sukeban

Wild news coming out of Egypt this morning. The Egyptian military, after several days of millions-strong protests, has stated that the Islamist President of Egypt has two days in which to develop a power-sharing compromise with the secular opposition. The catalyst for the demonstrations has been the President's actions over the last year, as he has transformed from an Islamic-leaning moderate when running for office into a highly polarizing religious partisan since his election, adopting incindiary sectarian rhetoric--as Jim alludes to above--and rapidly packing the Egyptian government (and education system) at all levels with fellow Muslim Brotherhood members. Military involvement in democratic politics is hardly ever positive, but this might--if President Morsi accepts the terms--actually be the best way forward for Egypt. It appears as though the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies were treading the same path as many regimes before them, e.g. to win one election and then dismantle the democratic machinery that elected them, enshrining the dominance of the one-off majority into the rest of the nation's institutions in perpetuity. Turkey perhaps presents a model of this in action, as the Islamist AKP were elected in the early 2000s and have since undermined Turkey's secular institutions at every turn, including the mass imprisonment of secular military officers--a feature that is key to the comparison with Egypt. Morsi has not been in power long enough to thoroughly dismantle the military as an independent base of power in Egypt, but we have every reason--given his actions elsewhere in government--to believe that he would most certainly try. In any case, let us hope that Morsi cooperates and a workable compromise is able to be reached. Ideally, new elections would be held and a new Constitution drafted--one free of coercive Brotherhood influence. Morsi obviously overreached his "mandate" and he is now being checked by the only institution able to do so--but this is not without some degree of risk. The Brotherhood has heretofore been generally peaceful in Egypt, but if new elections are held and they come out in a minority, they may draw the conclusion that they must resort to more forceful means to rectify the injustice. This is even more likely if Morsi refuses the military's demands and is ousted from power directly. Furthermore, Mubarak-era cronies could seize this opportunity to re-enter politics in the hopes of resurrecting the regime under a democratic guise... or as nationalistic saviors. So the waters are fraught with uncertainty, but let us hope that all parties choose the wise path here: re-setting Egyptian democracy and starting again from scratch, this time with a stronger civil society--and better understanding of what is and is not acceptable from the majority--than they had in 2012.

@ProperX First of all, thanks for the great post! Personally, I think that Germany's refusal to participate in Western (US/UK/France) foreign wars of choice is absolutely a credit to your nation and to the strength of your democratic institutions. I also have no idea as to why the American government would want to spy on Germany or treat her as a "third-class partner" in any realm, be that foreign policy, national security, human rights, etc. If I had to advance some speculation, I would say that perhaps it is because American policymakers are wary of Germany potentially growing out of its "little brother" role and taking on a more active, independent position in European and global affairs. Since 1945, the US has organized Western foreign policy to be very hawkish and right-wing; but apart from German re-armament in the 1950s, Germany has, as you say, largely not participated in these policies, especially in matters outside of European borders. I think that American policymakers have been willing to accept German non-participation in these affairs, but that they are scared of the possibility that Germany might be able to influence the rest of the EU into outright opposition to them. More fundamentally, I believe that the US fears that it will lose its ability to "speak for the West" if a German-led EU becomes too independent of Washington. Such a split between a hawkish, aggressive America (or an American/UK alliance) and a more pacifistic EU would expose much of American foreign policy for what it is: self-interested militarism dressed up self-sacrificing idealism. The US (probably correctly) worries that a pacifistic, independent EU would run a high probability of transferring the "moral authority" of the democratic West from the US to Europe, leaving the US to couch its wars of adventure in the more mundane terms of self-interest rather than the lofty rhetoric of human rights and democracy. It might sound insignificant to a cynical point of view, but this moral authority really is important, as the "ideal" of "American values" is like a permanent "disposition boost" (to couch it in TES terms) with the people of the Third World (and previously the Second World) and represents a historic bond even to much of the developed world, like Germany. Stripped of the power of moral suasion, the US speaks only for itself, as a single, self-interested country--one amongst nearly two-hundred--nothing more and nothing less.

Right on cue, it appears as though the "rebels" are beginning to take aim at the other religious minorities of Syria--this time the Christians, who are formally neutral in the conflict. The attack has coincided with a marked uptick in the number of suicide bombings taking place in Syria, all of which, of course, are directed against government targets or civilians in government-controlled areas, indicating that they are the handiwork of the opposition. To compound matters, last week the militias claimed that they had received anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.... one wonders from which Western nation they managed to obtain those from? Today these weapons might be used to reenact the Mujahadeen glory days of the 1980s, and the US can revel in news footage of downed Syrian jets and helicopters, but... will we be so celebratory when these weapons are used to bring down Russian or Iranian passenger jets? Furthermore, the conflict is now spreading into Lebanon, where fundamentalist Sunni militias are brazenly attacking the secular military, accusing them of supporting Hezbollah and Assad in Syria. That is pretty rich, as the militias are essentially demanding that the Lebanese military actively intervene in the Syrian conflict on the side of the fundamentalists, a move that a state in Lebanon's precarious sectarian position absolutely cannot afford to take. Such a self-serving interpretation of the military's neutrality is clearly a pretext to justify their continued opposition to Lebanon's secular state--an arrangement that no fundamentalist would ever, of course, be satisfied with--perhaps in the interest of widening the Sunni/everyone else conflict to include Lebanon as well. Pretty sure that the only people pleased with these developments are our puritanical "friends" in the Gulf monarchies.

@social issues Pre-1960s these issues were just swept under the rug by both political parties. This was a) convenient for our political process because it allowed the parties to debate over more traditional issues like defense and fiscal policy, but b) immensely unfair to those who were actually being victimized as a result of that inaction. Those days might look appealing to some in retrospect, but we would also do well to remember that these traditional arrangements were fundamentally authoritarian and reinforced tremendous inequalities between various social groupings, principally between men/women and various minorities/the majority. Were fighting over these things a smoke screen in the 1960s and 70s? I would say no--in most cases--as they were in many cases inequalities created and reinforced by the very government under which we were all presumed to be equal. There is, however, most definitely a limit as to how much progress government alone can make in this direction, and changing people's minds about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are items that are not included among them. Those types of opinions (and most political opinions, for that matter) are created growing up and, by and large, never change--unless a drastic situation (like Dick Cheney and his daughter) forces a reevaluation. Waiting for such retrograde opinions to die out in a society literally means waiting for entire demographic cohorts to die off, taking their opinions--and their ability to each them to others--with them. Simple as that. In many cases, government can help change minds by simply not getting in the way. Social evolution is taking place before our eyes, in the US and in Europe. The younger you are, the more likely you are to know and be friends with folks who are a minority, are gay, are foreign, are some different religion, etc. and, of course, when you're friends with someone and have a positive opinion about them, it is exceptionally difficult to generalize in a negative way about other people like them. That is the best way to develop a more tolerant society--to simply allow people to connect with each other and become friends. Older generations weren't "bad" for not doing this--it's more that they never really got the opportunity. To wrap up, righting wrongs where people are unequal under the law is most definitely an admirable goal and is one that we should all celebrate; but Democrats attempting to demonize the Boy Scouts over their scoutmaster policy or Republicans endlessly advancing rearguard anti-abortion/gay marriage laws definitely qualify as smoke screen material, as they are either things best decided by the private changing of minds or matters that have already been decided in the favor of equality under the law.

