tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33567707295223250722024-03-17T14:10:37.178-06:00CenterRightCommon sense political analysis and commentary.Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.comBlogger193125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-47157468419818141712024-03-17T14:06:00.001-06:002024-03-17T14:10:05.541-06:00 TWO STATE SOLUTION: A REALITY CHECK<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1543" _msttexthash="80385292">As the Israeli-Hamas war drags on the Biden administration and many international government and UN officials have been insisting that a "day after" program be addressed. This "what to do now" subject has almost universally been accepted as a plan for the reconstruction and administration of Gaza but also a plan to form a "two state solution" meaning the creation of an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state comprising the territories of Gaza and the occupied West Bank. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1544" _msttexthash="143489424">This is not a new goal. It's origins go back at least to the negotiations for a two state division of the region along the recommendations by the UN General Assembly in 1948. When negotiations failed because of the rejection of the proposals by Arab nationalists, Jewish leaders declared the independent state of Israel. The issue reappeared in the 1993-1995 Oslo accords which gave formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a civil authority in the "occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank. The agreement also recognized Israel's "right to exist" and put forth the goal of a two state solution to the decades old conflict.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1545" _msttexthash="66801449">But more recent claims that only an independent Palestinian state will bring an end to the seemingly perpetual violence, lack the specificity of the previous failed negotiations. The suggestions offered so far seem to have a "last", or "only" chance mentality in the context of "no other possible solutions". The result is a goal rather than a plan, and one characterized by a lack of acceptance of the enormous complexity of the enterprise. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1546" _msttexthash="21233953">The creation of a nation state cannot be accomplished by international edict, the UN, the International Court of Justice, or even general international demands or support. It can only be done with the acceptance of Palestinian leaders and the Israeli government. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1546" _msttexthash="21233953">First, the war in Gaza must end. It seems highly unlikely that this will occur without the government of Israel's determination that Hamas has been removed from political control in Gaza and as a security threat to Israel. No simple cease fire will accomplish this. Then difficult negotiations will have to start to create a civil authority that can plan and administer the enormous task of funding and rebuilding the mostly destroyed infrastructure and housing for the 2.3 million Gaza residents who will also need to be provided with a basic survival system of food distribution and health care. The enormity of these tasks will require an international consortium of competent regional governments who are motivated to fund and make the long term commitment necessary. That, in itself will be a challenge. But while a separate level of primary negotiations for the next step of creating an independent Palestinian state could be started while reconstruction is underway, the physical and political character of the post war Gaza will have a significant role to play as the "state" negotiations proceed.<br /></b></span></p><p><b _msthash="1546" _msttexthash="21233953"><span style="font-size: medium;">Thus, with respect to "state building" there are at least four foundational requirements that have to be addressed before any such state could come into existence.</span></b></p><p _msthash="1547" _msttexthash="108259541"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><b>The first is structural infrastructure mentioned above. Second, governmental infrastructure; a legislative, executive and bureaucratic administrative system including a revenue base and a domestic security system. </b></span><b>Third a welfare base including income support and healthcare. Fourth is a cultural evolution, both social and political, including basic education reform and media support, which will require a strong government role and international support and which will take a long time to develop.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1548" _msttexthash="315544918">The current effort to create an independent Palestinian state is starting from scratch. There has never been a Palestinian state. The region has been a historical crossroads of tribes and empires for millennia. In terms of modern history, the most recent controlling authorities have been the almost six hundred years of the Ottoman Empire which was replaced by the League of Nations British Mandate established with the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottomans after World War One. This of course was followed by the British withdrawal and the establishment of Israel after World War Two. The non- Israeli territories of Gaza and the West Bank were absorbed respectively by Egypt and the new state of Jordan, also a former British Mandate territory, until the Israeli occupation after their victory in the 1967 Six Day War.</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1549" _msttexthash="569673">The infrastructure issue:</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="169784524">A new state cannot be built around a population living in massive tent encampments. With an estimated 60% of permanent shelters in Gaza heavily damaged or destroyed, the first task after military operations have ended will be the demolition and removal of the mountains of rubble before new housing and neighborhoods can be constructed. This operation alone will take years. In the mean time better interim housing and sanitary services plus basic living supplies and distribution services will have to be provided. The immensity of these tasks is hard to comprehend. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">Governmental structure:</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">The Biden administration' s view of a new Palestinian governing authority is based on the concept of a "revitalized and reformed" Palestinian Authority (PA) which is the administrative body in the West Bank and which would be expanded to include authority in post war Gaza. When would such a body be established and what powers it would have has not been discussed. "Revitalized and reformed" is a euphemistic label for what will be necessary which is "completely replaced", except perhaps with respect to its' title. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">The existing PA is widely viewed by the Palestinian residents of the West Bank as corrupt and undemocratic. The PA has been the recipient of millions of dollars in Intenational aid but there is little evidence that the bulk of this aid has been used for the benefit of the Palestinian residents. The PA's political head is eighty-eight year old president, Mahmoud Abbas who effectively discarded the Oslo Agreements and who has not held a political leadership election since 2005. He and his whole administrative staff will have to be "revamped and reformed" i.e. removed, before the infrastructure project in Gaza begins. But the talent pool of possible Palestinian leaders with the appropriate experience and commitment to peaceful redevelopment is presently quite limited. Indeed, the idea of reform took a major hit recently when Abbas named a long time crony and personal supporter, Mohammed Mustafa as the new PA Prime Minister. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">The governing authority in Gaza since 2007, has been the terrorist organization Hamas whose development experience has been limited to building the miles of underground tunnels to be used as defensive positions in the planed war with Israel. The heirs to political leadership in Gaza the current PA, hardly offer much more than Abbas and his supporters. The reconstruction cannot wait for a proven Palestinian leader who has not been part of the anti-Israeli resistance to be identified. The interim and long term first political authority will have to be an "ad hoc" international organization of capable individuals from neighboring Arab states, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and perhaps Saudi Arabia, who all have security interests in the region. The international bureaucrat's and arm chair "experts" of the United Nations must not be included in this effort which should be kept small enough to be efficient and narrow in purpose enough to not go astray. </b></span><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">It has been suggested that such a governing body be strictly technocratic in orientation although Israel must be included with respect to security issues. </b></span></p><p><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><span style="font-size: medium;">Welfare component: </span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">T</b><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">he initial responsibilities with the third foundational welfare component which besides health care, includes the national revenue base and financial support systems which are connected to the basic infrastructure rebuilding through employment and foreign aid. These functions have largely been the responsibility of foreign government aid, UN aid agencies and non-governmental organizations in both Gaza and the West Bank for many years. Reducing dependence on these groups will take years and may always be necessary along with International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (IBRD) participation.</b></span></p><p><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><span style="font-size: medium;">Cultural evolution:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">The transformation of the existing Palestinian culture away from militant anti-Zionism and </b><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">antisemitism and the futile ideological goal of the destruction of the state of Israel. is essential to the creation and long term stability of any Palestinian state. The current view from the outside i.e. the U.S., UN, EU, as part of a middle term negotiation for a Palestinian state is a facile political position. Proponents of the two state solution automatically include this proposition as a condition without even discussing the inevitable problems. </b></span></p><p><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><span style="font-size: medium;"> Generations of Palestinian children have been indoctrinated with these hateful beliefs. These children are now adults and the war in Gaza has undoubtedly reenforced their anger. A refocused educational system in the new Palestinian state over time, will determine the success of the current goal of a permanent peaceful relationship with Israel. </span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Israel is the only liberal democratic state in the Middle East region. The neighboring "moderate" Arab states </b><b>which presumably will participate at all levels of negotiations, do not represent liberal democratic role models for Palestinian Arabs, most of whom have existing deep seated anti-Western, Islamic based prejudices. Egypt has a semi-authoritarian presidential government which came to power in 2013 by the military overthrowing the elected government of the Freedom and Justice Party, itself an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Islamic group with a terrorist background. The president is a former army general and the Egyptian constitution has been "amended" to allow President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to serve a six year term after a four year term and then to serve a third term. He won the 2023 election by over 86% of the vote in a multi-party contest. Jordan is a hereditary monarchy. Both these Israeli border states achieved "moderate" labels based on their signing peace treaties with Israel but they are not liberal democracies. Saudi Arabia is another hereditary monarch established in 1932 with a strict Islamic culture. Then there is Iran, a Persian theocracy with elections managed and governed arbitrarily by an Islamist "Supreme Leader". Israel border state Syria, an Arab state which is another hereditary dictatorship, is currently engaged in a civil war and is supported by Iran and Russia. Border state Lebanon has an elected government but is divided by its' constitution into shared Christian and Muslim leadership after it endured a religious based civil war lasting from 1975 to1990. It is home to the Iranian client, terrorist, armed militia Hezbollah, which controls much of southern Lebanon from which it launches missiles at Israel. Hezbollah cannot be controlled by the Lebanese military or government and is a significant security threat to Israel.</b></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"> This is the immediate regional political environment in which a new democratic(?) Palestinian state would be created. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">What are the chances that a Palestinian Arab, Islamic population that has never known any type of democratic representative government, can be enticed to adopt the Western secular "rights of man" (and women) philosophy, and political party based peaceful competition and compromise, necessary for stability and peace with the currently hated Israel? </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"> Israel is of course the key player in any two state negotiation and in the present domestic political context, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and majorities of Israel voters and members of the parliament, the Knesset, are opposed to a Palestinian state on Israel's borders. Years of Israeli's experience with Palestinian entities, individuals and small groups of terrorists entering from the West Bank, rocket and balloon attacks from Gaza, wars with the Yassir Arafat's led Palestinian Liberation Organization, and Hamas, culminating in the horrific attack on October 7th, don't provide much assurance that a 'state' combining these two regions would not be a continuing and serious threat to the security of Israel. Unfortunately, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's recent condemnation of Netanyahu and his democratically elected government and his call for regime change in Israel, doesn't help achieve progress in settling the Gaza conflict or starting preliminary "two state" discussions. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">With or without a declaration of a Palestinian state, it will take years for both sides to see the possibility of separate political cultures that accept the concepts of peaceful cooperation and respect for profound social differences. Is it possible over time? Theoretically at least, it would seem so. There are almost two million Arab Israeli citizens. They have representation in the Knesset and the ethnic and religious differences within Israeli society have only taken the form of political tension without serious militancy. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">But intense anti-Israeli hatred generated by decades of conflict and culminating in the enormous civilian deaths in the current Gaza military campaign, does not exist solely within the regions of a prospective Palestinian state. The major provocateur of "Zionist" hate is Iran, which supports and arms anti-Israel terrorists throughout the region. Iran, the Shi'ite Persian theocracy, has a wider regional plan that sees Israel, a culturally and politically Western oriented democracy, and its' major ally, the U.S., as major impediments to its expansion as a regionally dominant entity. It is likely to continue its aid and encouragement to any Palestinian splinter group who shares its goal of the destruction of the Jewish state.<br /></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">One other tremendous obstacle that will have to addressed and that doesn't appear to have a workable solution is the existence of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Since Israel took control of the West Bank territory from Jordan during the 1967 "Six Day War" it has authorized over 144 settlements there. An addition 100 unauthorized settlements called "outposts" have also been constructed by Israeli citizens mostly motivated by biblical claims to the territories of Judea and Sameria. While the total area under administrative control by the Palestinian Authority (PA) consists of @ 60% of the West Bank, it is a fragmented series of "enclaves". Israel maintains control of the areas in between and the Israeli settlements and outposts are scattered throughout the entire region. They have a total Israeli population of @650,000 including @220,000 in settlements in East Jerusalem which the Palestinian Authority wants to claim as its' capitol when the actual Palestinian state is achieved.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Most "two state plans" in the past have recognized the virtual impossibility of dismantling these Israeli communities, some of which have near city size populations. The result has been a series of "enclave" plans with connecting roadways, and some "land for peace" swaps , all of which have failed. In its' best case, if ever mutually approved, the unauthorized Israeli "outposts" would have to be dismantled, which would require a dramatic measure of political courage by whatever Israeli government was in power at the time, but the remaining settlements would assure that the state of Palestine would look like no other sovereign nation in the world.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Eventually, probably sooner than later by necessity, these realities will begin to sink in to the international advocates of the "essential" two state solution, and the political posturing that is driving it now will take on a more serious orientation. The key will be deep seated patience and organization, and the necessity of substantial compromise by all participating parties. The process will take years and it will have abundant rejectionists. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></p><p><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"> </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555">w </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="529555"> </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1550" _msttexthash="40022112"><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b> </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-41729640035921241462024-03-02T16:14:00.000-07:002024-03-02T16:14:14.807-07:00 THE MULTIPARTY CONGRESS, FACTIONS, AND GRIDLOCK<span _msthash="1920" _mstmutation="1" _msttexthash="248288443"><span _mstmutation="1" style="font-size: medium;"><b>The U.S. Congress is currently trapped in a condition of what might be described as the more common circumstance of gridlock where the two houses are controlled by majorities in each of the two major political parties. That is, in effect, true as the Senate is controlled by a tiny majority (51/49) of Democrats and the House by a similar small majority (219/213) by Republicans (there are three empty seats out of the total 435). But the current reality is that the disfunction that exists reflects a "de facto" existence of two different political groups in each party who exercise political power beyond their respective numbers. </b></span><b _mstmutation="1" style="font-size: large;">This is much more apparent in the House of Representatives but still exists in the Senate.</b></span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1921" _msttexthash="32322134">The major organizational structure which promotes this "four party' reality is the existence of ideological fringe groups called caucuses. On the far Left in the House is the Congressional Progressive Caucus and on the far Right is the Freedom Caucus.</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1922" _msttexthash="142379497">Of the current total of Republican House members, the Freedom Caucus numbers @40 or 18%. But of the 213 Democrat House members, the Progressive Caucus numbers 99 or 46%. Since the Republicans currently hold the majority based on their slim numbers, and the all important Speakership, the existence of the Freedom Caucus has more significance for their agenda that that of the Progressive Caucus on the Democrats. A defection of only three Freedom Caucus votes from an otherwise party line vote would block any Republican party initiative. </b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1923" _msttexthash="444594202">In the event that Democrats take control of the House in the 2024 elections the 99 votes of the Progressive Caucus will be a formidable influence from the far Left. For now, in the House, the Freedom Caucus has been able to use the lack of a federal budget and the prospect of a "shut down" of the government if one is not passed or a "continuing resolution" which simply extends the level of existing spending, is not passed, to try and pass such things as border security legislation or significant cuts in federal spending. Members of the Progressive Caucus have threatened to withhold support for pending foreign aid bills if President Biden doesn't take a more forceful stance with Israel with respect to a cease fire in the Gaza war. Recently the House and Senate agreed to a <br />continuing resolution of sorts, to avoid the imminent government shut down but it is an extremely short term fix and leaves the problem of an ideological impasse looming over the very near future. </b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1924" _msttexthash="26231257">In general, the existence and policy preferences of these two more ideologically rigid congressional party sub-groups make bargaining and compromise impossible which seriously impacts the normal legislative process. </b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div _msthash="1925" _msttexthash="227727591"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>There are serious issues with serious consequences if no action is taken. The Biden administration wants to continue significant military aid to Ukraine whose troops are now being outmanned and out gunned by the Russians. They also want to continue the program of long term aid to </b></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Israel. Unfortunately both these issues have become significantly politicized. The Freedom Caucus influenced House Republican majority want's to pass and submit two separate aid packages for consideration by the Senate and signature by the President. The Biden administration want a combined package to keep the Republicans from attaching separate non-relevant policy requirements to each. </b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1926" _msttexthash="223033772">Objectively, this blockade by both sides makes little sense. What the Republicans want to add to the aid appropriations are significant cuts in overall federal spending and strict border security measures. These are legitimate issues. Economists on both sides of the partisan fence have long warned of the dangers of unrestrained federal deficits and the accumulation of federal debt which now roughly equals the total Gross Domestic Product of the U.S., the world's largest economy. Border security is now the foremost cited election issue in public opinion polls with millions of immigrants causing social and economic chaos in large cities throughout the nation.</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1927" _msttexthash="52599352">But cutting federal spending, except in defense spending is an affront to Progressive dogma which the Biden administration is unwilling to risk. Border security has been made a social issue instead of an economic issue by the Progressive wing of the Democrat Party which has led Biden to ignore the problem up until now.</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1928" _msttexthash="402729314"><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1928" _msttexthash="402729314">But the politicization of the underlying foreign aid issues is on both sides. The Freedom Caucus is heavily influenced by former President Trump who is the presumptive Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential election. Trump has shown himself to have adopted even more of an isolationist orientation than during his presidential term. He has what seems like a simplistic attitude towards international relations which also seems to be more based on a lack of understanding or disinterest in the vast complexities of the subject; "When I'm President I'll end the Ukraine war in 24 hours."; "I'll secure the border by building a wall and making Mexico pay for it." He equates "America first" with American withdrawal from international responsibilities which have threatened continued U.S. aid to Ukraine which has been supported by major U.S. allies in NATO who see Russian expansion as a formidable threat. </b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1929" _msttexthash="52115154">With respect to Israel Trump has taken a more sympathetic position while President; moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; recognizing the strategic border area between Israel and Syria known as The Golen Heights, as Israeli territory; and promoting the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arabic nations.<br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1930" _msttexthash="24989848">But still, the Trump influenced Freedom Caucus in the House joins the Progressive Caucus in a position of "sacrificing the good in favor of the perfect" by not compromising to move forward with these important policies. </b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1931" _msttexthash="22277554">If the influence of these two extremist sub-parties isn't enough of a disfunction, the whole legislative and international orientation of the government is over lain by the raw politics of the 2024 election.</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b _msthash="1932" _msttexthash="106473510">With respect to aid to Israel, Biden is feeling pressure from the Left of his party and Arab population concentrations in Michigan to rescind his early "unconditional" support for Israel after the heinous attack by Hamas on October 7th and demand a permanent ceasefire under the threat of terminating historical U.S. military aid. The significance and horror of this attack on Israel has been abandoned by much of the American media in the face of Israel's invasion and bombing of Gaza where Hamas resides and is embedded in the highly dense civilian population. </b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><b><span _msthash="1933" _msttexthash="187214313" style="font-size: medium;">Biden has tried to mollify his progressive critics by calling for a cease fire in the Gaza war "as soon as possible", and negotiations for a Palestinian state in its' aftermath. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his "war cabinet" have rejected both possibilities and have only agreed to a six week ceasefire if the hostages held by Hamas are released. Of course a ceasefire in any conflict can only put in place by the agreement of the two parties to the conflict, Hamas and Israel. It cannot be imposed by Biden, American college students or Arab-Americans in Michigan. So far, Hamas and the Israeli government are miles apart on the terms of such an agreement.