sukeban

As a public service announcement, I've got to say that this thread has gone so far off of its intended rails! As the OP of this thread, I'd like to request that we focus a lot less on individual American issues even less on America as a whole. There are far more democracies out there in the world and there are issues far more problematic for the entire concept of democracy to sort out than universal healthcare. Under no circumstances do I want this thread to become another "Politics in America" thread; rather it's intended to be more macro-oriented and theoretical than the usual Democrat versus Republican trench warfare (in fact, someone please create an omnibus thread for precisely this purpose!). This thread is intended to debate the issues that are seemingly insoluble to democratic resolution (income disparity, weakening meritocracy, problems with representation, corruption, etc.) as well as potential modifications that we might be able to make to our political systems to ensure that these issues are able to be dealt with. Some here favor our current system and are optimistic, others are more skeptical and favor adopting elements from autocratic or technocratic systems, and still others favor decreased federal control and decentralization. All of these issues are valid and should be debated as a subject apart from the usual political theatrics. @Harbringe You raise a vitally important issue in your post, which is that our political system (with a critical assist from our economic system, as in your video) is on the verge of discrediting our entire social contract in the eyes of the poor and middle classes. Americans (and most people everywhere) are willing to tolerate unequal grades of de facto citizenship if their lots are improved as a result of this toleration, but when downward economic and social mobility rule the day, this toleration abruptly ends. Americans have always known that the elite "count more" in terms of political representation, but these days we've got some seriously "Dred Scott on the T Virus" issues going on in terms the disparity of representation between the rich and the poor. What's worse, the American socioeconomic classes are quickly hardening into solid castes, with the poor almost entirely locked in at the bottom and the middle classes moving steadily backwards. But, of course, nothing changes at the top, save for the zeroes at the end of (Swiss Seychelles) bank account balance. Even mainstream political pundits are beginning to sense this, the impending de-legitimization of the political process. You'll hear things like "losing faith in our Congress" or "obstructionism undermining our democracy" but it is naively assumed that some sort of short-term, cosmetic compromise will manage to make this entire question of "legitimacy" once again disappear. But there is news, which is that most Americans do not trust and do not believe in our political system any longer. It is my sincere belief that if a leader were charismatic enough (seriously, I'm watching Ted Cruz) fascism could probably be accomplished in an afternoon in this country, for the simple fact that there is really no one left to fight for the existing system. Americans (and likely Europeans) desire democracy more out of brand loyalty and inertia than out of conviction; if you presented them with a choice between stagnation under democracy and relative progress under an autocracy, I've no doubt as to which choice they would end up making. It would be the American Meiji Restoration.

@MajKrAzAm While I agree with some of your points, I obviously cannot agree with all of them. Since I am not particularly sure as to what you advocate in its place, I am equally unclear as to where your true quarrel lies with scientific government. Certainly it received no achievement awards in the Soviet Union, but I would argue that has more to do with the perverse penalties for not meeting performance metrics, to say nothing of the relentlessly capricious nature of its leadership (King Corn, anyone?), that was truly responsible for undermining its efficacy. In the United States, you have much of the same--save for the NKVD visits--with mercurial democratic administrations attempting to implement their short-term campaign promises at the expense of any overarching strategy initiative. Further, you have political constraints (e.g. democracy) on the breadth of options that are allowable by an administration in the first place. Why doesn't the United States have any semblance of an industrial policy, when even other democratic nations like Germany and South Korea clearly demonstrate the utility of having one? Because voters, who have no actual education on the issue, have been led to believe that industrial planning is socialism and detrimental to the economy, when any glance at German export values or the American trade deficit would easily put to bed that lie. So I would argue that scientific government, in the sense that I am using it, has never truly been attempted in the United States, that we have an large and inefficient bureaucracy that is being permanently interfered with and redirected by politicians and voters who have no idea what they are doing. I am also not entirely sure why you are so dismissive of social sciences (and the humanities) either. Nobody is going to argue that the conclusions of economics or political science carry the same certitude of classical mathematics, but to dismiss them out of hand strikes me as highly dubious. Given more time to collect data and develop metrics, these fields will yield powerful tools with which to gauge and predict the actions of societies and individuals. Might not be particularly settling given the motivations of politicians, but the same can be said about every advancing field in the hard sciences as well. In any case, I do agree with you about elite institutions and their role in shepherding public opinion toward establishment views, the "conventional wisdom" of Galbraith. However, I don't particularly see this as being part of a larger liberal agenda to move society toward more progressive views. For one, there is no consistency with your usage of "progressive" or "liberal," for these institutions also promote highly conservative (in American parlance) views on the economy and international relations, favoring our current neoliberalism as well as a program of foreign military intervention and domestic spying. The only issues where these institutions are in agreement with progressives is in relation to ideas like civil rights, which, I guess if that is your only judging criterion, makes them all highly progressive. Rather than get caught up in the water puppetry of social issues, I think that it is more instructive to instead look at what isn't being seriously debated in our government, e.g. the increasing chasm between the rich and the poor and the corrosive influence of money on our political system. There, you will find the elite in almost unanimous agreement, doesn't matter what their views are on social issues. And as for certain ideas being "out of bounds" in terms of being politically acceptable, yes, emphatically yes, certain ideas are out of bounds in the 21st century. These include ideas such as using race, religion, gender or sexuality to establish unequal gradations of citizenship or using violence to persecute minorities or intimidate political opponents. These changes are not sudden news, having died off in official Washington along with the reprehensible Jesse Helms, and in Europe almost immediately after Hitler bit the bullet (save for Greece and the Iberian states). So the return of these ideas, a la the Golden Dawn, is a pretty big deal, what with their party's program explicitly calling for the persecution of immigrants/refugees and for the assassination of "bankers" (which sounds populist until you realize that these guys are neo-Nazis...) and anti-fascist political opponents. You are right in pointing out that using terms like "Far Right" or "socialist" often does rhetorically de-legitimize a political group, as the brain shortcuts the rational and precedes directly to an emotional, but in cases like the Golden Dawn, what else should they be called? Finally, except in cases like the flagrantly neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, there doesn't seem to be much love for 20th century authoritarianism left in the world today, and for good reason. When I speak about a Far Right (I'm open to an alternative appellation) in America, I am speaking of a far less aggressive form of conservatism, probably more aptly described as conservative paternalism, with varying degrees of conservative cultural chauvinism combined with economic populism. I don't anticipate the US to feature jackbooted thugs breaking windows with armbands, but I would imagine a national culture overtly hostile to minorities and those who fail to emulate the prescribed cultural ideal. Not the worst thing in the world (given the world), but I don't know anybody who would consider that to be an improvement over what we've got now. Beyond that, it's of course possible to build an autocracy without resorting to cultural or ethnic division; I imagine that it would resemble the United States... where things are more efficient and we don't vote, where people are contended due to the national progress that we have made rather than turning on each other in pursuit of small economic scraps. The latter sounds nice, but it is only as durable as its leadership, whereas a scientific government would feature more diffuse leadership and expertise, ensuring the whole thing wouldn't go off the rails as soon as an incompetent won a power struggle.