@Vagrant I see where you are coming from, but your stance requires a large degree of inherent trust in these government agencies--more trust, IMO, than they have earned. But I would agree that trust is entirely subjective, so I cannot do much more than simply disagree. @terrorism It's my opinion that Bin Laden roped us like a dope with 9/11 and calculating our response. The entire point of his mission was to goad the US into an overreaction (not to do raw damage), one that he could capitalize on in order to mint new recruits and secure widespread sympathy in the Middle East for his (at that time) relatively unpopular ideology. After our invasion of Afghanistan we started the ball rolling in that direction, but Iraq and our subsequent foreign policy misadventures were what was truly responsible for tripping public opinion in the favor of his Western Crusader narrative. In addition to all these new recruits, we decided to undermine our country even at home--repealing and restricting many of our civil liberties and trashing our economy with debt in order to pay for seemingly innumerable random interventions and wars of choice (all of which, again, feed into the Crusader narrative...). So, even though Bin Laden is now finally dead, his "vision" for destabilizing the United States has succeeded beyond, I am sure, even his wildest dreams. And the greatest irony of all is that Al-Qaeda did not do that damage to us--it was entirely self-inflicted. Terrorism is simply not an existential threat to this country or to Europe. If we, as nations, take common-sense measures to tackle the largest threats (radiation detectors in major cities, keeping Israeli-style tabs on visitors from Somalia, etc.) that we face, we will have done our part toward eliminating most of terrorism's destructive power. But real talk, if we were truly interested in curbing terrorism, we would cease with our interventions in the Middle East and put an immediate halt to our drone campaigns. Slaying terrorists might be satisfying from a vengeance perspective, but in truth it is counterproductive to attempt to destroy a series of ideas using military force, as all that ends up accomplishing is reinforcing those very beliefs in the minds of its adherents and evangelizing others as to their validity. Instead, we should take away the foreign "Big Bad" and allow the shallow tenets of fundamentalism to founder on its own contradictions. And in the meantime, while we are waiting for this to happen, let us fortify our own borders and make sure that nobody from Waziristan gets in without some serious, serious scrutiny.

@Kendo Coming from a person who enthusiastically voted for Obama in 2008 and semi-enthusiastically voted for him just this last year, I'll agree with you that Obama has turned out to be a shady snake in the grass. That said, to think that the malfeasance that you attribute to Obama is somehow unique to him--or to Democrats in general--would be exceedingly disingenuous. Most of underlying problems that these "scandals" crystallize (principally the monopolization of power by the executive branch) are equally applicable to the Bush years, the Clinton years, the Reagan years... all the way back to Nixon, and before him, FDR. Part of this phenomenon has to do with an active pursuit of power by the executive branch, but some of it may also be attributed to the increasing "uselessness" of Congress as an institution, as Congressmen increasingly use their office to grandstand and posture for future book deals as opposed to actually governing. Furthermore, there is an illustrious "tradition" in this country of second terms going off the rails, as presidents are well-acquainted with the levers of power and are no longer concerned with having to be re-elected. They also seem to surround themselves with only their most trusted cronies--a closed-circuit network of "yes-men"--such that they are never forced to hear a dissenting voice. In any case, our entire system of democracy is on the ropes, indeed has been on the ropes, and Obama is only the most recent and obvious manifestation of this. But to believe that he is somehow unique in abusing the office of the executive would strike me rather missing the forest for the tree. @Garon Indeed, the two-party system and first-past-the-post elections (for anything other than the chief executive of an institution) are garbage in general, and I dearly wish that we could transition to a system of proportional representation. In a better democracy, the Tea Party would be properly represented alongside a proper Social Democratic party, which would in turn coexist in Congress with a Christian Democratic party, a Liberal party, a Conservative party, the Greens, etc. So many of the issues currently facing our nation could be solved by opting for just such a system, it would be near to a panacea. The prospects for this happening, however.... @Colourwheel Indeed, demographics do not lie, and I am still perplexed as to why many Republicans continue to ignore this. Republicans today (and going forward) cannot win a general election on their current platform, yet they don't really seem to be bothered. Probably because they aren't really there to govern, but rather to "make a name for themselves" as personalities before cashing out and moving on to more lucrative opportunities in entertainment and lobbying. The Palin and Bachmann strategy shows us the wave of the future: using government as a reality-show-fame-vehicle as opposed to a place where actual governing takes place.

I thought the example that I provided of Democrat gerrymandering specifically to disenfranchise non-white voters in response to thevoting rights act was a pretty solid example. In fact, I would argue that it was a far more offensive and unforgivable tactic than anything the Republicans have ever done. To this day they consistently gerrymander along ethnic lines, which I consider a racist and divisive tactic. The reason that ethnicity is considered when drawing Congressional districts is because without them the minority runs the risk of being disenfranchised and their concerns totally ignored, as you stated. In the "post-racial" future it may indeed be unnecessary, but given the reality of the situation today--that race and its attendant demographic constellations still plays a large role in shaping voter behavior--it should surprise absolutely nobody. Of course, this can and has been exploited by both sides and is negative in that it generally insulates incumbents from challengers, but the basic premise--that minorities should get a say in government--is still pretty sound. Also, the Republican gerrymandering in the House today is empirically way more outrageous than anything seen in nearly two generations: "However, this is quite notable. The popular vote was a swing of more than 6% from the 2010 election, which was 53.5% R, 46.5% D. Yet the composition of the House hardly changed – and the party that got more votes is not in control. This discrepancy between popular votes and seat counts is the largest since 1950. Did I underestimate the tilt of the playing field? Based on how far the red data point is from the black prediction line, the “structural unfairness” may be higher – as much as 5% of the popular vote. That is incredible. Clearly nonpartisan redistricting reform would be in our democracy’s best interests." http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/house_nomograph_with-2012-result.jpg In any case, what I think we can all agree on is that allowing political parties to draw their own electoral districts--to literally choose their own voters--is a terrible idea that damages our democracy--doesn't matter which party is doing it.

@Ginnyfizz On second thought, this is a silly tangent. Roaches explained the problem with the dilemma that CW posed in her question. Your scenario and her scenario describe two completely different things.