</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span _msthash="1934" _msttexthash="211979508" style="font-size: medium;">Those threatening a cut off of military aid is over estimating the short term effect on Israel's military capabilities and war strategies as well as under estimating the long term political effect of a cutoff of aid to Israel. Netanyahu, while unpopular in Israel with respect to domestic issues, has wide support for his war policies and is unlikely to accept a cease fire as long as Hamas remains as a terrorist threat and a political force in Gaza. </span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;">In the broader picture, the U.S. has major security interests in the Middle East region and Israel is an important ally and counterweight to the regional and hostile ambitions of Iran. the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain and the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have mutual security interests with respect to Islamic terrorism and Iranian expansion. Biden has also stated that the U.S. would defend Taiwan if China invaded it and his administration has been building stronger security relationships with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. While these nations are not in the Middle East, to send the message that Biden's policies are just temporary promises subject to domestic electoral political pressures would have a negative impact on U.S. credibility and would appear ominously similar to Republican candidate Trump's recent criticism of U.S. collective defense obligations under the NATO treaty. </span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;">One would hope that Biden is more likely to continue to try and tamp down the Arab-American and other protests by upping criticism of Israel's war tactics but avoiding actual threats to terminate decades long military assistance to Israel.</span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;">All of this is symptomatic of a fundamental fragmentation of the American body politic. Polls show that the two most important issues to voters are the economy and border security, which common sense would demand that compromise is necessary for the general welfare. But campaign "experts", opinion "journalists" and political activists continue to promote the tactic of identifying and promoting narrow or single issue voting blocs with uncompromising positions. In general terms the two major caucuses include these smaller groups with the result being policy gridlock. This can't be resolved without a broader political consensus providing significant majorities to one party or the other in the Congress. However, the fragmentation of the country by the promotion of multiculturalism, race and religion as political identities makes this highly improbable. </span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span _msthash="1935" _msttexthash="245919661" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div></div>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-80884803375199512112024-02-09T11:01:00.000-07:002024-02-09T11:01:13.703-07:00THE "END OF DEMOCRACY": UNSERIOUS POLITICAL THEATRE<p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The outline of the 2024 presidential election already seems to be a replay of the 2020 election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. But even before the recent Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, the tone of the campaigns were set. Polls showed, and continue to show, President Biden in significant trouble. Biden's age and obvious mental befuddlement hang over him like a dark shadow while wide spread dissatisfaction with three years of open borders and inflation causing trillion dollar spending programs, attacks on the fossil fuel industry while gasoline prices spiked and Bidens' lurch to the far Left on social policies, have provided a fertile field for Trump's campaign.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">On the other side, there are many reasons for voters to say "not again" to another four years of Trump. Trump has broken all the rules, norms and standards of decent behavior and presidential dignity. He is a national and international embarrassment. His erratic and personal style of governance is a regrettable and dangerous substitute for any president's primary and needed attribute, leadership. The list of his abnormal traits and consummate arrogance provides many valid reasons to vote against him. But the desperate Democrat campaign smear of "the end of democracy" isn't one of them. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The founders of America's constitutional system created a framework with the basic foundation being avoidance of concentrations of power. The result was the separation of powers; three independent branches of government with counter balancing "checks and balances" including a federal judiciary protected from political influence by lifetime tenure. Legislation must be passed by both houses of Congress; a presidential veto is possible but can be overturned by a 2/3 vote in both houses. Presidential appointments are subject to Senate approval. Presidents have significant unilateral powers in some areas, especially foreign policy and trade, if specifically granted by legislation or judicial review of constitutional provisions. The power to issue "executive orders" is not a open ended power to rule by edict. Executive orders are subject to judicial review and often run up against the separation of powers doctrine as both Trump and Biden found out during their respective administrations. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">But Biden, or his campaign staff, have bought in to the apocalyptic strategy to avoid debates on policies which are his weakest points. Biden has made the strategy clear; "Democracy is on the ballot." ''Whether democracy is still America's sacred cause . . . is what the 2024 election is all about."</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The evidence that Biden himself mentions most is Trump's participation and incitement of the January 6, 2020 assault on the Capitol by mobs of his supporters. This of course was an attack on the heart of our democracy both by infrastructure and process. This followed Trump's challenges in several key states of the results of the November vote. Challenges of voting outcomes when they are narrow is a common and legal procedure. Assault on the capitol and attempts to interrupt the counting and certification of the Electoral College votes in the Congress is not. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">But neither was successful. All Trump's challenges in state and federal courts after the election were turned down for lack of evidence. Georgia's Republican Secretary of State who officiated that state's election turned down Trump's personal request to "find" enough votes for him to make him the winner in that state. In the Electoral College certification process on January 6, Trump's own Republican Vice President Mike Pence, who was on the ballot with him, chose the Constitution and his oath to uphold it, and refused to illegally manipulate the process. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Although, Biden himself stated "I don't consider any Trump supporter to be a threat to the country", he has made no distinction by labeling Trump and his "Maga" supporters as the underlying "threat to democracy "should Trump win in 2024. And of course, the Democratic Left in Congress, the media and opinion journals, have dutifully engaged in the simplistic and over wrought claim. The problems with it are as obvious as the convenience of using a simple "existential" label with few specifics. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The few examples of an attack on the democratic system of the U.S. which the left wing media and opinion writers cite are mostly focused on Trump's admittedly hostile attitude to well established "norms of behavior"; extreme hyperbole, claims of his intention to do things quickly without specifically mentioning legislative cooperation, or questionable approval by the federal courts. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">An example of "what Trump might do in a second term" is withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which he hinted at in his first term. Of course, this has nothing to do with the state of democracy in the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. congress included an amendment in the 2024 Defense Authorization Act which requires any President to get congressional approval to withdraw from NATO including a 2/3 vote in the Senate.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Democrats also assert that Trump will try to repeal "Obamacare", the government health insurance act passed when Obama had majorities in both Houses of Congress. Of course this would require legislation passed by both houses and also would itself be an exercise in democratic process. An attempt to do this failed in 2017 during Trump's administration.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Trump has himself said he could use the "Insurrection Act" to use federal troops to put down destructive political protests. But the Insurrection Act is another democratically enacted statute. In general the term currently in use refers to 10 U.S.C. 332-335 which authorizes the president to "call into federal service" units of state's National Guard 'and "use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary in a state if any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy if it hinders the execution of the laws of the state or the U.S. "</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Is such an action "undemocratic" or "authoritarian"? Not if the President follows the text of the statute. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The prospects of Trump actually using the Insurrection Act in this way depend on several things. One, he has said he will, but Trump routinely says he will do things and then acts as if he didn't say them. Two, actual anti-Trump or anti-government protests or just about any large protests that turn in to violent and destructive demonstrations or riots must occur. Then, the process of nationalizing state national guard units will take time and the protests may have run their course before such action could be completed. But if not then the question of what the rules of engagement of such forces should be. Will they be armed with the usual military weapons? Will the weapons be loaded and available for the protection of the troops? Will the risks of such a response turn into a replay of the 1970 Kent State University disaster? Even Trump would not want that kind of disaster on his hands.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Certainly there have been episodes in which local law enforcement was inadequate to maintain order. The 2020 protests which occurred after the police killing of George Floyd quickly turned into riots with looting and the destruction of public and private property in 40 cities in 20 states. The city of Portland, Oregon alone suffered 100 days of violent protests while police were ordered to stand aside. The January 6, 2020 attack on the nation's capitol itself deserved the use of National Guard units to protect the personnel and process of the nations representative government.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Democrats claim that Trump, if elected will "weaponize" the Dept. of Justice to seek revenge against his political enemies. He has actually said he would; and then he said he wouldn't have time to do that; another episode of Trump's outrageous bluster. But if he tried it, it would require massive changes of personnel in the Dept. of Justice first, before "Trumped up" charges against others could be brought about. Indictments would have to be sought in Grand Juries manned by ordinary citizens. The major road block for such actions that actually went to trial would of course be the federal judiciary which is beyond the reach of the president.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">But the charge of the "end of democracy" is such a grandiose political driven election tactic as to have limited influence on the uncommitted who will play a critical role in the election. It is essentially "preaching to the choir" of confirmed Trump haters. Polls don't show much, if any, impact on Biden's declining job approval.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;"> The nation's democratic system operates across thousands of local and state government institutions, which like the federal judiciary mentioned above are "far beyond the reach" of any president. </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">However, Trump's inability as President to destroy the nation's representative democratic, federal system, is by no means a recommendation for his election. Again by any set of historical norms, basic rules and standards of character, he should have politically disqualified himself long ago. The fact that he leads in most public approval ratings over President Biden perhaps says much more about Biden than about Trump. </span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-31040872801411778092024-01-10T12:16:00.000-07:002024-01-10T12:16:04.062-07:00 GAZA: WIDER WAR PROSPECTS AND REALITIES<span style="font-size: medium;">The Israeli War Cabinet and Prime Minister Netanyahu have acknowledged that the goal of eliminating Hamas from Gaza will take "months" or "whatever is necessary". The major political issue currently is the plight of Gaza's civilian population, @2.3 million people whose physical conditions are untenable. There seems to be no easy solution for this domestic catastrophe since the suggestions and demands of those not direct participants in the conflict contradict the war aims of the Israeli government. But they also contradict the interests of Hamas if the primary step is a permanent cease fire which Israel would certainly demand includes the disarmament of Hamas fighters. Without such a condition a ceasefire would represent a victory for both Hamas and its' sponsor Iran which is unacceptable to Israel. Indeed, a Hamas spokesman has declared that the atrocities committed on October 7th against Israeli civilians was just a "rehearsal" for future attacks. </span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Without a ceasefire the next most important issue on the agenda of the Biden administration, and which Secretary of State Blinken is reported to discuss, again, with Prime Minister Netanyahu and with a number of regional political leaders, is the avoidance of an "escalation' of the Gaza conflict into a regional war. Such an escalation would present Biden with a difficult political problem at the outset of his 2024 presidential campaign. It would depend on the nature of such an event and the possibility of pressure for the U.S. being drawn directly into it, presumably on the part of Israel. The alternative would be staying out and demanding a hopeless diplomatic solution which would put Biden's credibility as an avowed supporter of a strategic ally versus a conflict avoider based on political pressure from the Progressive Left of his Democrat party. His decision could hurt him in either case in the upcoming election.