@TRoaches An aspect of this debate that has largely gone unaddressed is that there is a finite limit to how much knowledge a given human may possess, while at the same time the cumulative knowledge of mankind continues to expand, complicating the idea that each individual citizen really is in a position to register an informed opinion on any given subject. The democratic ideal of citizen-scholars was fine in the 18th century and before, when a single aristocrat could possess a working knowledge of much of the world's body of knowledge, but that has ceased to be the case--especially with the introduction of the mass franchise--for a LONG time now. Modern government requires a specialist's knowledge and most voters are not specialists, making their opinion on issues largely dubious if effective government is truly the desired result. Ignoring the issue of corruption, the second largest flaw in our democracy is precisely this, that unqualified citizens are able to impact policy in areas that they, to be frank, have no business making an impact on. In response to MajKrAzAm's contention, most people should recognize that they are both smarter than other people (in certain areas) and profoundly ignorant (in other areas), and that deferring to specialists in those fields that you do not adequately understand is typically the wisest course of action. This is why having citizens and their "representatives" lecturing specialists on how to do their jobs largely confounds effective government rather than contributing to it. Take healthcare for an example. It would seem a trivial thing to devise a system of healthcare delivery superior to both our current design AND what Obama has prescribed, yet economists and policy specialists are almost entirely drowned out by the cacophony of emotional--and largely uninformed--voices advocating one suboptimal policy after another, leading us nowhere. Taking these sorts of decisions off the table for public debate would lead to much improved policy outcomes, even if less "democracy." I agree with you, of course, about the perils of unexamined deference to authority, but I would disagree with you that the classic democratic "marketplace of ideas" represents a superior model going forward. The gap between the specialized knowledge of citizens and that of the actual specialists will only continue to grow, rendering the opinion "on the street" over esoteric or technical issues ever less useful or relevant in terms of developing effective public policy. Without this sort of Mandarin class, I fear that our politics will continue to focus on the short-term and emotional rather than on the long-term and the substantive. Democracy--as we should all know by now--does not promote long-term, strategic planning, and that without that our country will, in all likelihood, continue its decline.

@MajKrAzAm I agree with much of what you say, principally with regard to the emotional appeal of democracy for many living or brought up in the West. Since the early 1950s, political scientists have known that the commitment that many have to democracy is often paper thin, more of a default conformation to a social norm than any sort of reasoned or studied commitment to its tenets. And I think that's fine, to a degree. We should be open-minded about reforming and improving our institutions, perhaps by borrowing elements from other, more effective models, including--perhaps--autocracy. When contrasted with our present form of government, the theoretical benefits of autocracy are obvious: quick, decisive leadership in solving difficult issues, a sense of national unity replacing petty partisan bickering, and the ability to circumvent and upend deleterious social relationships, such as predatory elites shielding their fortunes with an increasingly unjust and corrupted legal system. Absent these, our democracy continues to alienate and discourage, spinning off its potential supporters like blood cells in a centrifuge. As is, the US is dancing on the knife's edge. I would guarantee that if a Hillary or Chris Christie is elected in 2016, and that they, along with Congress, continue with the same gridlock and BS policies that we've been using since the early 1980s, that a credible Far Right movement will arise before the end of the decade. You already have this with a certain segment of the Tea Party (perhaps 10% US population), but if economic conditions continue to stagnate their appeal will most certainly grow to encompass the majority of the conservative base (25% US population). By then, with the WWII and Korean War generations almost entirely passed away, the decisive generational cohort will be the Millennials, and, speaking as one, I don't really know how deep our commitment to democracy really is, especially given an American economy that has been in decline since before many of us were even in high school. Much ink has been spilled about how Millennials are supposed to be the "saviors" of the United States, the ones that finally figure out how to solve all of the enormous problems accumulated by previous generations, but increasingly I wonder if we'll instead be the ones to "put Bessie out to pasture" and embark on a new project entirely. Personally, I'd prefer something like a more liberal version of Singapore, with a scientific cadre in control of core national policy (economy, infrastructure, education), yet subject to plebiscite if public opposition is overwhelming. Perhaps have an elected (on a long-term basis) leader to arbitrate the priorities of the cadres and to listen to public opinion (like the Chinese petition to the Emperor), but whose role is more national cheerleader/trusted relative than chief policy architect. Combine with full complement of human rights and many (but likely not all) civil rights, along with a generous system of social welfare, and I think you would have a pretty efficient system of government. In my estimation, the internet and improved general education would make the idea of representatives and a Congress (already the weakest link in our government) both obsolete and redundant.