@Colorwheel You phrase a question like that and you already know what the answer will be--that precisely no one is going to choose to sacrifice their family for the sake of principle. That is, of course, human nature. But that also is not really a fair-minded way of getting to the real issue at play here, which is, from a societal perspective, where does one find the proper balance between individual liberty and the threat of terrorism? Certainly, we could, as a nation, aspire to halt all terrorism (indeed, all inconvenience and crime!) by constructing an omniscient surveillance state and legislating all previously discretionary human behavior (eating more than 2000 calories now punishable by law!), but obviously there is a limit to how much order you can introduce into a society before it becomes illiberal. Now, that is a debate I suppose we can have (indeed, probably will have), and I secretly suspect that there is a significant percentage of people in this country who would desire a more autocratic or perhaps technocratic system of governance, but, going on the assumption that the United States still stands for the maximization of individual liberty, such a course of action does not strike me as keeping in the spirit of the Founders. In my eyes, terrorists are mostly incompetent and bad at what they do--they are, decidedly, not the sort of threat that should demand of us a sacrifice of one of our most cherished (at least rhetorically...) rights, that of privacy. Obviously, this right is under heavy bombardment these days, from a commercial sector desirous of pecuniary advantage as well as from a government seemingly possessed of an agenda of its own self-aggrandizement. I would certainly not accuse anyone in government of conspiring toward any illiberal makeover of our state, but I most definitely believe that members of the intelligence establishment think of themselves as existing in a realm above the law, having internalized the belief that their mission transcends the petty concerns of those below them, those with a less "clear" vision of the problem. I also believe that politicians (and FISA judges, elite figures in the media, etc.) like to fancy themselves as rather ersatz Judi-Dench-as-M-like figures, that they are all "in the loop," and "consulted," and, more importantly, able to vicariously participate in the power and mystique wielded by these agencies through their own enthusiastic approval of their behavior. I believe that politicians are terrified by the possibility that they might lose access to this information--and the ceremonies involved in its presentation--the receipt of which is so fundamental to their self-conception as a ruling class, and that they are thus rendered unable (far more so than unwilling) to meaningfully critique or circumscribe the intelligence establishment's behavior.

The monitoring of government officials and agencies is dangerous because it sets up a situation like Hoover had back in his glory days, where he had all the dirt on everyone and was able to shape domestic policy via the threat of blackmail--exactly as Roaches states. Presidents for DECADES wanted to sack him because they rightfully viewed him as dangerous; however, they never could, as with all that information he had an entirely independent base of power within the executive branch, one that was completely immune to the will of the electorate, unlike themselves. It is not healthy nor beneficial for a democracy to have such immensely powerful unelected officials--especially in defense and national security!--as they are able to form effective "states within states" able to subvert or otherwise undermine the will of our elected leaders. Such a situation could range from merely wasteful--ensuring permanently high levels of defense spending--to outright dangerous if the intelligence community ever developed any sort of collective Caesarian ambition (right now they seem only to presume themselves the nation's Praetorian Guard...). And that is what Snowden's most important point is, at least to me: that the entirety of the intelligence apparatus is held in check only by the vicissitudes of policy, that is, the contemporary caprice of the executive branch. Indeed, today's purportedly well-intentioned intelligence apparatus might be out there bagging real terrorists day in and day out, without any sort of domestic invasions of privacy, but we must all recognize that today's policies hold no bearing whatsoever on the policies of tomorrow, they are subject to change at the drop of a hat. Richelieu (might have) quipped, "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, and I will find something in them which will hang him," a statement that we might all take as a fair bit of forewarning. Now, however, consider that the government has access not only to our written word but also to our "metadata," combining the sum total of our thoughts with the sum total of our actions, all compiled and collated for convenient government query. In trustworthy hands, certainly this information might be all well and banal, but in untrustworthy hands, this could be the real stuff of despotism. In my humble estimation, this is a gamble that we ought not to take at all.

Word on the street is that Snowden is in Moscow now, apparently en route to either Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba. American news outlets have been depressingly predictable in their claims that he is "assisting our enemies" and guests on the major networks seem to be competing with one another in decrying just how much "irreparable damage" he has done to American national security. I have also been exceedingly amused by the attempts to spin Russian involvement as "yet another" example of "Russia thumbing its nose at the United States" and completely ignoring the current context of the US-Russia relationship. For example, was it not even a week ago that Obama decided to begin supplying arms to the fundamentalist militias in Syria, with the express aim of ousting one of Russia's last surviving allies in the region? About two years before that, did we also not "bait and switch" Russia at the UN over Libya, turning the no-fly zone into a policy of complete regime rollback? Did the previous administration also not attempt to expand NATO directly up to the Russian border as well as successfully undermine Russia's influence in the Central Asian states to make for easier supply lines to American troops fighting in and occupying Afghanistan? Finally, did the United States not attempt to install its prototype missile defense system in Poland the Czech Republic, a move that could only be understood as an attempt to counter Russia's second-strike capability? All of which is not to say that Russia is a model state--far from it!--but more to say that I find it utterly laughable for anyone to contend that Russia is being unduly aggressive toward the United States when any fair-minded observer can see that it has been the United States undermining Russia's strategic interests at almost ever turn. As for his asylum prospects, I'd personally opt for Iceland--but (likely owing to their new government) that seems to be out of the question. With his remaining options, I'd probably opt for either Cuba or Russia over Ecuador or Venezuela, primarily because of Cuba's climate and/or Russia's considerably more advanced state of development. The problem in Russia would be the FSB hounding you 24/7, and likewise the problem with Cuba is that its continuity of government cannot be taken for granted once the Castro brothers finally do pass away. I suppose that's why Ecuador is considered to be his most likely destination, as Correa is an amazingly popular leader (with growing authoritarian tendencies...) whose hold on power seems the most stable over the long-term. The political situation in Venezuela seems more like a coin-flip, as Maduro lacks the charisma of Chavez even if he has majority support for the time being. Venezuela is also far more strategically important to the United States, so the prospects for subversion against the host government would appear to be much higher in Venezuela (and we did, of course, already attempt to stage a coup back when Chavez was newly elected...) than in Ecuador.

