery is not one that makes you think our society is inherently progressive.
Liberals always win, after an extra long time is spent making half-assed unsuccessful efforts.
That semantic argument about "declaring" vs "waging" war is important.
It was directly addressed by Congresss when they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, overriding Nixon's veto. The law was specifically intended to fill this loophole in response to "police actions" such as Vietnam.
As you can see in the article, there is plenty of debate - in my opinion consisting of extremely contorted arguments by those who say the original wording means "yes, wage any war you want as long as you don't declare it".
Right. Shouldn't Democrats be *proud* to repudiate, in no uncertain terms, the GWBush pattern of foreign policy?
No doubt they theorize about Hillary's hawkish record, and the unrelated coincidence that hawkish policies happen to be followed a short time later by chaos and destruction in muslim countries... aw heck, what if it wasn't a coincidence?
Interesting observation at the end, w/ the generation gap.
Still, as JC points out, it worked for Obama.
agreed ... The sites of the land reclamation in question are at best "disputed territory".
That said, the Chinese activity in question here is one of construction, and not threat of violence or political subversion, which is what people usually mean by "aggression", when uttered in the style of GHWBush.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyLdtG7KZvw
Yes indeed-y.
Sanders recently came in first in MoveOn.org's straw poll of how its members would vote in a Democratic primary. Among this base of relatively well-motivted Democrats, Clinton got waxed, with Sanders taking 78% of the 300,000+ votes cast online this past weekend.
It's going to be an interesting campaign. As of now, Sanders beats Trump. Trump beats Clinton. Clinton beats Cruz/Rubio, and Cruz/Rubio may beat Sanders. Kind of a 4-way rock/paper/scissors situation...
Well a series of boring meetings resulting in a boring compromise and a boring peace - that would be quite nice.
The author touched on the somewhat questionable crew of "friends" that US diplomats working on our relationship to the ME have gathered over the years. Maybe that aspect deserves some boring meetings of its own.
One thing not mentioned -- that "action" can take a variety of forms, but here, we went straight into bombing and supplying arms. There is a more boring form of action that I am struggling to stay awake to remember. Oh yes- economic sanctions. How bout some economic sanctions on the IS? Maybe make an attempt to deprive them of weapons and cash? Booooooooring.
The USSR tried to get rid of religion. 77 years of policy. Didn't work.
That approach is pissing in the wind. Find a different necessary condition for "terrorism" and attack that instead. (hint- money)
Well here's what I think: The problems of the middle east have 1 long term source and 1 short term one.
The short term one is *war*.
The long term one is and the *residue of racism* embedded in post-colonial international relations, in that neither the west, nor, in its day, the USSR, ever applied the positive principles of their home countries to client-allies in the region -- namely: respect for human rights, whatever flavor of equality (social, economic) was preached at home, self-determination, sovereignty, democracy (in the West), guaranteed social services (in the USSR). I realize reality differed from these principles a lot, but at least there were token efforts. Not so in the ME.
So for me, given that I consider that short term war and a long term barrel-aged distillation of colonial racism ARE the causes of the blowback now coming out of the ME, there is NO CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER in opposing IS, and opposing its root causes. The contradiction comes only from the twisted thoughts of TV commentators, who insist on portraying the story in a way that removes its root causes. This is getting harder and harder to do, and the contradictions show that the level of rhetorical finesse required now exceeds the abilities of those who write the talking points.
Rather than a contradiction, the mental discomfort we feel is that of an incipient awakening. A very unpleasant awakening to ugly realities among the western population.
Hopefully this process will complete and will result in genuine improvement, rather than mass denial and reversion to jingoism or fascism, just so that the population can protect its fragile ego.
very photogenic . . .
GHW was in charge of the CIA and then VP to Reagan (just like Cheney to GW), during some of the uglier foreign relations episodes of the 70's and 80's. What he lacked in incompetence he made up for in other ways.
But good commentary nonetheless. The NeoCon's influence needs to go, if we hope to end the pattern of one interventionist disaster after another.
@Reader
Ha! Poignant!
I have a feeling that beneath the rhetoric, all the outside powers would be perfectly happy with a despot in charge, so long as they sided with each of the respective outside power.
Prisoner's dilemma situation?
Win-Lose quadrant = friendly powerful despot
Lose-win = hostile powerful despot
Compromise quadrant = democracy (or, more realistically, "moderate" despot?)
Spoiler quadrant = caliphate, warlord-i-stan, ongoing civil war
Note the weasel wording "non-IS-rebels". No mention of JAN.
Do the math.
It's going to be built out of hockey-puck resistant plexiglass, right?
Mi28 helicopter would make much more sense
yeeee haw!
My top cringe moment was when Jeb was asked whether or not he would've started the Iraq war. In response, he accused Obama of creating the IS/Daesh mess by withdrawing from Iraq.
Which brought on multiple dimensions of cringe.
First of all, what Jeb said is false, since GW Bush negotiated the withdrawal as well as starting the war
Second, he evaded the question, although that's to be expected.
Third, in blaming Obama, he is actually partly right, since the Obama administration stirred up enough trouble in Syria to give IS/Daesh a big hand up.
And fourth, although of course GW Bush holds the majority of the blame in this situation, we have to also remember GHW (papa) Bush was involved, as head of CIA, and Reagan's VP, in US support of Saddam when he was at his worst -- only to go to war with Saddam when he became President.
Makes your head spin.
oh wow. just... wow.
So of course Trump spent many years running such beauty pageants. Miss USA was one of his. Does this give him an advantage?
This is the primaries. You have to look at it from the perspective of the appropriate audience.
So I'm going to just cut to the chase. The only Repub. who will stand up to Trump's antics is probably Chris Christie. By the standards according to which they're going to be judged, the rest are a bunch of [derogatory term for female genitalia]'s.
Although audiences would no doubt enjoy watching the undercards, I'm thinking ahead here.
Christ Christie must challenge Trump to a manly feat of strength, (which he should win easily due to his greater weight). However, Trump would have no option but to accept.
To make it work, the challenge must have the following stipulation: winner gets to become president, and the loser must, if the loser is Christie, eat nothing but health food and attend yoga classes for a year, and if the loser is Trump, get his head shaved on national TV! Ha! This would naturally raise the stakes for Trump.
And in fact there is precedent for exactly this. Trump has participated in a similar challenge in the past, although he won. See here (watch the whole video! Trump appears about a miute into it. This clip shows how the other repub. candidates besides Christie really aren't going to have a chance in this reace):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE
I should add, it's a very good thing the US isn't getting more involved. Every time we get more involved things get worse.
From the looks of it, the dysfunction in US foreign policy decision-making system will take decades to heal (i.e., we have to wait until all the senior people who got to their current positions in the last 15 years retire).
Until then, the minimum-ruin-things path for US policy would be to do absolutely nothing.
I dunno. From the system of logic I deduced from observing our ME foreign policy, there is no problem here whatsoever with a purely Iran vs IS battle.
2 currently real power centers fight each other and create chaos, eliminating each other and preparing a fertile ground for {your dream of the future goes here}.
Hi Juan,
From the section regarding then-hypothetical development of a proxy war in Syria: 7B:
...WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS [i.e., the opposition, no distinction made between moderates and crazies].
section 8C goes on to describe the then-hypothetical result.
Did the western powers, which i imagine includes the US, support the Syrian opposition (not specified whether moderate or extremist), as the analyst hypothesized they might? Did the result the analyst hypothesized happen, with extremists filling the vacuum once Assad's regime was displaced?
It just does not look good to me.