@Linspuppy I totally agree with you re: education, though I also believe that we have many institutional inefficiencies, outdated in terms of the modern age, that hinder the effective functioning of our government. @Aonghus The only serious threat to our democracy occurred, as you say, during the 1930s, but I think that the situation is similar (or on a trajectory to become similar) to today. The key difference between the 1930s and today is that the government was able to rise to the challenge of the moment, with FDR and the Democrats fundamentally rewriting the social contract between Americans and their government, making it more equitable after the ridiculous excess and iniquity of the preceding era. Do you see that happening this time around, because I certainly don't. THIS is the looming threat to our democracy, that, with all the corruption, narcissism, and partisan dickering, it fiddles whilst our metaphorical Rome burns. If our democratic system of government cannot (or will not) rise to the challenge of the moment, something or someone else will (or, more likely, will promise to...). Fascist groups like the Golden Dawn promise clean government and an end to the depredations of the capitalist class, ideas that are resoundingly popular across the political spectrum. Couple that with a preoccupation with "Real Citizens" versus ethnic/social outsiders and you have the classic fascist program: clean, effective government for the native-born and an effort to exclude or oust the rest. Hmm... I wonder where I've seen slogans advocating that before....* I think that the "social justice" angle of fascism often gets left out of the discussion, as people tend to focus solely on its displays of xenophobia and militarism. I think, however, that this component is actually the most critical, as it (and the economic malaise/endemic corruption that it is intended to combat) is the beating heart of the fascist program. Without economic distress and obvious exploitation by economic/political elites, the "solutions" of fascism have all but zero appeal outside of hardcore racist or nationalist circles; but, with those conditions in place, frustrated citizens are drawn to their economic program, unenthusiastically perhaps joining company with its less savory elements. Certainly, nobody would argue that all/most Germans believed in the Nazi xenophobic claptrap; rather, the party offered practical solutions to practical problems and, most importantly, improved upon the horrors of the Weimar economy. Somewhat similar to the continued toleration of official "communism" in China, ordinary people will put up with some odd government behavior so long as the economic engine hums. In any case, history teaches us that the middle class is the decisive class in terms of political change. Right now, with the middle class under duress and shrinking, the conditions are becoming far more favorable for such a change (or, more hopefully, a fundamental reform) to take place. *Obviously, these don't represent the majority of the Tea Party but they are indicative of a growing sentiment within the country.

@Rats As someone who is increasingly agnostic about our form of government, I largely agree with you, in particular with your point about leadership being earned rather than inherited. In the US, one need only look at the presumptive presidential candidates to see how American democracy has been largely conflated with a monarchic or oligarchic/boyar system, with the same family names (especially Clinton, Bush, Kennedy) tending to appear over and over again, regardless of qualification. I do wonder about the feasibility of democracy going forward, however, as the nature of government becomes more technical rather than philosophical or moral/intellectual. One can already see this in the climate change debate or with topics like economics or healthcare; by all rights, those in government (overwhelmingly lawyers) have no business making policy on issues that they do not fundamentally understand, yet that is precisely how business is conducted, often to the detriment of us all. With more technological progress being made each and every day, it is impossible to imagine that 100 Senators and 435 House members will be able to deliver enlightened and scientifically reasonable public policy, even if they increase their legislative staffs. Perhaps taking certain, scientifically intensive areas of policy off the table for democratic debate would be advisable in the future; I, for one, would be pleased to cede control over complex ideas to actual experts in those fields rather than continue to allow amateurs and ideologues to lead us in circles (ex: Republicans continuing to advance supply-side economics despite its "benefits" being completely debunked by actual economists). @HeyYou Yes, and what happens to our system of government during that "fall" I wonder? If our country does implode, another democracy will 100% not rise in its place, rather, it will be some form of autocracy or else a partition into many independent states, each with their own likely autocracy. Our democracy is in the doghouse because it categorically cannot solve problems and it is quite obviously corrupt; it would be nice if a movement could peacefully oust career insiders, but I am not particularly sanguine about the prospects of that happening. Rejuvenating our government requires a vast, society-wide commitment--particularly to education--but I don't think, given how much of a struggle daily life is for enough people already, that we are really up to that task.