@Lord I'd say that being pushed to the limit can either bring out the best OR the worst in people, depending on their character. So while some degree of innovation does definitely spring from this, so too do nearly all forms of violence and predation. In any sort of future automated society, you would have to preserve certain means of allowing people to compete with one another--which I agree is human nature--while not forcing all people to compete in the same way, i.e. economically. You don't necessarily need material scarcity to motivate people to improve themselves and contribute to society, you just need other avenues for them to be able to differentiate themselves and prove their brilliance. I would contend that material scarcity can actually have an adverse effect on developing human potential as a species, as folks talented in one field might be funneled into another more economically advantageous field--a case which, I think, is demonstrated by the best and brightest of MIT, Cal Tech, etc. often going into finance rather than the hard sciences. In any case, I would hope that any future society would allow its citizens to do what they are naturally best at rather than bending them to fit what the economy happens to prioritize that day. Imagine, for example, if Einstein had been wasted on Wall Street.... @Nutrition Most of the obesity epidemic can be traced to a) poverty and b) the influence of the "program crop" (corn, sugar, potato, wheat, etc.) lobby in Washington. Via the Farm Bill, prices for various Washington-favored crops are artificially cheapened via subsidies and price supports, while prices for unfavored crops retain their market value--putting them at a steep disadvantage. "Big Ag" in the United States is almost exclusively comprised of growers of these program crops, and through their influence, prices of these crops (and products derived from them) are usually bargain basement (and wind up in other places like public school meals). Without disrespecting these otherwise noble vegetables and grains, they are far from healthy for you if eaten in excess--which is why their artificial cheapness is all the more sinister from an obesity perspective. Ultimately, poor people end up buying these horrible-for-you products because they are cheap (and because they are designed to taste "good" which usually means sweet). Recently, there was a study about Mexican immigrants and their American children's health outcomes. Perhaps counter-intuitively, said immigrants were actually healthier when living in Mexico, yet they were still healthier than the average American citizen even after they had emigrated. This was in large part due to their retaining their Mexican dietary preferences (largely unprocessed and vegetable-based), rather than adopting those of Americans (especially those of poor Americans). However, their children were far less healthy than their immigrant parent--as well as less healthy than other Americans children--due primarily to their preference for (and excessive consumption of) nasty "corner store"-style bakery products and cheap sweet drinks. In any case, one might laugh at yuppies eating kale, but really we should all be laughing at how our Farm Bill prioritizes those foods and products that are worst for you, essentially forcing them on all people without the means to buy their much more expensive alternatives. In any case, I would hope that any future society would opt for the total opposite of the situation that we have now.

First, fantastic news from the elections in Iran! It won't change the Western government narrative that "Iran is crazy and wants to destroy us," but it should demonstrate to the Western public that there is a VERY wide gulf between the opinions of the Iranian government and the sentiment of its people. @Hardware I don't necessarily know about Central Banks and all of that, but I agree in general that there is a deeper structure to global politics than political parties and nation states. I think that it's more class-based than conspiratorial, however, with the elite of the Western world identifying more with each other as a class than with the people of their respective countries (with perhaps Warren Buffet as a lone apostate). Said elites are free to enrich themselves at the expense of their home nations, since their fortunes are no longer tied up with the political success of individual countries due to globalized banking and business structures. I also don't really think that the rebels in Syria are Blackwater contractors. I think that to ascribe all of the political unrest of the Arab Spring to Western machinations is to sell the actual people of the Middle East quite a bit short. I've no doubt that our nations exercise covert influence in the region, but none of what has happened in the Middle East thus far would not have been possible without large portions of Middle Eastern society being profoundly unhappy with their governments, whether pro-Western or anti-Western. You are correct that Syria, Iraq, and Iran (especially Iran) are/were relatively advanced and progressive nations, with sizable middle classes and relatively advanced in terms of education, but that does not at all rule out the possibility that heaps of people living in those countries are/were not also deeply dissatisfied. So whilst Western intelligence agencies might have had a role in terms of agitation, these situations would have gone nowhere if a large amount of the citizenry wasn't ready to jump on board. @Harbringe Much as the situation has the potential to become more dire, I can't see a real war between larger powers happening. I completely agree that many folks in Washington want a war with Iran, but I cannot see even that being parlayed into Russia - NATO, China - NATO, or Russia + China - NATO conflict. What interest could possibly be satisfied, from a Chinese or Russian perspective, from a war with the West? China alone is not strong enough to dent a NATO force and their ability to project power outside of their borders is doubtful. Russia potentially has a better military and power projection capabilities (and more of an historic interest in the region), but they could not last long against the West either. Any conflict with the West would leave these nations economically crippled and set back decades in terms of military strength (especially China). The unspoken threat of nuclear weapons would ensure that no country would be completely routed, but a war with the West would still be foolhardy and premature (if indeed one is desired). Despite America's failures in modern nation-building, its ability to completely wreck shop in a short period of time is still not to be doubted.

It is rather galling that intervention in Syria is now considered a "done deal" by the Obama Administration. NYT reports that only a mere 25% of Americans support intervention--not that, of course, public opinion means anything once Washington sets its mind on something. In any case, today it is "small arms," tomorrow it is "heavy weapons," the next week it is a "no-fly zone" and the next month it becomes a full-scale bombing campaign with special operations support. Then we get some al-Qaeda militiaman (erm, "freedom fighter") giving lip-service to "democracy," who forms a weak central government and winks and nods as religious thugs take control of the rest of the country. We conveniently ignore reports of religious minorities being eliminated and Washington pats itself on the back for their historic advancement of freedom. "Mission Accomplished," and onward to Iran! @Jim Personally, I am not particularly fearful of a nuclear Iran, but that's just because I don't buy the hype about Iran's religious "irrationality" on the world stage. Rather, I'd subscribe to the school of thought that postulates that states, by and large, act rationally and in their own self-interest. There is nothing rational about nuking Israel or Saudi Arabia and, in turn, being nuked into oblivion. If the leadership of Iran simply wanted martyrdom, they could have had that already; why bother propping up friendly dictators like al-Assad, al-Maliki in Iraq, and the quasi-government of Hezbollah in Lebanon, especially when it comes at the cost of domestic unrest? To me, that seems as though they're attempting to maintain a sphere of influence amongst states on or near their borders, the same as Russia does with Eastern Europe, the Caucuses, and Central Asia, China does with Myanmar and Mongolia, and the United States does with Latin America. In my eyes, they are doing their best to create a buffer zone of friendly states in order to insulate themselves from the very real threat of Western-backed regime change. Like a way bigger version of Hezbollah's missiles, a nuclear weapon would provide Iran with their best possible deterrent to Western aggression and would allow them to project their power in Shia areas of the Middle East more effectively. And to me, this is completely rational (much as I dislike nuclear weapons), especially in light of our current hyper-aggressive rollback policy in the region. So I believe that the most productive course would be to practice deterrence with the inevitably nuclear-armed Iran. If we grant them a sphere of influence over Shia-majority lands--backed up by our own deterrence--I believe that their international behavior would calm considerably. But ultimately it just boils down to whether or not you consider them to be a rational actor in the first place. @Roaches That video is plenty scary, but echoes some of my friend's experiences in Sierra Leone (where teenage soldiers shoot up gunpowder and heroin). While I'm largely with you in terms of analyzing our motivations, the only event that seemingly bucks the pattern is allowing Mubarak to be toppled in Egypt, as he was a consumate client leader, if nothing else. Being replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't really seem to be an improvement in terms of our relations with them, though I suppose as long as the military aid keeps flowing, we will always retain at least some degree of clout. That said, biggest winner in all of this has been China, as they've been able to avoid all conflict, yet have reaped the majority of oil contracts in Iraq and the rare earth mineral extraction rights in Afghanistan. Couple that with them essentially buying up Africa and I would say that they've had quite the Third World windfall in terms resources and political influence--all free of cost.