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"> But in practical terms the conflict is already a regional war in geographical terms but not much of a "wider war" considering the participants and "relatively" limited nature of the current conflicts and the history of such conflicts. The question is, to what levels the current regional conflicts will expand and who will be the major antagonists.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The prospects for escalation are centered around four areas; Israel's northern border with Lebanon; the occupied West Bank currently under administrative control by the Palestinian Authority and its' Fatah political party; the northern section of Yemen on the tip of the Arabian Peninsula; and U.S. and "allied" bases in Syria and Iraq. The major threat is the border with Lebanon which is controlled by the Iranian sponsored Hezbollah militia. A limited but serious missile attack on Israeli towns close to the border by Hezbollah has been going on for some months. Israel has responded with artillery and air strikes but neither side has demonstrated the probability of ground combat by their respective armed forces beyond aggressive public statements. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Although designated as a "terrorist group" Hezbollah by virtue of its' size, weaponry and combat experience in Syria in support of Syrian President Assad in his battle against a loose coalition of anti-Assad militias, Hezbollah is a formidable adversary. However, Hezbollah does not exist in a social and political environment that is unified in its support for them. The population of Lebanon is roughly one third Christian, one third Shi'a Muslim like Hezbollah, and one third Sunni Muslim. The Lebanese government which is divided along these lines and maintains a national military, is conflict averse and opposes any expansion of Gaza war into its' territory. Memories of the fifteen year long civil war (1975-1990) and its' economic and structural destruction as well as the deaths of 120,000-150,000 people, are still strong. This was followed by the short Israeli/Hezbollah war in 2006. A Hezbollah missile attack on major Israeli cities or a major cross border attack would cause missile sites and bases in Lebanon to come under attack as well as a response by Israeli ground forces. Clearly, the threat of "regional expansion" of the Gaza conflict lies in the hands of Hezbollah and its' sponsor Iran, not with Israel whose leaders have made it clear that they seek no large scale conflict in Lebanon and who have exercised considerable restraint in the face of missile attacks on border communities. But those attacks have resulted in the evacuation of 150,000 Israel citizens from their homes creating a situation which cannot be tolerated indefinitely. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"> With respect to threats to widen the Gaza war on the part of the Houthi militias in Yemen, the threat they represent hardly deserves their inclusion. The Houthis are another Shi'a tribal surrogate of Iran. They are themselves operating under a truce with government supporters suspending a lengthy civil war (2014-2022) which wrecked havoc with Yemen's civilian population and remains politically unsettled. Saudi Arabia, which shares a border with Yemen, supports the internationally recognized government opposing the Houthis and supported that government militarily during the conflict. A widening conflict between the Houthis and the U.S. led international maritime presence in the Red Sea could upset the truce in the Yemen civil war which would not affect the Gaza war but put the Houthi resistance movement at significant risk. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Yemen is the poorest nation in the Arabian peninsula. It's only significant sources of export income are degrading oil and natural gas reserves. Yemen itself is 1,600 miles from Israel and the Houthis have expressed their "support" for Hamas by attacking international shipping in the Red Sea in transit to and from the Suez Canal. They have done this with armed drones, missiles, and small boats. This in no way helps Hamas or hurts the Israeli war effort, and after questionable delays the Biden administration has organized an international naval response to protect civilian shipping and has "implied" that further attacks will bring a more serious military response, presumably, a further much delayed attack on the Houthi missile and small boat launching sites. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The Houthis have tried to use their "support" for Hamas and the Palestinians as a tool to generate domestic support in the face of severe economic hardship in the territory they control but time is running out for their interruption of vital international maritime trade. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Other concerns about a "regional war" include attacks by a variety of small Islamic terrorist groups on American and allied troops in Iraq and Syria. The number of U.S. military personnel is relative small at around 2,500 and consists of "advisors" who are part of a continuing operation against the international terrorist Islamic State. These attacks and counter attacks have been small so far without American fatalities and the idea that Biden will undertake a major military operation as a result is unrealistic. The easy solution would be to withdraw this small military presence which is not going to be a deciding factor in the local terrorist problem in any case. There presence does not have the full support of the Iraqi government in any case. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The fourth concern about a widening of the Gaza war most mentioned is a dramatic increase in anti-Israeli terrorist activity or even a third Intifada, or popular uprising, by Palestinians, in the West Bank. So far the increase in hostilities there have been mostly on the part of radicalized Israeli settlers who have been attacking Palestinian civilians. The Israeli military who have been attacking small Palestinian terror cells in the West Bank must intervene to stop the radical settlers from further inflaming the local population and should cooperate with the Palestinian Authority administrators to the extent they can, to limit the expansion of hostilities. In any case the situation in the West Bank is not a part of a "wider regional war" although it could complicate the Israeli war effort in Gaza. There is no heavily armed or organized Palestinian resistance in the West Bank and tensions and conflict have been part of the Israeli occupation for decades. While Iran could conceivably attempt to intervene indirectly by smuggling arms into the West Bank, it is not in the interests of the Palestinian Authority which exercises domestic governance and receives significant monetary aid from abroad, to assist or participate in a general uprising. In most of the post-Gaza war discussions so far the Palestinian Authority is mentioned as serving as the fundamental governmental entity in a future Palestinian state which would include Gaza. Officials in the PA will not want to put that scenario at risk by taking an active role in opening a new anti-Israeli insurgency. <br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Is a wider regional war possible? Of course, wars are essentially unpredictable. But Israel is not seeking such and escalation as it devotes it attention and resources to the conflict with Hamas in Gaza. A wider war is largely up to Iran whose regional aspirations are behind its sponsorship of Islamic client groups. A direct conflict with Iran is highly improbable as Iran has demonstrated an unwillingness to expose itself the destruction such a conflict would bring and it prefers a strategy of attrition towards Israel through the use of its' surrogates and now the domestic political/electoral pressures on Biden's Israeli policy of "rock hard support". </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The war in Gaza will end when Israeli leaders accomplish their goal of eradicating the Hamas leadership and disarming the rank and file; or when the Hamas leaders see the end in sight and flee to a sympathetic nation, although the list such places is quite short. Of course the subsidiary conflicts in the region will continue as they have for decades and it will take decades more for a permanent solution to the Palestinian problem, if one is even possible.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><br /></div></div></div>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-40492156190028093582023-12-07T11:03:00.001-07:002023-12-07T11:10:12.612-07:00 GAZA: WAR AND POLITICS<p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Israeli-Hamas war has entered it's third phase after the collapse of the hostage exchange truce which was an important but limited success. The first stage after the Hamas terrorist rampage of Israel on November 7 was the prolonged and intensive bombing campaign of Hamas operational centers spread throughout Gaza but concentrated on the north. The second phase was the much anticipated IDF ground attack also emphasizing the Hamas presence in the north. The current phase is a continuation of both previous operations and like the others, complicated by the Hamas tactic of imbedding it's forces in the dense Gazan civilian population. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Emotionally intense videos of the vast destruction and human casualties of the bombing campaign as well as the loss of utilities, water and food that the civilian population of Gaza has suffered and will likely continue to suffer as the war continues. This has created an international opinion reversal from the initially brief outrage over the heinous atrocities committed by Hamas and its terrorist militia associates in Israel, to a more generalized hostility and condemnation of Israel for its response.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This reversal was predicted by seasoned observers of the 75 year long history of what is at its' core a racial/religious based conflict focused on claims of historic rights to lands in what is one of histories most ancient regions of civilization. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In the current version of the conflict, President Biden was quick to make his public support for Israel strong and unequivocable. Making a quick trip to Tel Aviv he met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and announced "Our support for Israel is 'rock solid'. He concluded his visit by exchanging a "bear hug" with the Prime Minister. Although Biden has a long history of adlibbing without careful consideration of the political sensitivities of his remarks, he undoubtedly felt secure in expressing renewed strong support for Israel that has been a fundamental political element of U.S. foreign policy by administrations of both parties for the entirety of the existence of the Jewish state. Also, the Jewish vote in American presidential elections though a small percentage of the national popular vote, has been concentrated in large states like Florida, California, New York and Illinois and has historically gone to the Democrat Party by upwards of 80%. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> Now, reality has belatedly raised its inconvenient political face to confront the Biden administration over the President's strong, and now seemingly impetuous, vigorous support for Israel and its' understandably strong response to the Hamas attack. Much has been made in U.S. opinion journals of the strong anti-Israel, and by implication, anti-U.S. support of Israel in the "Arab street" as evidenced by large, hostile public protests. Of course it should be noted that there are no Arab or other Islamic nations in the Middle East that are political democracies which enshrine freedom of speech and assembly as does the U.S. and other Western democracies. Arab states and Iran have long tolerated or encouraged anti-Israeli national attitudes in part as a long established tactic to offer up a common enemy to unite and divert attention from such domestic policies as poverty and ruthless and arbitrary governance. So it is not surprising that a war involving both the perennial "enemy" Israel and an Arab, Islamist political entity, no matter its terrorist character, would stimulate public anger. But, the anger and protests have spread across Western Europe and the United States. These events have taken on a decidedly ideological character as the political Left bolstered by Arab, Islamic immigrants abroad and Arab hyphenated Americans and holders of temporary student visas in the U.S. have assumed the role of leading activists. It has also caused divisions in the historically liberal American Jewish community with supporters of Israel and supporters of leftist pacifist and racial attitudes facing a conundrum of loyalties.