INTRO: Western democracy seems to be in a precarious position of late. Somewhat discredited after its failure to anticipate or respond to the financial crisis of 2008, it has also presided over three decades of highly uneven economic growth, decades that have seen the richest Westerners accumulate wealth beyond imagination while the rest have seemingly fallen behind. What's more, other countries and other governing systems appear to be doing better. China, via its authoritarian capitalism, has raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, presiding over the fastest economic development in human history (with the second fastest being the communist USSR). Russia, awash in cash derived from natural resources, has recovered its shattered pride at the same time that it has largely abandoned liberal democracy, transitioning to a "managed democracy" that is but a pleasant facade for its return to traditional autocracy. Other nations, such as Singapore, South Korea (under its dictatorship), and Vietnam have achieved rapid economic development whilst being ostentatiously undemocratic. The Central Asian states and much of Eastern Europe, too, have experienced a marked shift back toward autocracy, with states such as the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus emulating the autocracy emanating from their neighboring Russia. In contrast to the optimism espoused twenty years ago, I think it is fair to say that liberal democracy has not proved to be the final station of human political development that many Westerners, perhaps naively, believed that it would be. Even in democracy's historical cradle, the Americas and, especially, Europe, democracy is beginning to wear rough around the edges. In crisis-wracked Greece, the fascistic Golden Dawn is on the rise, and in equally insecure Hungary, the xenophobic Fidesz party has managed to capture control of the government. Far Right parties (and, less obviously, Far Right political views) continue to gain traction in stable nations like the UK, France, Switzerland, Denmark, and Poland. Mounting economic frustration, coupled with an ever-increasing detachment (or, more bluntly, "corruption") between governing elites and their citizenry has, in many states, led to a corrosive political admixture. In the United States, distrust in government and its democratic institutions has never been higher... at the same time that undemocratic institutions such as the police and the military continue to soar in popularity. And in some states, the under-performing economy exacerbates preexisting conflicts between native citizens and recent immigrants, supplying Far Right groups with easy targets for their xenophobic propaganda. DEBATE: So what do you think? Is democracy the birthright of all nations, the final evolutionary form of politics? Is democracy better at achieving certain outcomes but not others? Is an ineffectual democracy preferable to an decisive autocracy, like Singapore, that largely respects Western definitions of human rights even as it denies many civil liberties? What do you think the future holds for your state? What do you think the future holds for Far Right groups like the Golden Dawn or Fidesz, especially if the economy continues to perform badly? Are Westerners really invulnerable to an authoritarian relapse, even when confronted with dire economic and social crises? What is the best way to combat Far Right groups attempting to promote authoritarianism? Given the complex, technical nature of the world today (unlike in Montesquieu, Jefferson, or Voltaire's day), is government by untrained amateurs even desirable??

Just wanted to share that Turkey shot down a Syrian helicopter yesterday after it supposedly entered Turkish airspace. The only catch is that the helicopter apparently crashed fully two kilometers inside of Syrian territory, meaning that it either never entered Turkish airspace at all or that it was already turned around and fleeing/back inside Syria by the time it was shot down. No matter the circumstances, such an incident is straying dangerously close to open warfare between the two countries, which, of course, might just be the entire point. Turkey desperately wants intervention and, with its enormous army, might be considering that they should be the ones to knock Assad over. Or, if they can claim self-defense, they can possibly rope NATO (so US/UK/France) into the conflict as a backdoor means of circumventing public opinion in those countries, couching the intervention in terms of treaty obligations rather than direct interference. Which is all to say that efficacious warmongers don't give up, they merely bide their time.

Mohamed is right on that, the economic backwardness of many Mid East countries is a huge reason why there's so much conflict going on right now. Egypt used to have the world's premier cotton crop as well as an emerging industrial base, but much of that was swept aside in the colonial period in favor of crude mercantilism. Nasser attempted to develop the country and industrialize, but this progress stagnated under Sadat and, especially, Mubarak, where corruption and inefficiency came to rule the day. Couple said inefficiencies with an unprecedented population boom (median age of many ME countries is like 19) and its resulting strain on natural resources, especially water resources, and you have a very unstable mix. Add to that the divide-and-rule policies of the former colonial powers (installing minorities to rule over large majorities) and the intentionally ahistorical borders drawn up by said powers (Egypt notwithstanding), and you have different religious groups/ethnicities squabbling over an increasingly inadequate economic pie. Even more intractable is the problem of the nation-state as a concept, that is, a political idea that began in Europe, in response to European history and wars of religion, and that has since been cemented as THE defining characteristic of international order. The problem with this is that it presupposes a nationalism that in many cases simply CANNOT exist due to the way that many nations have been ahistorically "commanded" into existence rather than organically formed. Many Iraqis do not think of themselves as Iraqis because their primary group allegiance lies with their tribe rather than the state. Beyond the tribe, they may think of themselves as part of the larger Sunni movement, but the state itself is still irrelevant. When forced to cohabitate a state with members of other religions or ethnicities (Shiites, Kurds, etc.), with whom they have no historical affinity, the entire concept of a nation-state falls apart as there is no uniting bond, a state without a nation. These countries only "worked" because they had leaders willing to enforce an artificial and ahistorical nationalism through the use of force and terror, commanding obediance rather than allegiance or identification. The ME does desperately need economic development, likely on the level of a new Marshall Plan. It also, as Jim says, needs stability, but that stability can't again be built on the backs of strong-men alone. In a world of nation-states, the ME needs nationalism--ideally secular--and for that it probably requires smaller, more ethnically/religiously homogenous states, at least for now. To facilitate development, the West needs to either actively help out or back off entirely, because its current manipulation and backstopping of regimes is what allows many countries in the ME to remain backward. The current Islamist wildfire will require at least a generation to burn itself out, but economic development will ensure that it doesn't swallow up anyone else. I don't have faith that our foreign policy can see past the next barrel of oil or childish contest with Russia or Iran, but if the West were serious about ME stability we would be promoting economic development there rather than endlessly attacking.

@HeyYou a) IMO, our problem arises because we view the entire world as "ours" to dominate and interfere in, no matter how geographically remote or removed from our core national interests a given conflict is. I think of it somewhat like that model of psychology, the Hierarchy of Needs. After our immediate needs are satisfied (no rebellion at home), we move on to the next most proximate need (making sure that Canada isn't a Chinese proxy), then the next (holding down Latin America and Europe), and the next (Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, etc.), gradually ascending the pyramid into the esoteric. Since we have no true constraint on the height of our pyramid, we end up contriving a multiplicity of new levels--adding additional interests out of even the smallest imperfections that we perceive across the globe. Where other nations are content at having one or two levels (peace at home and friendly neighbors), we insist on building our pyramid ever higher... at the inevitable expense of everyone else. b) Can I co-sign that petition???