TRoaches, on 13 Jun 2013 - 4:50 PM, said: "What burns my ass about the narrative of "That tyrant attacked those poor innocent freedom fighters we must give them aid!" is the thought that armed rebels should not be subjected to such treatment. If the police stopped a pickup truck with 10 guys carrying rifles and rocket launchers riding in the back heading into Washington D.C. they would not be referred to as "protesters", and they would most likely be killed for their attempted insurrection." Glad to hear this sentiment articulated. I've long marvelled at the ability of the press to completely overlook that these guys are engaged in an armed rebellion, something that would get them 1000% dead in any Western country, even (or especially!) the US. I would also agree with you, that we appear to be on a mission to Afghanistan-ize the Middle East, e.g. to topple existing, strong (in a Mideast sense) states and replace them with a series of tribal patchwork quilts masquerading as states. Now that the era of strongmen is apparently over and the communitarian genie is out of the bottle, attempting to hold together these states--containing populations that seem to intractably hate each other--seems a doomed endeavor. @Jim Indeed... but I think the UK and France are having some serious Mandate nostalgia. Also, I do not really understand why, from a self-interested foreign policy persepctive, we are so preoccupied with perpetuating Sunni power in the Middle East. Last I checked, the overwhelming bulk of terrorist incidents conducted against the West have been carried out by Sunni groups, many/most of which are funded by the very Gulf monarchies we go to such great lengths to prop up. As far as I am concerned, the whole "Shia are the enemy" notion is nonsensical, as it has been Sunni extremists--funded by our supposed "allies" in the region--that have been responsible for like ~99% of Western casualties from terrorism to date, from Parkistan to India to Kenya to Indonesia to Tanzania to Somalia to Yemen to Mali to Chechnya to Afghanistan to Iraq to London to Madrid to Moscow to NYC. @Hardware I would hope that by now we would all learn from our history, yet... it would appear as though we are jumping in (again).

Folks following the news probably already know what's going on here, but in case you don't here's a brief primer: What began as the Syrian variant of the "Arab Spring" movement has, after two years of violent repression by the Bashar al-Assad regime, turned into a violent civil war that has claimed the lives of ~100,000 people and created some ~two million refugees. Current news has Obama "confirming" the use of chemical weapons against the rebel faction, and the Administration is considering options for intervention. ------------- However, the potentially straightforward case for humanitarian intervention is complicated by this unavoidable fact: that the most powerful and influential elements of the opposition are aligned with al-Qaeda, the Sunni Islamic group that the United States has been "at war" with since at least 2001. Digging deeper, we can uncover several more disturbing facts that might shake our faith in the rationality of intervention: 1. That the conflict has devolved into a clearly sectarian struggle, pitting the majority Sunni against the combined religious minorities of Syria: the Shia, al-Assad's Alawites, and Christians. 2. That the conflict serves as a proxy war between the greater Sunni and Shia blocs in the Middle East, with the repressive and fundamentalist Gulf monarchies supporting their Sunni clients and Iran and Iraq backing their allies. 3. That the conflict is strategically important to more powerful parties such as Russia, yet is of little geopolitical concern to the United States or Europe. ------------- Given these things, I cannot fathom any rational reason that the United States or Europe should involve themselves in this crisis. Al-Assad is certainly reprehensible and has committed innumerable crimes, but he is better than al-Qaeda any day of the week. My policy prescription would be to allow the country to break up along communitarian lines (a la Yugoslavia, Eritrea, South Sudan, etc.) or else to stay out and not interfere as Russia and Iran continue to back al-Assad. IMO, the worst possible outcome is to allow the rebels to capture the country, as that would likely result in the cleansing of Syria's religious minorities at the hands of al-Qaeda-aligned militas... not to mention potentially create a 1990s-era Afghanistan close to the borders of Europe. Whereas I was originally inspired by the Arab Spring, it appears as though the inadequacy of secular civil society in these countries, coupled with the ousting of secular authoritarians, has served no other purpose but to allow fundamentalist groups to dominate politics and state machinery. IMO, the best strategic move that the United States and Europe could make would be to disengage from the Middle East entirely, but barring that, I feel as though the secular devil we know is preferable to the fundamentalist devil we do not. Your thoughts?

Dang, trying to find the link... but some MIT professors have recently tackled this subject. Personally, I could see a fully automated society as either leading to a semi-utopia or to a technocratic dictatorship (or worse, if SkyNet becomes self-aware...). Given that you will always have need for a core, technocratic elite to create and maintain machines and software, you WILL have a certain class of workers that will command enormous power over their peers, essentially enabling them to survive (or not) depending on their moral disposition as a class. If this class is benificent, then society may evolve into a semi-utopia where all the rest of the ex-workers are free to pursue their own ends, which is all well and good--up until a point. If they are less than beneificent, they could do anything they wanted with us, from mere neglect to authoritarianism to bondage to potentially wholesale liquidation. But, say the engineers are nice and they decide to try and make the world a better place through the abolishment of work. I don't necessarily think that the absence of work is good for the humans either. Certainly some work is inefficient and dehumanizing and that's great if that is abolished, but people will always have need of doing something productive (even if only subjectively so) else they disappear into a whirlpool of ennui and/or existential decay. So the relevant machines better go into overdrive producing hobby equipment, art supplies, sports gear, books, birth control pills, etc. lest everyone go all Jonestown due to the sheer boredom of it all. Anyway, it's quite possible that I've read/watched/played too much Sci Fi and/or underestimate human empathy, but I, for one, am not particularly bullish on a future where a) so few control so much and b) humans are so utterly redundant.

Lots of interesting points being made. @Nintii That is saddening, as I always thought that the non-Anglophone countries bought into the whole "national security state" hype less than USA/UK/etc. but alas it appears that belief was unfounded. I do, however, wonder what the policies of the Scandinavian countries are on this subject? @Jim I was just reading some interesting breakdowns of the Congressional votes on "national security" issues versus partisanship. Turned out, as you say, that partisan ID was indeed NOT the variable that corresponded best with predicting a given vote, that it was a given politician's status as either a party "outsider" or "insider" that ended up being far more predictive. In many--but not all--cases this also meant that said politician was located at either the comparatively far right or far left of their respective parties, but it was highly interesting in the sense that it added an alternative axis to the traditional left/right dichotomy. Though the phenomenon of "outsider" or "insurgent" candidates is nothing new to American politics, it does demonstrate a potentially fruitful avenue of attack for grass roots candidates to attack incumbents in primaries. @Roaches Watching the PR damage control by Google and Facebook has been pretty amusing. They released identical statements using loophole-laden phrasing to essentially say "They didn't have direct access to our servers" and "We didn't know the name of the program," both of which are entirely irrelevant to the actual charges being leveled against them. I'd agree that it's easier to hold private companies accountable, as they always have that bottom line to consider, than it is a shadowy "state within a state" like the NSA. As for how they are compelled to cooperate, I'd imagine there's a fair deal of money involved, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were more insidious methods at work as well. I'd also think their cooperation buys them a bit of leeway with Congress in terms of regulations and such, which is just another means of savings them money. Like, I think the prospect of expecting more stringent privacy laws from Congress is pretty non-existent given that they rely on the absence of these laws to create the raw material that is then supplied to the NSA.