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The Biden administration is now feeling political pressures from the Left in an election year, and one in which Biden's candidacy is facing an unprecedented lack of enthusiasm from his own party. The result has been yet another instance of "interpretation' of Biden's unscripted public remarks by his guardians.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The emissary of this reinterpretation is Secretary of State Blinken who found it necessary to make a hasty trip to Israel and confront Prime Minister Netanyahu over "U.S. concerns". In his post conference media event Blinken said: "I underscored the 'imperative' of the U.S. that the massive loss of civilian life and displacement of the scale that we saw in northern Gaza not be repeated in the south." "I made it clear that Israel 'must' put in place humanitarian protection plans that minimize further casualties of innocent Palestinians". These would include "safeguarding" hospitals and power stations and creating "safe areas" out of the combat zone. Also, Blinken went on, "Israel must permit civilians who fled south to go back north before Israel resumes operations." Of course "safe areas" for civilians would also be safe areas for Hamas supporters and combatants and allowing "civilians" who fled the north to go back would also include Hamas fighters who are indistinguishable from true civilians.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">This is very strong language to be directed at a sovereign nation who was attacked by an external enemy and who considers itself in a state of war with that enemy. The obvious implication is that Blinken and President Biden's "rock solid" support of Israel is in reality conditional, meaning they consider the historic support for Israel exemplified by large annual financial aid to be dependent on their approval of Israel's domestic and defense policies. In this case those policies are founded on Israel's belief that it is engaged in a war for national survival. Blinken's use of the words like "must put in place", and "imperative of the United States" with regard to the conduct of such a war is a profound intervention into basic principles of sovereignty. The obvious domestic political motivations of such a departure from Biden's original unqualified support undermines Blinken's alleged humanitarian concerns.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A previous attempt by the Biden administration to intervene in Israeli domestic policy occurred when the extreme right wing members of Netanyahu's governing coalition proposed legislation that would limit their Supreme Court from overturning legislative decisions. While this policy would be a direct rebuttal of the U.S. Supreme Court's long standing constitutional interpretation of the legitimacy of "judicial review' by the Court (Marbury vs. Madison), no such provision exists except by tradition in Israel. When Biden reproached Netanyahu, a coalition member responded by saying that "Israel is not the fifty-first star on the American flag." That same attitude would seem to apply in this more serious situation. Although as yet unspoken, the Israeli war cabinet, as long as it has the support of the Israeli people, will continue to carry out the strategies they believe will provide the ultimate and necessary elimination of Hamas as a threat to the Jewish state. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Finacial aid to Israel is not premised solely on their right to establish and maintain a Jewish state after centuries of harsh discrimination and suppression. The U.S. has legitimate national security interests in supporting the sole democratic state in the region which also possesses the strongest military. Since 1979 and Iran's establishment of a revolutionary Islamic theocratic state, it has promoted hostility to the West and the U.S. as it attempts to establish itself as a dominant regional entity. Israel plays an important role as a counter weight to those ambitions especially as Iran continues to seek to become a nuclear power. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Making U.S. aid to Israel conditional will not go unnoticed by other recipients of similar financial aid. Egypt, home of the largest Arab population in the Middle East is also a recipient of significant annual aid from the U.S. This assistance came as part of the historic peace treaty implemented between Egypt and Israel in 1979. General security guarantees were put in place including military and financial aid. The result has been a total since 1978 of $50 billion in military aid and $30 billion in financial aid going to Egypt. Egypt is governed by a military dictatorship. The present government of President General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took power after a coup which replaced President Mohammed Morsi who was elected in 2013 and then imprisoned. Al-Sisi then staged another presidential election in which Morsi's Freedom and Justice Party was not allowed to participate. This party was the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Islamic group which has been connected with sponsoring Islamic terrorism abroad. Al-Sisi "somehow" managed to squeak by with 97% of the votes cast. Although the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act bans aid to governments who took power by military coup, President Biden has taken the position that U.S. national security interests out weigh human rights in the case of Egypt but not his domestic political interests with regard to Israel, and in September of this year, 2023,he sent another 1.215 billion dollars in military aid to Egypt. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Essentially, Biden took the traditional path in his initial strong support for Israel, a seemingly safe position before the IDF moved into Gaza and considering the historical support of America's Jewish population for liberal Democrat candidates. Now with his job approval sinking dramatically, and the vital youth and minority voting blocs showing signs of weakness for his 2024 reelection, he is using his administration spokesmen to alter his political message, an obvious election based crack in his "rock solid" support for Israel. Demanding that Israel protect civilians while conducting a war in a densely populated urban environment sounds like a human values message but no one making these demands, including the UN, the Pope, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus has offered ideas on how this is possible. What they propose instead is a "cease fire" which would give the terrorist Hamas and their sponsor Iran a victory from which they could rebuild and continue their avowed program to destroy the state of Israel. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">But Biden can't have it both ways and tilting back and forth will continue to make some groups angry. Few will switch their support to Trump but some on election day will just stay home and join thousands of others who are simply disgusted with the ridiculous choice imposed on the nation by blind loyalist minorities in both parties.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-1184829307276576782023-10-27T10:27:00.001-06:002023-10-28T08:30:30.483-06:00 GAZA: THE HARSH REALITY OF EXISTENTIAL POLITICS<p> The invasion and brutal terrorist attack by Hamas, the de facto government in Gaza, is now just three weeks old and already the heinous brutality of the terrorist group has been replaced on international media including in the U.S., by the plight of the inhabitants of Gaza who are caught in the middle of the ongoing Israeli air assaults in preparation for a full cross border ground attack by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). This was all but inevitable as the media in the Western world follows controversy, exaggeration and speculation especially as regards victimization which is a long term socio-political theme in the equally long term Israeli/Palestinian conflict.</p><p>President Biden, to his credit, made the case that the inhuman depravity of the Hamas invaders cannot be accepted or rationalized and he made it clear that the U.S. will support Israel as it exercises its right of self defense including a combined forces, air and ground, military response.</p><p>The Gaza population is indeed suffering as the debate and air assault approach new levels .The debate is led internationally by protests and local media in Islamist nations across the Middle East and Islamic immigrants in Western nations; all dutifully reported by national media in the U. S. Domestically, the usual Left wing groups and individuals have proclaimed their opposition to Israel ranging from outright condemnation and "solidarity" with Hamas terrorists, to calls for a "cease fire" and "diplomacy" to stop any Israeli invasion of Gaza. College students, always anxious to support the alleged victims in any dispute and engage in role playing as Ghandi like pacifists or brave "freedom fighters" from the safety and comfort of their college campuses, display their profound naiveté and ignorance of the complexities and realities of this horrendous crime by Hamas. Of course the national media gives them the attention they seek. And of course, they are joined by the voices of the usual grievous groups and religious spokesmen who demand a cessation of hostilities, a diplomatic vs. a military response and the usual platitudes about "embracing the humanity of all people" to achieve lasting peace without violence.</p><p>One can only wonder how these groups and individuals can be so divorced from reality. How is it possible to "embrace the humanity" of a terrorist group that engages in the slaughter of infants, young children and the aged as part of a campaign of atrocities carried out against civilians who were not policy makers and was based simply on their ethnicity, religion and/or nationality. Diplomacy means negotiations. It involves " give and take" with the goal being eventual compromise.</p><p> Negotiations to do what? The founding document of Hamas calls for the elimination of the state of Israel. Should Israel negotiate its own existence? A "cease fire"? As long as Hamas exists it will constitute a terrorist threat to Israel. What would a cease fire accomplish? The roughly two million civilians in Gaza cannot be evacuated. Surrounding Arab/Islamic states won't take even a portion of them. A cease fire simply allows Hamas to rearm and reenforce its fortifications which will lead to a longer, bloodier war. Hamas is not a legitimate government; Gaza is not a nation state; Hamas and its junior partner fellow terrorist organization Islamic Jihad, have demonstrated no concern for the safety or welfare of the residents of Gaza, instead using them as a tool to stimulate hate for Israel in other Islamic nations. </p><p style="direction: rtl;"> The current claims that anti-Israeli protests "world wide" could stimulate a wider regional conflict need closer examination. With respect to these protests in Islamic Middle Eastern and African nations, public opinion was never in play and thus entirely predictable. Islamic nation's populations have been deeply antagonistic to Israel since Israel's founding in 1948. Israel has fought four wars of survival against neighboring Arab states in 1948,1956,1967,1973, as well as a 1980 conflict with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a terrorist group which had taken refuge in Lebanon, and "intifadas" i.e. general violent uprisings by Palestinian populations and continuous domestic terrorist attacks.</p><p>The potential "wider war" has a low probability of involving direct aggression by Iran whose Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, throughout the long history of Iran's hostility to Israel has sought to protect the Iranian nation even in the face of Israeli sabotage attempts on Iran's nuclear project. Iran prefers to use and support client terrorist groups as it's agents; Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Houthis in Yemen. The "wider war" essentially means the possibility of a Hezbollah attack on Israel's northern border with Lebanon and a possible uprising by civilians and small terrorist groups in the West Bank. A Hezbollah ground attack from Lebanon would lead to a large response by Israel into southern Lebanon and serious destruction of Lebanese infrastructure by IDF air power. It would more likely be predominately a massive missile attack but with the same Israeli response. It would probably prolong the war in Gaza as Israel shifted military assets to that front but Hezbollah and Hamas combined lack the numbers, armor, artillery, and air power to defeat the IDF. Hezbollah is currently shooting some missiles into northern Israel as a diversionary tactic with respect to the impending ground invasion of Gaza and Israel is responding with air attacks. </p><p>The previous Arab/Israeli "wide wars" have involved Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Now Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel and receives @1.4 billion dollars annually in aid from the U.S. and has refused entry of Palestinians as migrants trying to leave Gaza. Jordan also has a peace treaty with Israel and has been a more moderate political player in Middle East politics. Jordan's King Abdullah and his wife have both condemned Israel's air campaign in Gaza but Jordan is home to a large number of Palestinians who the King must placate to avoid domestic chaos. The King's father fought a war in 1971 with a large Palestinian terrorist group who tried to take control of Jordan. Syria has been tied down with its own civil war since 2014 and is in no position to threaten Israel. </p><p>Israel will eventually invade Gaza. There is no possibility of a negotiated settlement. A commitment not to invade and destroy Hamas would be the equivalent of a surrender in the face of an act of war by Hamas on October 7th and perpetuate the hostilities and civilian casualties on both sides.