@Vindekarr Absolutely right! If we truly wanted to make a positive difference we would start up a Berlin Airlift type of opperation to help the refugees in Jordan/Lebanon/Turkey and bankroll some Japanese (no baggage in Middle East) medics to go and take care of civilians inside the country. Might not make a difference to hardcore jihadists, but it'd a) be the right thing to do, and b) demonstrate to everyone else in the region that we can do something other than drop bombs. It might also prevent the children suffering in the refugee camps from turning into jihadists themselves sometime in the future, which most definitely is in the interests of us all. I also wonder how much support the rebels actually have among the people of Syria nowadays. Kerry himself estimated that the entire body of fighters is something like 75k-100k, which, out of an adult population of 17m, is really not significant. Obviously, not every rebel sympathizer is fighting, but even if every fighter has fifty sympathizers, that is still only 5m people out of 17m, which is not even 30% of the population. Opinion polling is clearly hard to come by in a war-torn country (though they managed it in Iraq!), but one would have to imagine that Assad truly does represent the preference of a large majority of Syrians. Perhaps it was not always like this, especially back in 2011, but, when faced with a choice between Assad and Al-Qaeda, a little political repression seems preferable to hardline Islamic rule and ethnic cleansing. @Colinpark Bwahaha, that's amazing. Meanwhile, the NSA types "TFC" and "TWF" and goes around spying on everything. Upon finding something interesting, it's "COC GUANTANAMO" or else or a one-shot "KILL" for the overhead drone. Bwahaha.

It appears as though the West might be attempting to go the Carthage route, with the (French, WTF?) UN resolution apparently containing language that the Assad regime be condemned and that its members be referred to the International Criminal Court for their (unproven!) role in the Ghouta chemical attack, something that they obviously know the regime/Russia will not agree to. Furthermore, the new Senate resolution seems to incorporate this language as well, making for an easy legal trigger for a strike should either the UN language change or the proposal be rejected. And in the meantime, Russia insists that the UN Resolution not be "backed by the use of force" against the Assad regime if its provisions fail; likely Russia remembers how they were duped by the West over the Libyan no-fly zone and they don't want to see a repeat performance of UN-backed regime change against Syria. I suppose that certain aspects are open to negotiation, but the use of force likely is not. Russia wants any Western attack to lack UN approval--to be a "rogue" attack--and the West still seems to be sharking about looking for another pretext to strike. So maybe not much has changed at all... though if Obama thinks that this weaksauce show of "diplomacy" will bolster public support for his attack, he is highly likely to be mistaken (might change a couple of votes in Congress though). @MajKrAzAm I don't think that Obama bears full responsibility for this; I mean, look at the boon for Iran that resulted from our toppling of Saddam. Further, I don't really know if the Middle East is really a region that we want to be seen as dominating any longer, as the demographic/natural resources/economic crises that set off the Arab Spring aren't going to be stopping any time soon. IMO, the Gulf States are a far more malevolent force in the region (and world) than is Iran, so a more equitable balance of power in the region is not a particularly terrible outcome. We would be wise to seek reapproachment with Iran rather than antogonize her, as they are by far the most advanced and socially stable state in the region. As a society and state, Iran will outlast Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf monarchs, and we would be wise to keep this in mind when devising our long-term foreign policy.

@Harbringe I think that some of the schizophrenia in Obama's rhetoric probably reflects a competition for influence between various factions within the Administration, between neocon sympathizers (Kerry, Clinton), foreign heads of state (Saudi, Turkey, Israel), naive liberal interventionists (Powers, Rice), and whatever Obama himself might have actually thought about Syria. It appears as though each of these elements held sway during various points over the last two weeks, with the Administration's position shifting to accommodate each side's new strategy/demands. At any rate, I suppose it remains to be seen what the Administration ultimately desires in Syria: regime change (with an eye on Iran) or WMD removal. If the latter, then this deal is a complete success; if the former, then the deal is an unwelcome obstacle in their invasion narrative. Their good faith (or lack thereof) will be telling, as they can be reasonable in their expectations and timeline OR they can treat the Syrians like the Romans treated Carthage, making one unreasonable demand after another until their demands can no longer be met without a complete surrender of sovereignty, at which time invasion becomes both innevitable and "legitimate." @Vindekarr Fully agree.

Russia is ballin' so hard on the Administration right now. Seizing on an off-the-cuff remark that Kerry made yesterday, Putin has proposed that Syria voluntarily relinquish its cache of chemical weapons and allow them to be destroyed by an international team of weapons experts. As this is obviously the most reasonable proposal on Syria yet proposed, the Administration really has no other option but to accept it, else they appear as completely unhinged and irrational warmongers. Russia has, as such, pulled off a great diplomatic coup, wresting the moral high ground on the issue away from the US by advancing a plan that eliminates Syria's chemical arms without the use of violence. However, as much as this deal represents a Russian triumph, the Administration (in particular, Obama) should not be blinded to the opportunity that it presents to them, namely, a face-saving method of walking back their Syrian attack plans. Accepting the Russian proposal would allow Obama to call off the Congressional vote (which he is likely to lose) on Syria while simultaneously claiming a victory over Assad in terms of their chemical weapons, a win-win if he is not too proud to recognize it. Let us hope that Obama accepts this gift. Though his war-eagerness has confounded me these last two weeks, somehow I think that he will.