(Hmm, I thought this topic would be more popular, ah well....) Largely in agreement with you, Roaches: 1. Unfortunately, he now seems to be "missing." 2. I agree that some degree of surveillance is necessary in the information age, but I seriously doubt that al-Qaida uses Facebook or any other American social media. I mean, if average Americans already believed that the internet was tapped, it seems like basic Terrorism 101 to assume the same and abstain from its use. Foreign ISPs and telephony, I can agree with, but you would have to be the worst terrorist in world history to correspond using Facebook or Google Chat. Big Data seems more designed to catch home-grown radicals and only then after they have already committed a crime. I've about 5% confidence that the NSA's algorithms can predict behavior ahead of time, and even then that would probably entail so many false positives and incidental invasions of privacy that it would not at all be worth it from a societal perspective. Plus, even if their algorithms were predictive, do we really want the government judging the thoughts and beliefs of every American by default and placing us into boxes for national security purposes, especialy when its definition is subject to change from administration to administration?* 3. Absolutely. 5. I also agree, though I would seek to draw a bit more of a line between services like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, etc. and services that are more fundamental to one's existence in the modern world such as an email client, web browser, ISP, cell phone, etc. The first group is clearly a user opt-in and I do agree that users should have little to no expectation of privacy when these services' raison d'etre is to broadcast one's life to the rest of the world. The second group, I would argue, has an implied expectation of privacy because these services have effectively replaced the protected means of correspondence and information exchange that preceded them. The "papers and effects" referred to in the Fourth Amendment reflected the state-of-the-art in 1791, a time when communication was conducted via the physically written word or through face-to-face verbal discourse. Like certain other provisions of the Constitution that have not aged particularly well, it would appear to be an abandonment of the original intent of the Amendment if its implication is not updated to take into account the modern day standards.** I would accept that companies may collect data on users of their services, as they are not public utilities--but this should always be stated up-front rather than obscured (Google). If privacy becomes a dominant concern, the market should theoretically provide for more anonymous services supported by alternative business models. In my mind, however, there should be a brick wall between the private sector and government, with that wall breachable only by an individualized warrant obtained via a court and supported by probable cause. It is one thing for the government to obtain information on an as-needed basis, with the information remaining in private hands, and quite another for it to maintain databases as a matter of course, searching them at their own convenience and maintaining them in perpetuity. I don't particularly trust internet companies, but they are at least checked by the profit motive; whereas a secretive spy agency whose every doing is classified isn't really able to be checked by anything. So if information must be collected, I'd far rather it be done by a privately held company than by a clandestine government agency. *Not saying that you advocate this, just for the sake of argument. **I am obviously not a Constitutional scholar.

We should all know the news by now, but if you don't, here's some background on the story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-nsa-files?guni=Network%20Front:crumb%20nav:Position1:NSA%20files -------------------------- Long story short, what many citizens of the USA and Europe already suspected to be true, that the government backs up and analyzses nearly all of our internet activity and telecommunications, has been proven true by a whistleblower, Edward Snowden. As such, I'd like to pose some questions: 1. What is your opinion of Snowden and his actions? Heroic or otherwise? Do you care that he likely broke the law or does his contribution to the public debate over privacy outweigh this? What do you think will ultimately happen to Snowden? 2. What is your opinion regarding NSA surveillance? Is privacy a thing of the past? Where is the ideal equilibrium between privacy and security in the present age? Where do private companies like Google fit into this equation for you? 3. Leaders of both parties are united in support of NSA surveillance, yet the libertarian elements of the right and the left are also in consonance in its condemnation. What do you think of this unusual political alliance? Would these leaks potentially change how you vote in an election? 4. For all the Europeans out there, how do you feel about being surveiled by the USA without any theoretical constitutional protections? Your governments appear to be sub-contracting data directly from the NSA in order to circumvent laws against its direct collection. 5. Many technologists (and internet companies) advocate that we should get used to "living a life online" with our actions on display for all the world. Is this a wise course of action? If not, is it inevitable anyway? -------------------------- My personal take: Snowden should be commended for his courage and his actions celebrated as perhaps the apogee of modern civilian patriotism. He has bucked current government policy and has instead proven his fidelity to the broadly libertarian values that the United States was founded upon. He is likely a criminal, but this is, at best, a quaternary consideration in my mind given his enormous contribution to our understanding of goverrnment power. I have also been quite annoyed at the flippant response from Obama and senior Congressional leaders, who have publicly announced that they "welcome a debate" while simultaneously announcing that "a balance has already been struck." I am appreciative of Senators like Ron Wyden, Mark Udall, and even Rand Paul for taking more libertarian positions on this issue and I am hopeful that the privacy debate will persist in American political discourse. Should candidates run on this issue in 2014, they will have my ear and potentially my vote, regardless of their party. Beyond that, my primary concern with this revelation is not so much what it can do now, but what it will enable governments to do in the future--in other words, its capability rather than its current intention. I do not believe that Obama harbors any extraordinary (in a literal sense) authoritarian ambitions, but I believe that any American can recognize that the Executive has been steadily accumulating power over the last several decades and that one cannot predict the actions of an administration many years down the line. A secret surveillance system designed to apprehend foreign extremists might experience "mission creep" over the next several decades and will, if left unchecked, arrive at a point where we are reliant on the benevolence of the government not to abuse it. More fundamentally, I worry at a world in which our every action and life event is digitized and permanently catalogued online for later retrieval. This might not be such a huge issue for older folks (unless they are libertarian-minded), but for today's youth and the youth of tomorrow, this is an almost existentially grave concern. Given the almost impossibility of living a life entirely offline, children being born today will have almost every facet of their lives recorded on the internet, from their parents posting their baby pictures on Facebook to potentially their grades and school assignments (online classes and work submission), to the entirety of their correpondences (email, instant message, VoIP, video chat, cell phone, text messages), to their internet activity (home IP, visited IPs, website logins), to their physical appearance, friends, and life story (Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, Google+), to the innermost thoughts of a person (private blog, personal website), to their financial records and purchase history (Amazon, Paypal, banking records, ATMs), to the contents of their hard drive (cloud storage/computing), to their precise physical location at all times (cell phone, car GPS, IP from WiFi). Beyond the potential for obvious government abuse (aggregate all of that information in real-time and you would have Big Brother++), you just have the general creepiness of having everything you do exposed to the rest of the world--whether that be the government, a creepy ex-boy/girlfriend, a potential employer, Russian hackers, your friends, or a random person looking to copy your awkward photograph from the 80s for a new internet meme. This, to me, is just creepy in all possible ways. And yes, you don't have to use many of these services, but how many of you honestly think that the Postal Service, land lines, and potentially even hard currency will be around 50 years from now? In a matter of course, all activity will be conducted online by default and the only alternative will be to live a life like Thoreau or else retreat to private networks. But then how shady will you look when the government wants to know why you rely on proxy servers and local intranets instead of the mainstream internet? In innumerable ways the internet is the most beneficial invention of the modern era, but "living life" online appears to me to be dystopian by design.