</p><p> In spite of the usual "peace" voices i.e. the UN, the Pope, the New York Times, and various activist groups in the U.S. and Western Europe who choose to ignore the vicious intransigence of Hamas and its' supporters and their quest to destroy the state of Israel, the Israeli "war cabinet" and IDF will not be deterred. This issue of the hostages held by Hamas complicates the situation. But the hostage's fate is entirely in the hands of Hamas which will do what they feel is best in support of their interests. Basic "humanity" is not on the table when dealing with Hamas. They might believe that a general release before the Israeli ground invasion would somehow put them in a better position internationally, but they have already threatened to kill the hostages and are now claiming that the Israeli bombing campaign has killed fifty hostages. But time is running out for successful negotiations primarily involving the government of Qatar. Tragically, these innocent people might eventually be one more group of victims of the utter depravity of this terrorist group. The people of Israel are mostly united in the goal of eliminating this constant threat which defied the basic norms of humanity in their attack on Israel's civilian population. There is no other realistic choice.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-9494497041652187212023-04-07T16:12:00.000-06:002023-04-07T16:12:50.333-06:00 THE MIDDLE EAST IN TRANSITION<p> <span style="font-size: large;">While the Russia/Ukraine war dominates the news there are significant events occurring in other regions and in today's highly integrated world, these events have links to the Ukrainian conflict and to the related and larger power evolutions between Russia, China, and the United States.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For decades the U.S has had a positive relationship with two important though quite different nations in the volatile Middle East. Israel has survived four major conflicts with Arab states and a continuous conflict with Palestinian militias and terrorist groups, all with U.S. assistance. Israel is the only western style democracy in the region. Its' highly efficient military, superior intelligence apparatus and thriving free market economy, serve as an important counter weight in an often unstable and conflictual neighborhood. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Since the end of World War II and the rapid exploitation of the enormous crude oil reserves in the area of the Arabian peninsula, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been a key player in the politics of the region. First granted diplomatic recognition by the U.S. in 1940, American oil companies stepped in to develop Saudi Arabia's oil when the Kingdom lacked the technical expertise and investment capital to do it internally. Since then a mutually beneficial diplomatic, security and economic relationship has been a staple of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has been supportive during the Cold War years (1947-1991), and the post Iran revolution (1979) establishment of the anti-West Iranian Islamic Republic. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In spite of the long history of cooperation, the Kingdom has maintained a level of independence and occasional opposition to U.S. regional policies especially with relation to U.S. support for Israel. During the Arab/Israeli "Yom Kippur war" in 1973, U.S. support for Israel resulted in a Saudi led oil embargo on the U.S. which quadrupled oil prices and led President Jimmy Carter to declare that access to international oil markets was a "vital" U.S. security interest and the embargo was tantamount to economic warfare. This episode, although occurring fifty years ago, is demonstrative of the cautious "fence sitting" need that the Saudi leadership has followed through the years do to its' position in a volatile region of Islamic fundamentalism, and ambitious authoritarian leaders. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Saudia Arabia is home and "protector" of the two most important of Islam's holiest sites, Mecca, the birthplace of Islam's founder the Prophet Mohammed and the location of the Ka'ba', a small structure purported .to be a mosque built by Abraham, a foundational figure in the history of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The city of Medina, is Mohammed's burial place. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As such, although the Kingdom practices and enforces a fundamentalist approach to Islam, called Wahhabism and adherence to Koranic Shariah theocratic law, Saudi Arabia's friendly relationship with the U.S. and European states has created tensions with other fundamentalist Islamic groups in both of Islam's major sects, the Shi'a and Sunni theocracies. Iran, a Shi'a dominated nation, has been particularly hostile to the Saudi government and has been a regional rival since Iran's Islamic revolution. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">U.S. administrations have tried to keep Saudi Arabia and its' huge oil production and reserves out of the Soviet/Russian sphere of influence and protect it as a counter balance to Iran's regional ambitions. Thus Saudi Arabia has been a major customer of American made military equipment for many years.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Consequently, the U.S./Saudi relationship has been one of supporting mutual interests while realistically acknowledging and accepting as necessary, differences in culture and perceptions of regional threats and the proper responses to those threats. The diplomatic reality and context of U.S. relations with the Kingdom is that Saudi Arabia is not a constitutional democratic republic. It is a hereditary, theocratic, autocratic monarchy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The U.S. Saudi relationship has suffered since the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign when then Democrat candidate Joe Biden promising to build "the most progressive administration since FDR" engaged in unrehearsed "shoot from the lip" one liners, first promising to "shut down the major American oil and gas companies" as part of his new environmental crusader image with the obvious implied threats to the international fossil fuel industry as whole which represents the majority of the Saudi national income. Shortly after his election to President, Biden decided to play the role of leading international critic of the Saudi regime. One issue was the Saudi Arabia's involvement in the civil war in Yemen which borders the Kingdom on the south. The Saudi Air Force had been flying missions against the Houthi insurgents, a Shi'a client group of Iran trying to overthrow the Yemeni government. The war was devastating to the Yemeni civilian population but instead of assuming a diplomatic role of trying to sponsor negotiations to end the conflict Biden decided to take sides. The fact that the U.S. was supplying the weapons the Saudi Air Force was deploying became an issue for the American political Left which of course ignored the role of the insurgency in the war, or Saudi Arabia's security interests in the conflict on their border. President Biden declared: "I would like to make it very clear, we are not going to in fact, sell more weapons to them (Saudi Arabia). "I will end the sale of materiel where they are going in and murdering children" </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Biden then decided to return to an incident in which a Saudi journalist who was a critic of the Saudi government was murdered in 2018, The journalist, Jamal Kashoggi was a Saudi citizen, and political opinion contributor to regional journals and to the Washington Post. Kashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Because he had been a critic of the Saudi government it was generally assumed that Saudi officials were behind the murder. It was later reported in the U.S. that CIA officials had confirmed that theory. For some reason, newly elected President Biden decided to make the incident a political cause celebre' and implied that the de facto head of the Saudi government, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salmin had given the order for the assassination. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The long history of Saudi/American cooperation then took a further plunge when Biden made series of politically arbitrary public statements that seemed not to be the product of any consultation with experienced State Department officials. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"We are going to in fact make them pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"There is very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia." He then imposed sanctions on high ranking Saudi intelligence officials.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Mohammed bin Salman, at 37 years of age and the Crown Prince and son of the aging King with essentially absolute powers, will be an important player in the critical Middle East region and in the world for future decades because of Saudi Arabia's dominant role in the OPEC-Plus 13 member oil cartel which produces 37% of the world's oil. President Bidens's extraordinary insults had demonstrated a kind of morally superior attitude and when speaking of the government of Saudi Arabia they were clearly directed at it's leader. Biden, if indeed he knew what he was doing, was speaking to his domestic progressive political core but has struck a serious blow to an eighty-three year cooperative relationship with an important ally. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Biden quickly was forced to confront reality as oil prices soared with the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Facing political opposition at the price of gasoline at the pump in the U.S. he naively elected to make several phone calls to bin Salman to ask him to use his influence in OPEC to increase oil production in order to lower prices. Understandably as the "pariah" and "murderer of children" and "lack of socially redeeming values " the Crown Prince and head of the Saudi government, refused to take the calls. Biden then made an embarrassing trip "hat in hand" trip to Saudi Arabia in July, 2022 to personally ask for an increase in oil production and was summarily rebuffed.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The damaged relationship with Saudi Arabia has since had wider implications. Saudi Arabia has not joined in the U.S. led economic sanctions program against Russia nor has it publicly condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. In March of this year, China brokered a return of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and its' long time foe Iran, giving China another step forward in its' influence in the region, as the U.S. role diminishes.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In April of this year Saudi Arabia led several key members of the OPEC Plus cartel in a surprise announcement to cut oil production in May, 2023, by 1.2 million barrels per day. The Kingdom and Russia (the Plus in the cartel) will each cut production by half a million barrels per day to raise prices. In addition Saudi Arabia announced an agreement to supply refineries in China with 690 thousand barrels of oil per day. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But the diplomacy challenged Biden wasn't through reducing the influence of the U.S. in the Middle East. The new conservative government in Israel, the major ally of the U.S. in the region since its' creation as a state in 1948, announced significant changes in the Israeli judicial system which would give the conservative controlled parliament the Knesset, powers to appoint members of the Supreme Court and even to overrule Court decisions. Such changes of course would if applied for the U.S. would upset the vital Constitutional "separation of powers" fundamental to U.S. democracy so they were a shocking proposal even in a democratic ally. The proposals did predictably stimulate significant public protests in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has since delayed the planned changes but the issue remains a highly controversial possibility. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">President Biden, who claims to have known Netanyahu for decades, attempted to lecture him publicly about the "threat to democracy" he was imposing. That of course is true as an independent judiciary is vital to the democratic process to avoid concentration of powers. But the issue is an internal one and will be settled politically within the Israeli system. In parliamentary systems, Prime Ministers and their cabinets are much more vulnerable to dismissal than in the U.S. presidential system. They need not be impeached and removed they simply need to lose support of a majority in the parliament and be subject to a vote of lack of "confidence" which would require a resignation or a new election. That procedure has given Israel five elections in the last four years. Biden's intervention and public judgements along with his terse statement that Netanyahu would not be invited to the White House in the "near term", did not help Netanyahu and he responded as would be expected by pointing out that Israel is a sovereign nation and governed by its' citizens and not outside nations. A member of Netanyahu's cabinet made it even clearer when he stated that "Israel was not another star on the American flag." Still, Biden seems personally offended by how Netanyahu and his far Right coalition government is running their nation. Part of it might be the members of the government's outright hostility to the Palestinians in the Israeli controlled West Bank and the apparent complete loss of any possible negotiation for a Palestinian State in that territory. That was President Obama's stated position when Biden was his Vice President and Netanyahu was also then the Prime Minister of Israel. But with Biden's loss of influence with Saudi Arabia, a similar move by Israel away from the U.S. would be seriously damaging to U.S. interests. Iran has not diminished its' hatred for the "Great Satan" U.S and is still pursuing nuclear weapons. Hamas, the terrorist local government of Gaza has not given up its' goal of "wiping Israel off the map", Hezbollah, the Iranian supported Shi'a terrorist militia which controls Lebanon and is intervening in support of Syria' dictator Assad in that country's civil war, and the remnants of the Islamic State terrorist group all remain major threats to the region. The U.S needs Israel and Saudi Arabia as well as clearer heads in Washington. Unfortunately, if the current trends in play for the 2024 presidential election hold true and a replay of the 2020 election is in store, clearer heads will be in short supply no matter the outcome. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com02Q7JXF3J+66-84.046948399999991 132.4805157-86.599423779302143 97.324265700000012 -81.494473020697839 167.6367657tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-78794113446346981112023-03-05T11:56:00.000-07:002023-03-05T11:56:05.581-07:00 UKRAINE: THE POLITICAL/SECURITY CONUNDRUM<p><span style="font-size: large;">This February, 2023 the international media and some independent political groups took notice of the First anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, indeed some groups labeled rallies in support of Ukraine as "celebrations". What would be cause for "celebration" could only be the fact that Ukraine's armed forces had successfully blocked the previously anticipated quick victory and occupation of Ukraine's major cities by numerically superior Russian forces. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Much credit is deserved by the vigor and leadership of Ukraine's army but the rapid and significant dispatch of military aid to Ukraine by the U.S. and European allies was the essential component of the successful resistance up to date.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Now after one year of heavy fighting and what appears to be close to a prolonged stalemate in geographical control, voices in the U.S., still the primary donor of military equipment, are questioning the projection of the need for more billions of dollars in a "policy without a strategy" and a fundamental "lack of a threat to vital American interests" to justify it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">While these criticisms as yet are coming from a relatively small group of conservative media figures and members of the more conservative wing of Republican Party in Congress, they will surely grow in the face of a prolonged continuation of hostilities and the prospect of continued significant costly military aid to Ukrainian forces. While some of the criticism is surely stimulated automatically by partisan political opposition, Biden opens the door with the grandiosity of his justification for the America's role in the conflict, describing it in terms of America's moral duty and responsibility for a kind of permanent post-cold war Pax Americana based on America's special "values" and enforced by world wide military superiority. This sounds more like proselytizing than policy and is the concept which underlaid the prolonged and unsuccessful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with their failed democracy building efforts. Applying it now in relation to the Ukraine war deemphasizes the more basic political/security threats to the region which justify intervention.</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The criticisms, </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>as described above</span><span> while </span><span>worthy</span><span> of debate, ignore or reject the broader and more long-lasting consequences of an abandonment and collapse of Ukraine's independence and Russia's, under Putin's leadership, ability to upset the Post Cold War international security framework, especially as it relates to the entirety of Europe. America's vital security interests are tied to those of Europe, specifically by joint membership in NATO and indirectly by its' economic interdependence with the 27 members of the European Union, 21 of whom are also NATO members.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Critics of continued efforts to defeat Putin's expansionist and revanchist policies should first contemplate what the results would have been, and now would be, if the U.S. and its' European allies stood aside a year ago when the Russian invasion began. What would be the threat level and political future of other of the former Soviet Republics, similarly at a significant military disadvantage with Russia? The tiny Baltic nations of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, former Soviet Republics like Ukraine and with borders on both Russia and Byelorussia, an authoritarian client state of Russia, would be indefensible without a full credible commitment by NATO, to which they belong but which would suffer from a lack of credibility if even non-NATO member Ukraine were allowed to fall to Russian aggression. The threat and political instability would include larger Eastern European states like Poland, a NATO member, and Finland, long a Cold War neutral with a Russian border but now an EU member and NATO applicant along with Sweden who now see the new Russian expansionism as a genuine threat.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A new Cold War emphasized by the memories of the Soviet intrusion and suppression of the reformist movement in Czechoslovakia in 1948 and the similar intervention into Hungary's effort to democratize in 1956 would be the probable result.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The impact on other potential aggressors by a failure of U.S./European reaction to blatant aggression is difficult to predict with certainty, but China has clearly stated its' intention to force democratic/capitalist Taiwan into its' control and Iran, currently pursuing nuclear weapons state status, has pursued regional power aspirations in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen and remains a fundamentally hostile adversary to both Saudi Arabia and Israel. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>Of course, the U.S. is not operating as a solitary actor, although it is by far the largest contributor of both military and humanitarian aid. Nonetheless, from a political point of view, it is important that there is near total support </span><span>among European nations </span><span>for the transfer of weapons to Ukraine. The principal nations with the largest militaries and economies, UK, France, and Germany are all NATO members and contributors. This is an extraordinary level of unanimity in support of a major military intervention even without introduction of combat units and reliance on U.S. leadership is clearly a priority.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Nonetheless, from the security/strategy side, realistic expectations should be recognized. There is no realistic expectation that Ukraine can "win" this war in the conventional meaning of the term. Putin cannot accept defeat in military terms as that would erode his political support and end his status as leader of Russia. The disparity in size of population and related military forces are simply too much in Putin's favor to provide a clear-cut military victory for Ukraine. The population of Russia is over 144 million and the current ground forces available to Putin number around 360,000 with another 300,000 in reserves; this, compared to Ukraine's population of 44.5 million and @ 242,000 active duty and reserve ground forces. Putin also can, and has, utilized the military draft to replace and enhance his ground troops as needed. Even though the Russian military so far in the conflict has demonstrated a lack of professionalism and effective leadership as well as poor tactical decision making, the sheer weight of numbers and Putin's willingness to callously sacrifice large numbers of undertrained troops, will deny a classic "defeat" and expulsion from all of Ukraine's territory.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The situation now is essentially predictable stalemate. Tactical victories and retreats swing back and forth. Unable to secure large portions of Ukraine's territory, Putin seems to be planning a large-scale offensive sometime this Spring. In the meantime, he has turned to what might be described as a "war of attrition" which focuses on destruction of domestic targets and infrastructure in hopes of demoralizing the populace and Ukraine's' government to the point of their seeking a negotiated settlement in Russia's favor. Since there is yet no sign of that happening and if Ukraine successfully resists any major Spring offensive, the prospect of at least another year of conflict seems probable. The question then remains as to how much pain either side is willing to accept before the willingness to negotiate a ceasefire and end the war seems like the only course left. Ukrainian President Zelensky remains defiant and is willing to fight on as long as he continues to receive the necessary military aid from the U.S and European nations. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thus, the final outcome whenever it comes, looks like an eventual series of difficult negotiations sponsored by a neutral party such as India. Compromises will have to be made by both parties. Zelensky's demand that Russia return control of all occupied territory is unrealistic and is intended to bolster his citizen's resolve to keep fighting. He may as well be looking ahead and establishing a negotiating position from which he can make concessions to the inevitable without giving up anything beforehand. It is almost a certainty the Putin will not return control of Crimea to Ukraine, a territory home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which was taken with little resistance from Ukraine in 2014. The future of territories in southeast Ukraine currently under control or contested by Russian backed militias and falsely declared a self-governing territory by Putin are probably also likely to be candidates for permanent loss to Ukraine. Putin will have to be given enough to "declare victory" and withdraw to preserve his political status. Zelensky will have to be assured that the geographical and political integrity of most of Ukraine is guaranteed for the future. Putin is also likely to demand that international economic sanctions imposed on Russia be eliminated. Sanctioning countries led by the U.S. will have to require that sanctions be lifted in stages as Russia complies with all the negotiated terms of the peace agreement.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">All of this scenario could fall apart with significant Russian military victories or significant reductions in aid to Ukraine's armed forces. Also, it is impossible to know what is in Putin's head; how many risks he is willing to take with escalation of the conflict, or with unexpected Russian domestic opposition to the war by influential civilians or alienated senior military officers. He is the great unknown quantity in any resolution of the war.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-42971795174538874962023-02-18T15:27:00.000-07:002023-02-18T15:27:36.069-07:00 POLITICS, REALITY AND POLICY<p> The new balance of power in the U.S. Congress brought about by the 2022 mid-term elections giving the Republican Party a small majority, changes the previous framework for the numerous challenges facing the nation in the next two years of the Biden administration . </p><p>Inflation and related supply chain shortages, the lingering and possible resurgence of the Covid pandemic, the debate and implementation of environmental policies, the continued need worldwide for fossil fuels while alternatives continue their projected decades long development and replacement strategies, the profound economic disruptions and international security concerns over the Russia/Ukraine war, Middle East conflict related to Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, NATO expansion, the progression of a Cold War like relationship with China and it's expansionist policies in the South China Sea and towards Taiwan are just some of the serious international challenges that impact the domestic welfare of the U.S. </p><p>All of these issues will demand Presidential and Congressional scrutiny, and funding for some purposes. With the nation and the Congress divided, the next two years will demand focus, hard work, cooperation, and leadership by both the President and congressional leaders of both parties.</p><p>Unfortunately, the difference between "politics" and "policy" influences the agendas and adds intensity to the existing partisan and ideological chasms that block progress on the vital issues. While all "policies" are inherently political, not all "politics" reflect the acceptance of current political reality with respect to the creation of policy. Thus, these issues, which are driven and exploited by media, many of which are identified as "social" or battles in the "culture war", have become distractions and conflicts on a personal level that punish political cooperation by legislators on the important policy requirements that can't be ignored.</p><p>A reality check is important on the political agenda and the more important issues currently in dispute. </p><p>Perhaps the most divisive issue on a national level is access to abortion. While settled law for fifty years under the protection of the 1973 Supreme Court's "Roe vs. Wade" decision. The current Supreme Court's 6-3 majority overturned Roe and found that no Constitutional protection for the right to an abortion existed and that the issue should be decided by law on a state level. That is the new reality with respect to the issue.