Some of the preliminary whip counts have the resolution trailing badly in the House, with 200+ lean no votes to well under 100 lean yes votes. Pelosi has an enormous mountain to climb in order to reach 218, and it appears as though Republicans aren't going to do her many favors in terms of getting there. If the resolution passes, it will likely be owned by the Democrats and could represent a political disaster on many different levels. Of course, sometimes minds can change... especially when AIPAC is apparently launching its own shock-and-awe campaign against wavering legislators and Obama is planning some big address. @Mohamed You are right, of course, but I wonder if perhaps Russia wouldn't benefit from a more confrontational stance toward the West? The fall of the USSR didn't pay much of a dividend in terms of relations with the West; their empire simply fell apart and overnight NATO was expanding into their old republics, setting up radar and ABM sites. If you are Russia, the last twenty years have seen you geopolitically emasculated and completely encircled by American military bases, and now the West is busy sniping off your few remaining friends. The US might tell itself that it's just promoting world peace, but from a Russian perspective this probably just looks like pure Western aggression. I'd contend that the Cold War mentality never really left Washington, and that our politicians have grown so used to doing things unopposed that somewhere along the line they actually forgot that other nations have interests independent of our own. IMO, Russia doesn't have much to lose if it begins to reassert itself on the world stage. Maybe it could do a "good cop, bad cop" routine with China! PS - What do you think the ultimate outcome of Syria will be?

@Harbringe Indeed, kicking this back to Congress has really amped up the expectations for the attack. You can tell even from the press conferences and testimony, where the mission has crept from merely "sending a message" to "fundamentally degrade Assad's military" to "tip the balance of power toward the opposition" to, most likely, "regime change." Something is definitely weird with the scenario, as you and Jim have stated, that Obama's reaction has been completely out of proportion to the alleged chemical attack. I still don't know about a larger conflict being likely, but, if I were Russia, I'd be stationing my own troops inside of Assad's compounds, basing my own planes next to his at his air bases, and airlifting as many anti-ship and anti-air missiles as humanly possible as "gifts" for the regime. Heck, if I were Putin, I would go to Syria and hang out with Assad, tour his bases in front of the international press, and, in effect, signal to Obama that it would be very ill-advised to launch yet another Western takeover of one of my allies. Wouldn't contribute at all to world peace and would likely exacerbate his own problems with Islamists, but it would send the first signal since the end of the Cold War that the US can't just unilaterally run train on Russian interests without some sort of pushback. ..... Rand Paul is becoming amazing, however. His would be the first actually useful fillibuster in like the last twenty years if he actually makes good on his threat to fillibuster the resolution in the Senate. That would be the kind of opportunity that speaking fillibusters are made for, utterly cinematic. It could be the iconic moment for his presidential campaign. I don't much care for his economic policy, but if I were a Republican presidential aspirant (or Hillary), I would be taking careful note that Paul is on the right side of some seriously lopsided public opinion.

@Jim Absolutely, the language of the resolution is intentionally vague and open-ended, allowing Obama to do whatever he wants (no prohibition whatsoever on ground troops) once it is approved. ..... More broadly, Obama has also really thrown his party under the bus with this decision, in a way that could really damage their electoral prospects both in the next election and in a more existential sense. Just as the failure and corruption of the Bush presidency played a pivotal role in spinning off the the Tea Party from establishment Republicans, I think that Obama's unpopular, reckless behavior has the potential to do the same thing with liberal Democrats as well. This vote (and the NSA votes before it) will create some awkward townhall meetings for many Democrats, and I would hope that principled Democratic voters would not forget their transgressions come the primaries and/or general election. I also just love the slanted coverage of this issue in the media, always asking inane questions like "Why is Russia so confrontational" when it is clear as day that it is the US consistently in the position of disrupting the geopolitical equilibrium and sniping off Russia's (few) traditional allies. If the shoe were on the other foot, would Washington just smile and acquiesce as Russia (or China) toppled the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Japan, Mexico, etc. using unilateral action and dubious, self-interested justifications? Somehow I didn't think so.

Pretty sure that we are still going to attack. The resolution is a shoe-in in the hawkish Senate and the Administration will likely be able to whip a large majority of Democrats, coupled with perhaps ~50% Republican support, in the House. The only real source of opposition will probably be from the anti-war left and from libertarian-leaning Republicans, perhaps amounting to ~120 or so votes. The other "problem" with this going to a vote is that it builds up expectations for the attack mightily. Whereas before, the attack might have been closer to a token volley of cruise missiles, this prelude period increases the odds of a multi-day "shock and awe" sort of campaign, potentially weakening al-Assad much more than it would have otherwise (which, IMO, isn't desirable). The entire debate in Washington misses the point though, which is that, much like the egg in the fairy tale, the Syrian state cannot be put together again after so much life has been lost. Syria MUST go the way of Yugoslavia and dissolve, as no amount of federalism is going to restore the broken trust between the various religious and ethnic communities of that beleaguered nation. The current state borders and "constructed states" of the Middle East are, by and large, anachronisms, established arbitrarily by the West after the First World War. They need to be redrawn, as they were in Eastern Europe--though again, only after much violence and bloodshed. Arab Nationalism and despotism used to be strong enough to hold these nations together, but, as should be obvious, that is no longer the case. Additionally, the preeminent conflict in the Middle East is no longer the "classic" Arab versus Israel affair, but is instead a "throwback" to 661, a Sunni versus Shia religious cold war, or, put another way, "Iran versus the Gulf States." The West has the unpleasant position of having long-ago sided with the Gulf States, nevermind that it is precisely these nations who are responsible for carrying out and financing the enormous bulk of the world's terrorism, including, of course, 9/11, the London subway attack, Madrid, etc. I would argue that we a) have no business taking a side in that fight, but b) if we do, then we are currently on the wrong side.