I don't really want to get too far into this discussion as it seems to be a thoroughly beaten horse, but I would have a question for the Europeans out there (UK, France, Germany, perhaps others) regarding your laws prohibiting speech on certain dangerous topics--most obviously anti-Semitism and the denial of the Holocaust (an abridgement of free speech that I agree with, TBH), but also inclusive of other limitations. I am not particularly familiar with the statutes governing free speech in your nations, but, given these prohibitions, I would hazard that they are not as permissive as the First Amendment of the Constitution. (I don't mean that as a knock either, as every nation has a different political and social context and, in any event, it is obvious that your countries and relevant press outlets are terrific even without free speech absolutism.) Fundamentally, I would like to get at the legal rationale for these prohibitions, be they to promote social cohesion, diminish communitarian hatred, or (to be facetious) promote academic integrity. In any case, I only bring this up because I routinely cringe when I see people spouting off prima facie lies like "Obama is a Muslim/Kenyan/Communist/Antichrist" etc. Such speech is not really of any social utility and only exists to promote hatred/misunderstanding as opposed to establishing any meaningful dialogue. It might be "political speech" in a nebulous sense, but I would like to see would-be demagogues try a bit harder and come up with better arguments that are capable of winning a rational debate rather than resorting to lies and ad-hominems that should logically be considered slander. Obviously, this gets into choppier waters when one must judge what is truth and what is untruth, especially regarding opinions and predictions, but in such areas where concrete facts about a matter truly do exist (e.g. the Holocaust happened, Obama is an American citizen) and actors are intentionally and willfully spreading misinformation about this, I do not really have any philosophical qualms with holding them responsible. In practice, however, I think the Framers were wise to punt on the issue and establish near-absolute freedom of speech within the Constitution, as governments are hardly ideal types either, and the power to prosecute speech could, in the wrong hands, end up in gross abuse. So as much as I would philosophically like to see the current purveyors of misinformation held to some sort of account for the damage wrought by their collective ignorance, I would not approve of the government actually stepping in and doing so.

I think that games as a medium are still stuck in a somewhat awkward adolescent phase of development, caught between being simple "entertainment for kids" and something more meaningful, perhaps along the lines of what the higher end of cinema and literature has achieved. Right now, the medium is mightily skewed toward the former, but, if the experience of the other relevant mediums is to be considered, given enough time an equilibrium will form and all manner of consumers will be able to find what the want, be it pure entertainment or something providing a bit more intellectual or emotional stimulation. The mainstream of today's games are like the Michael Bay offerings in American cinema, pretty "lowest common denominator" in their approach to their audience but, to be honest, pretty good for what they are. They don't particularly push the envelope in any meaningful way (apart from production value and special effects) and they will never take the lead on beginning conversations about difficult social or emotional issues, but people should also recognize that that isn't what they are attempting to do to begin with. Now, it is also true that just as our social fabric influences our art, so too does our art influence our social fabric, and in this way we should definitely not celebrate games like Call of Juarez that champion retrograde values and themes, but we should also recognize that most mainstream games are not anywhere near this level of backwardness. With more direct respect to the gender question, I'd agree that it isn't particularly progressive to edit the box art of a game based on the feedback from a focus group, but Bioshock is still a AAA production from a studio that is (despite its pretensions) risk-averse and very much covetous of the lowest common audience denominator, as that is where their bread is fundamentally buttered. And that is probably the way that it is going to be for now, or at least until our social fabric evolves to include a more routinely heroic role for females--both in media as well as in everyday life (and let us not forget that heroism as a concept can take innumerable forms). It isn't really the responsibility of large businesses to drive public opinion anyway, as, in a market economy, that is rather putting the cart before the horse. Large studios will always be interested in making the maximum amount of money possible--and that's fine--but perhaps in the future they will have a sort of Fox Searchlight type of relationship to games of a perhaps more intellectually challenging bent, where they can greenlight potentially promising indie games with little financial risk but tremendous potential upside. Beyond that, there is a mushrooming of indie game development that is the locus of where most of the innovation--be it thematic or gameplay-oriented--is taking place today. And those indie games aren't springing forth from the ether; rather, they represent the response of many developers to one segment of the market that is not being addressed by the major studios. As the current gaming demographic ages and matures, this segment of the market will continue to grow, and, as such, its opinions and preferences will steadily gain traction in terms of influencing product offerings. Eventually, this should penetrate the lowest common denominator bubble of the larger studios; and if it doesn't, then perhaps we will witness the birth of star from the ranks of the indie studios. In any case, I am optimistic that we will get more challenging, socially complex games, though that time may not quite yet be at hand. In the meantime, I suppose it is best to vote with your purchasing power and support those games and studiios that you see as representing the values and themes that you most believe in.

@kvn You say "partisan rhetoric" like it is inherently a bad thing. Like all things, it can be good or bad depending on use. At best, it can serve to boil issues down into basic components that people will remember and be moved by, and, at worst, it will obscure these same issues and confuse the listener, often serving as cover for the peddling of a lie. Calling Democrats "Communists" or calling W. Bush a "Fascist" would fall into this latter category; pointing out that Republicans have abused the filibuster in historic proportions or that they find the idea of raising the minimum wage anathema are, on the other hand, easily verifiable facts. So too is the fact that their "plan" for economic recovery consists primarily of tax cuts for "job creators" coupled with deep cuts to social services (Paul Ryan budget), and that they are opposed to the idea of closing tax loopholes that only those with access to highly paid accountants or making certain types of income have the wherewithal to enjoy. Out of this, a general trend becomes rather clear. Calling that spade--that the Republicans seem preoccupied with protecting the prerogatives of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class--a spade seems... obvious, to be frank. As for the ideological rigidity of the parties, Lieberman (and, I'll add another: Bart Stupak) are valid counterexamples, but I would need more than just two names if we are seriously attempting to place both parties at a coequal level of partisan purity. Without more names, that's just an example of the "false equivalence" that I'm talking about, the whole obsession with saying "Dems say one thing, Republicans say another" and then treating both viewpoints as being equally legitimate. I remember CNN hosting Orly Taitz and somebody from the Obama campaign on the "Birther" issue. The moderator treated both sides as equally legitimate, when, anyone with a functioning brain would agree, they are not. The false equivalence damages our political discourse by putting crazy, debunked ideas on the same plane with rational, fact-based ideas, and it cheapens our politics and paves the way for bad public policy. And public policy can be measured and evaluated as to its efficacy; indeed, with the assistance of social science and economic metrics, most aspects of public policy are no longer a mystery. These same tools allow us to measure things such as the "leaning of the American people." Polls from reputable institutions following sound methologies allow us to gauge the mood of the electorate more accurately--and more frequently--than ever before. For example, right now we know that a large plurality of Americans would blame the GOP for the sequester, as they did for the fiscal cliff impasse. We also know that the president's favoribility rating is the highest it's been in three years and that the GOP is busy dwelling in the public relations basement. We also know that over 70% of Americans approve of a hike of the minimum wage to 9$. AND, in the most accurate "poll" of them all, Obama and the Democrats just won the last national election (a mere three months ago) very, very convincingly. What further evidence could you possibly want or need to convince you that Republicans are not on the majority side of this argument. Our politics surely are different now than in the recent past, but that is a straight cop out excuse for legislators not sucking it up and actually governing the country. There might also be an "unknown element" going on in Republican caucus meetings (likely Boehner not being able to corral his Tea Party caucus members), but, from a citizen's perspective, that is not supposed to be our problem. Their job--their only job--is to be a governing partner--to achieve results and improve the lives of citizens... or at least refrain from making them worse--and they are failing miserably at it. The most irrational aspect of this is that the GOP seems willing to martyr itself for nothing; there isn't any heroic electoral prize to be won if they oppose broadly favored legislation or hold up Chuck Hagel's nomination, only derision from the majority of the electorate that has seen them up to these games for the last two years and that has grown exceedingly tired of it. These antics are not netting the GOP any votes--only costing public support and credibility--and it is an absurd way for a party interested in its electoral future, in winning future elections, to behave. Anyway, no jibe intented whatsoever. Reasonable people can disagree on all sorts of things, and debates are always good fun. I've a great antipathy toward the current incarnation of the GOP, but that doesn't necessarily translate into an automatic love of Democrats (rather, viewing them as the lesser of two evils in a troubled political time). TBH, I 100% agree with you on issues like the filibuster and on a single-payer healthcare system (and probably loads more as well). And finally, have to laugh at myself. Definitely read "Pat Buchanan" instead of "Pat Robertson" in your previous post. I can get down with certain aspects of what Buchanan talk(ed) about, but I've no common ground nor love for Pat Robertson.