I was laughing so hard yesterday at Obama after the vote in Parliament, it was simply amazing. The drums of war silenced by... democracy! what a quaint and utterly unthinkable idea from an American perspective. It may or may not be Freudian, but I am having some serious democracy envy for the UK right now. However, said vote doesn't seem to have changed the Obama "I can haz war now!" policy, it simply ensures that his Administration will look like even more rabid, frothing, mad-dog warmongers than they were already poised to. Kerry's supposedly "revamped" appeal for why another war is necessary fell absolutely flat, coming across as the most vile sort of "appeal to the heart" propaganda ("the children... at their school desks!"), offering no new evidence linking the regime to the attacks and distilling down to the same fundamental argument used in 2003: "trust us guys, our intelligence just can't be wrong!" He even closed out with the classic neocon fearmongering cannard of "if we do nothing, sooner or later they'll use their WMDs on us (must be 'cause they hate our freedom...)." In the meantime, American and British citizens oppose any action by a 3:1 margin and the French by 2:1 (not having gone into Iraq, I guess, makes them slightly more eager to bomb), yet somehow this is still on the table and scheduled to happen. As an American, I would pay money for somebody like Rand Paul to begin impeachment proceedings against Obama for this, much as Joe Biden promised to do to Bush in 2007 if the latter had attacked Iran. Obama has gone so seriously rogue on this, to the point where he is looking every bit as irrational and thuggish as the regime that he is considering attacking. But somehow we are supposed to believe that he is so reluctant for this war... so reluctant... bwahaha.

I'm pretty sure that the American government is like a rogue state within a rogue state at this point, and, if we're to be honest about it, if this were any other country (or at least a country without nuclear weapons...) our leaders would rightfully be chilling in Milosevic's old cell in The Hague, right next Charles Taylor and the rest of the international warlords. But the International Criminal Court and, really, the entire body of International Law are only there to ensnare weak states, while larger powers invent ever more entertaining semantics and justifications for intervening, or, if even that fails, just make like the Iraq War and ignore it completely, daring any other power to do something about it. It's self-evident that the decision to intervene in Syria had long since been made, but that, due to Western war fatigue, US/UK/France were biding their time in anticipation of a serviceable pretext. That none of these powers actually care about what the UN concludes about the attack (in fact, telling them to leave the country!) belies the fact that the actual event is irrelevant, that it is only significant as an opportunity to do what they wanted all along. Also heavy with irony is Obama currently attempting to don the mantle of Martin Luther King, forgetting that the actual MLK was staunchy anti-war and a pacifist while the Obama Administration continues the warmongering and militarism that has come to define modern America. Somewhere, far away... the actual MLK is face-palming mightily.

So it's been almost two years now without a random, unprovoked attack on a Middle Eastern country, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that we're about to launch another one in order to keep from breaking this arbitrary and self-imposed schedule. To whit, we're about to attack Syria using the exact same argument that we used against Iraq in 2003, namely, that "our gut" tells us that they've used/possessed chemical weapons, but that, unfortunately, we just can't quite seem to come up with any actual evidence in order to prove this claim (I mean, International Law is practically Roman Law--guilty until proven innocent, amirite?). But truly, the irony is THICK with this, as you have some of George Bush's fiercest critics (Obama chief among them) literally copy-pasting his rhetoric (Kerry actually said "Willing Coalition!") and "argument" (secret evidence... just trust us alright?) in order to shoe-horn a military action that they've coveted for some time into a pretext that is, at best, absolutely paper thin. Consider: A) UN weapons inspectors were alerady in-country, why would al-Assad choose precisely THIS time as the moment for a chemical strike? B) Why would al-Assad take this immense gamble when he had already long since captured the momentum of the war? C) If the attack was ordered by the regime, why allow UN inspectors to the site at all, as they did today? Further: A) In May the Iraqi government broke up an al-Qaeda cell that was attempting to manufacture and use sarin and mustard gas, and chlorine gas attacks have been a rather commonplace terror tactic in that country for years. B) Al-Qaeda militants in Iraq are intimately linked with the dominant rebel faction in Syria (al-Nusra Front), with men and materiel regularly moving across their porous border. Finally: A) Why is the Obama Administration pre-emptively "moving the goalposts" when it comes to the UN inspectors determining the guilt or innocence of the Syrian regime? B) If the chemical attack was so self-evidently committed by the regime, why would John Kerry state that it is already "too late" for the UN inspectors to render a verdict on the matter, especially when the "too late" claim is contradicted by many other experts in the field? C) If the UN inspectors are so unreliable, why won't the Obama Administration share their "secert evidence" with the American people and press? Conclusion: We all know how this story goes and we all know how it will end, as we have *wait for it* seen it several times before. The US, with some rag-tag "coalition" of France (wants that Mandate back!), UK, Turkey, Gulf States, and a small cadre of utterly insignificant developing nations looking to curry favor with the US will co-sign on the missile launch, flouting American public opinion, European public opinion, and world opinion--and highly likely in contravention of international law. Russia and China will talk some bluster but won't actually do anything, as will Syria and Iran (and maybe Zimbabwe keke). The strikes will take out some runways and damage military communication, but will otherwise prove to be inneffectual, begging the question "What was the point of this, again?" In the meantime, the Defense Department will place some orders with Raytheon or General Dynamics or whatever to replenish some of their supply of Tomahawks, signifying the only true "winner" of the affair. 'MURICA! http://www.e-celebrities.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/FlagEagle.jpg

The ACA is a bad bill in the sense that it preserves the backward structure and incentives of our healthcare system (for-profit, fee-for-service, largely tied to your occupation) and the controversy that surrounds it has simultaneously set back the cause of actual healthcare reform for... perhaps a generation (or more!). It might have helped people with genuinely terrible preexisting conditions who couldn't obtain healthcare before--and that is indeed a noble outcome--but, I'd imagine, most everyone else have only seen their premiums go up to compensate for these new additions (or they have gone up because insurers seized on this pretext to raise rates just because). A better system would be simple single-payer untethered to your occuptation (which employers would love!), with perhaps optional layers of high-end coverage obtained at the buyer's expense. But, given the fact that Republicans have no alternative plan to the ACA and seem to think that our current system "is the best in the world" (*intense guffaw*), I'm unsure as to whether or not repealing the ACA is actually good policy. Likely, it would just be repealed and we would limp along with our current jank-a-lank system intact (increased premiums and all) and we wouldn't revisit this topic again until the present political generation has died off (which will take a bit since they actually have amazing healthcare keke). If, however, we could replace the ACA with an actual reformation of the healthcare system, I would be all for that. Republican threats to shut down the government/default on the debt is pure clownage of the highest calibre, and, quite frankly, this seemingly annual "tradition" is getting rather old. HeyYou is right, both parties are indeed corrupt and (in general) DGAF about any of us, but Republicans perennially make me question: "Who let the 19th century anarchists into 'my' government" and indeed, why do they even bother to run and show up if they have no intention of doing anything actually productive. The short answer, of course, is that they ain't there for that, they're there to "build their brand" and cash out into right-wing media/advocacy complex. Sex certainly sells but so does making a fool of yourself; Republicans, sometimes adhering to both of these principles, are like the right-wing Jersey Shore.

@Jim Complex question, but perhaps the two largest explanatory factors would be the low federal minimum wage and the fact that you've got high divorce rates and an increasing large number of single parent households. Making ~7 dollars an hour might be fine when you're 15 and in high school, but it is most definitely not going feed, clothe, and house a family, especially when that family is headed by only a single individual. Most working class jobs (not in the trades) simply do not pay enough for an individual to make do without some form of government assistance, something that should be pretty shabby commentary of the current state of the American economic model. Yet this is where most of the "job growth" in the US is taking place (what Texas brags about...), with the low-paying retail and "service" sectors crowding out the old core of well-paying blue collar jobs in manufacturing, constuction, raw materials, trades, auto, etc. And in no small way, federal, state, and local governments are directly subsidizing the ability of the companies to pay such a paltry wage via these assistance programs, adding mightily to the irony of the situation. To borrow the useful but played-out phrase from the banking bailout, the ability for firms to pay low wages is effectively the "privatisation of profit" and the "socialization of debt," which in this case means that taxpayers pay for the assistance of other citizens while companies pocket what they would have otherwise paid in wages. So the TDLR is that you've got two problems: 1) neoliberal economics making most people poorer and 2) the unravelling of the family unit (though in reality, of course, these two things are also very much related). EDIT: Roaches also makes some good points, especially regarding the spending habits of many low-income folks in the US.

I second this. The "scandal" portion of this issue is entirely Washington "sound and fury" that distracts from the real issue, which, as Lis points out, is the malleable nature of these tax laws and how they provide for unlimited flows of cash into our political system--an arrangement that both parties benefit from and thus have no particular interest in undermining. Likely the only lasting effect of these allegations will be that the IRS will be even more hesitant in the future when it comes to enforcing these statutes, allowing "civic groups" on both sides even more leeway to engage in politicking, a lose-lose for the public, but a win-win for politicians and their special interest retainers. I'd rather that we end all this "money is speech" madness and move to 100% public financing for campaigns, but alas that is currently held to be unconstitutional.... In the interim, however, perhaps the laws might be clarified to read that "ANY" funds spent on political media or electioneering are grounds to revoke the tax-exempt status of a group, with no possible quibbling over the dollar amounts or semantics. @colourwheel Also agreed. One has to appreciate the "honorable" Congressman's a priori reasoning on this rather than bothering with the facts. In the Republican media personality's fever dream, where Occam's Razor always cuts toward a direct line to the President, one truly has to marvel at the superhuman (indeed, God-like?) qualities attributed to the President, such as the ability to generate for himself seemingly infintite hours of the day in which to micromanage even the most insignificant aspects of government.

I agree that there isn't really a scandal here, at least not in the way that folks like Issa et al want there to be. Obviously, nobody wants any government agency taking political views into account when it comes to their enforcement of rules and regulations, but at the same time the IRS does have a responsibility to investigate nonprofit groups and ensure that they are not violating any laws related to their nonprofit status. Specifically, these groups claiming nonprofit status under the 501c(4) exemption have to prove that they are primarily (over 50% of funds expended) engaged in "social welfare" activities rather than political activism/advocacy, a test that I am not sure many of these Tea Party groups actually meet. However, I believe that this is probably equally true of many liberal nonprofit groups as well. To me, the primary scandal here involves the porousness of our tax code and how political groups are able to claim nonprofit protections when they are flagrantly involved in electioneering activities. I would like to see the IRS hulk smash all of these fake nonprofits and restore tax-exempt status to what it was always intended to be--a means to encourage philanthropy and to promote nonpartisan civic activities (like garden clubs and after-school English programs). Anyway, my conclusions: A) Darrel Issa is a bad joke (a political Don Quixote) B) Sadly, our tax code and election laws are even worse