@kvn In defense of Pat Robertson, he has some good ideas (like reigning in our foreign policy) and he is honest and upfront about what he believes. Hopefully we'd never see a President Robertson, but I would gladly take your money if you wanted to bet on Democrats being carbon copies of the GOP 2008-2012. As I mentioned before, Democrats have a much wider constituency that they have to please (there actually are conservative Democrats) and some of them would be willing to meet a conservative half-way--if only to placate voters in their states/districts that might actually agree with those proposals. Democrats have not spent the last four years kicking out and primarying those within their party that fail their rigid ideological "litmus test" whereas the GOP has done precisely this. Governance is a responsibility, a responsibility to do right by the entire nation, and if you fundamentally do not believe in government or are otherwise unwilling to compromise, franky, you do not belong there. The GOP of today has no ideas of its own and can't even accept the positions that it advocated for in the 1990s and 2000s. Its only purpose in political life seems to be to gum up the machinery of state and potentially crash our country into the ground if it does not get its way. What passes for ideas on their end are like political cave paintings, some bogus, quasi-religious faith that giving everything to the amazingly wealthy will somehow improve the lot of the working poor and middle class. Perish the thought of a 9$ minimum wage, for example, or the idea of elimimating tax breaks for corporate jets... why not balance the books by cutting unemployment insurance or the school lunch program! The GOP wants us to believe that we collectively have not lived through the period of time from the 1980s to the present, the period of time in which GOP economic policies have begun to dismantle the middle class and have further impoverished the working poor. By all means, let us return to that. Anyway, please do check out the above chart and witness the ideological BASE-jump that Republicans have made to the right over the last thirty years. The reforms that the Democrats are proposing now would not have been controversial in 1970s. Nixon established the EPA and expanded the social safety net, Eisenhower invested heavily in infrastructure and sent the National Guard to Little Rock, and Reagan and the elder Bush both raised taxes. Under today's GOP purity requirements, these guys would be booted out and primaried so fast it would make our collective head spin. All of these presidents--even Reagan!--were compromisers. Furthermore, most of these presidents had to deal with at least a Democratic House, but quite often an entirely Democratic Congress. Yet bills passed, lots of bills, progressive bills, regressive bills--all kinds of bills. The filibuster was not abused. Democrats allowed the governing of the country to continue even when they disagreed with the direction that it was taking. Wow. Can you ever imagine that happening again? I can, but I also believe that the only road to a chastened GOP is prolonged stint in the political wilderness where they can carry out their "soul searching" without negatively impacting the rest of the country.

@HeyYou I get what you mean re: scoring of votes, but roll call votes are a matter of public record and the methodology and scoring of the NOMINATE statisticians are available their website. There is also the matter that, for the House, bills do not come up for a vote unless the Republicans (Boehner) want them to, so Democrats cannot "spam" them with bills that they will veto just to get them on the record. Republicans are Committee Chairs and form the majority on all House subcommittees, so nothing passes out of them (clearing the way for a roll call vote) unless it has Republican approval. In this way, the argument that NOMINATE is not an accurate measure of the House, I think, falls down, as these are votes on bills--and policies--that Republicans inherently support (otherwise, as in the case of an Assault Weapons Ban, they would not come up for a vote at all). In the Senate, there is perhaps more capacity for Reid to bring up bills for a vote just to get Republicans on record, BUT he also has to worry about Democratic Senators from red states that would be put at potentially equal peril. Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Prior (AR), Mark Begich (AK), Max Baucus (MT), Tim Johnson (SD), Joe Manchin (WV), and others are not particularly eager to go out on a liberal limb for Reid unless it is absolutely necessary. Reid, wanting to preserve his Speakership, does not want to needlessly expose them either, so I think this is another cut against the "vote spam" argument. In fact, this is a unique feature of the Democratic party, that they actually have significant numbers of members that are potentially willing to buck the majority of their party, demonstrating that Democrats have constituencies in their camp that are far more heterogeneous than those voting for Republicans. I tend to think "what good is a majority if you're not willing to use it" but I can understand and respect the pressures placed on conservative Democrats (and, with nothing having hope of passing the House, it would be foolish to take a dangerous vote on something that stands no chance of passing). I'd also quarrel with the normative potential of saying that "Republicans are against something because it's in their nature." No quarrel with with how you used it (because it's true), but because I think it is dangerous for voters to give our representatives a pass like that, which is what I believe such statements implicitly are doing. That is like the Cold War game theoretical exercise of visualizing the launching of nukes as a game of Chicken, and the realization that both sides came to that if they could say that their response was "automatic" that it would force the burden of "swerving" onto the enemy. The enemy knew that the one side had tied themselves to the steering wheel and would not swerve, so it was left to them to compromise in order to avert disaster. THIS is precisely what the GOP is doing these days, tying their hands to the steering wheel and forcing the Democrats (who are still rational actors and don't want to die) to swerve first. It is an effective way of winning the game of Chicken, but, as we can see, it is an absolutely irresponsible and malicious way to attempt to govern a nation. As for the GOP advocating thoroughly debunked and played out economic (and foreign policy, etc.) initiatives we are in full agreement. Indeed, looking at where the majority of Republican bread is buttered, we can all snarkily "wonder why" this is so bwaha.