</p><p> However, one non-state level remedy remains. Since the Supreme Court found no constitutional protection, nor prohibition, of abortion, a federal protection for abortion could be passed as law by the Congress and signed by the President. A federal prohibition of abortion could also be passed by Congress and the President. However, once again political reality overcomes potential policy as the Republican controlled House of Representatives will never pass such protective legislation and a Democrat controlled Senate and White House will never pass prohibition. </p><p>No amount of marches, protests, opinion pieces, or political grandstanding by politicians or activist groups on either side will change this. Thus the battle will be fought out in all fifty state legislatures and courts. Some states have already moved on this issue. The total result so far is a mix of standards, limitations and for some, all or no restrictions at all. Ironically, what is essentially an irreconcilable conflict between religion and ideology on a personal level, has achieved a type of compromise on a national level as different state's, when considered together, offer the whole range of abortion legislation. Until the political make up of the Congress and Presidency reflects a more unified position enabling federal law to decide the issue, the U.S. Congress and the President should move on and not let this single issue further obstruct the need for bipartisan federal policy cooperation on other major issues. </p><p>Gun control:</p><p>Mass shootings across the country have heightened an existing sense of despair and insecurity making the issues of gun control a prominent political/policy debate. This is not a new development as the debate rages after each deadly event, especially in the more heinous cases of school shootings, and then seems to retreat into the political background as the familiar pros and cons of possible responses are repeated. </p><p>The reality of the situation is daunting but often ignored in the debates which have a prominent place on social media and various commentary venues. First, gun "control" to some means significant reduction of numbers. However, most estimates of the number of guns in private hands exceed the entire three hundred and thirty-five million persons in the entire nation. Then there is the problem of not knowing who all these possessors of firearms are. Then of course there is the issue of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which Supreme Court majorities, past, and especially present, have interpreted, not without controversy, to deny most restrictions on ownership or transport i.e. "carry", of guns of most types. </p><p>The best answer is to change the debate from what other smaller population nations with significantly different gun cultures have done with respect to confiscation, "buy backs", severe restrictions on ownership and severe restrictions on acquisition, and do what is possible through compromise no matter how imperfect in the views of either side. Criminal gun use comes in many forms and a "one size fits all" response is inappropriate. Federal law currently prohibits hand gun sales to anyone under twenty-one years of age. Since mass shootings at schools have been exclusively committed by young men who were students, former students or troubled young individuals living in or near the school's community, and these shooters have seemed to favor the use of semi-automatic, large magazine "assault style" rifles, it would be a common sense policy to impose the same age restriction on the purchase of those types of weapons as hand guns. There should be no expectation however, that such a restriction would have a significant impact on the number of other incidents in which these types of weapons are used. </p><p>Banning the manufacture or sale of these types of rifles is a political challenge but not necessarily a political impossibility, as such a ban was passed before and lasted ten years before dying from a "sunset" provision. The effects of the ban are a subject of partisan dispute. But again, the reality facing current advocates is that there are an estimated eight hundred thousand to over a million such weapons already in private hands which would provide a legal secondary market or an illegal "black market" as the value of the weapons rose.</p><p> Other tools such as "red flag" laws which seek to intervene in the possibility of a shooting by an unstable individual have proven to be inconsistently applied or effective. A national standard for use by local law enforcement and judicial agencies should be both politically possible although since such procedures are preventive in nature their success is hard to verify. </p><p>Most gun crime is carried out with handguns because they are less expensive and easier to transport unseen than rifles. Most gun owners are not criminals making broad based gun restrictions politically difficult. Most violent crimes, but certainly not all, are carried out by individuals who have criminal records. While possession of a gun by a former felon is illegal in most state jurisdictions, the penalties for violation are often "soft" or involve bond vs. incarceration. This apparently was the case in the recent mass shooting at Michigan State University. Sine there is a strong correlation between gun crimes and perpetrators of previous crimes with use of guns, heavy penalties involving incarceration for gun possession by former felons would have a positive impact on future gun crimes although anti-incarceration and "racial justice" activists would surely raise political opposition. There is no easy solution given the massive availability of guns throughout society. The problem will have to be addressed eventually by efforts of cultural change starting with America's youth, while finding compromise on policies on the edges of the problem. Simply making guns more expensive is not likely to deter mass shooters who in almost all cases are mentally challenged, suicidal, or expect to be apprehended and face life in prison. Making new gun sales more expensive at the gun store level will not make the criminal possession of weapons less likely since the vast numbers of guns already in private hands creates a permanent market. The principle of "Don't sacrifice the possible in pursuit of the perfect." applies.</p><p>Environmental policy:</p><p>The problem of global warming has largely become a debate between "deniers" and "end of world" extremists. Science based organizations see the problem as genuine in terms of human activity being a major contributor to global warming through fossil fuel emissions which will require technological changes over time, prominently including alternative energy sources. The Paris climate accords of 2015 set a prescribed level for each of the signatories to make progress which combined had a goal of reducing global warming by 2 degrees Celsius "in this century". The mechanisms for achieving progress are voluntary. Biden administration policies with regard to the process have largely involved limiting oil and gas exploration on federal lands, withdrawing approval for new pipelines and providing financial incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles and insulation remodeling for buildings.</p><p>These policies have gotten far out ahead of the level of alternative energy available to replace the needs of fossil fuels which are used in the manufacture of numerous non-energy related products but most notably have contributed to rapid inflation in the costs of gasoline and utility bills. The Biden administration reacting to the political effects of these issues has backtracked some with regard to the leasing of fossil fuel exploration sites and even attempting to urge the government of Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer in the OPEC oil cartel, to increase oil production.</p><p>Unfortunately, Biden in an early campaign exercise at "virtue signaling" had promised to wipe out the oil industry and had labeled Saudi Arabia an international "pariah state" while personally implicating that nation's de facto head of government Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the assassination of a dissident Saudi opinion writer. Needless to say Biden's subsequent "hat in hand" request was summarily dismissed. Gasoline prices have currently rebounded from earlier declines to levels above $4.00 per gallon. Natural gas prices which are necessary for large regions of the nation for domestic heating and electricity production are still high.</p><p>Reality check:</p><p>The fact that the Paris climate agreement is couched in terms of improvements in global temperature increases "in this century" should make it obvious that the effort is both long term and "global" in nature. Just by way of example of the immensity of the problem consider just the two largest population states, China and India. The combined populations of the two nations is over 2.8 billion or @ 35% of the total world's population now near 8 billion.</p><p>By the latest available statistics, China's "energy mix" is 60% coal based, 20% oil and 8% natural gas. India's total energy needs, despite it's commitment to accept the goals of the Paris Agreement, are 44% coal, 25% oil, and 6% natural gas. India's electricity production alone, is 70% generated by coal.</p><p>Global figures for the year 2019 for electricity production were 63% fossil fuels, nuclear 10.4% and just 26.3% based on "renewables" with Europe and the U.S. contributing the most in the latter. Clearly, such efforts as banning natural gas stoves in California over minor leaks of methane gas or handwringing by adolescent Green activists over tens of millions of cattle "burping" methane is a pointless waste of time and attention to the broader and much more complex world wide issue. A specific but multi-faceted, science based, organized strategy with international participation including a common sense long term transition plan from most fossil fuel energy sources and including the newest nuclear technology is imperative.</p><p>Meanwhile the attention of the "media" and the political demagoguery infused issues of transgender "rights", "social justice" versus academic instruction in public schools, police "reform", affirmative action and permissive crime control, dominate the political agendas of the federal and states legislative bodies. In the Congress time is being taken up investigating Hunter Biden's laptop, and trying to impeach the Secretary of Homeland Security for his failure even to acknowledge the illegal immigration crisis at the southern border. Such and effort, no matter how much deserved, is pure politics since a finding for removal in the Senate by the Democrat majority is an impossibility. Similarly the effort to convince Biden to negotiate reductions in federal spending for cooperation in raising the federal debt limit is fraught with political grandstanding. Both of those goals deserve serious attention. Raising the national debt limit to avoid default on the government debt for money already appropriated is basic and unavoidable to maintain the value of the U.S. dollar and its use as the world's reserve currency. Over seven trillion dollars in U.S. government debt is held by foreign nations. Reducing future federal spending in the face of an annual deficit of close to 1.5 trillion dollars and the accumulated national debt of 31.563 trillion dollars or 120.37 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not only reasonable but critical. The prospects for the first are good because a U.S. monetary default is unthinkable. The prospects for the latter are low since "spending" was the basic 2022 election strategy of the Biden administration and is likely to be the similar strategy for Biden's 2024 campaign. </p><p>Thus in a world of divided government, extreme ideological polarization, "politics over policy" would seem to be the inevitable and unfortunate future. Only the threat by the electorate of a major personnel change in the legislatures at the state and federal level will have a chance at turning attention to policy and away from political posturing and divisiveness but with the media's preference for conflict and extremism for "news", the prospects are not good.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-84886027501816432052022-08-09T10:59:00.000-06:002022-08-09T10:59:05.679-06:00<p> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> <span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span> </span><span> </span><span> GUN CONTROL: AGAIN</span><span><span> </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Polls show that 70% of Americans believe the nation is "on the wrong track". This is a major under statement enabled by the simple wording of the "yes or no" choice of the question. The more specific issues that we face daily in the news media generate feelings of frustration, gloom and anger that "wrong track" doesn't come near to describing. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Although the media spot light has been taken off the issue of mass shootings by the issues of inflation/recession and the effect on the November mid-term congressional elections, the especially horrific school shootings, have brought "gun control" to a new level of prominence. It's been there before and as before, progress has become the victim of political posturing and intransigence, producing few results.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In a recent opinion piece one writer attempted to identify the problem with the simple statement that "There are too many guns" (in the U.S.). He repeated this statement after each paragraph for emphasis and dramatic effect, in which he described the numbers and availability of weapons and the details of another mass shooting. His conclusion was that he didn't know the answer to his definition of the problem but he remained convinced that "too many guns" was the problem.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>But his dilemma describes the problem of the search for solutions. Given the complexity of the national context of gun ow</span><span>nership, simple solutions are not feasible. Thoughts like those of the referenced commentator have stimulated "solutions" like "ban all guns in the U.S., they've done it in Australia and England". </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>But impossible proposals like this clutter the political debate and stimulate accusations of extremism and division. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The reality is that the populations of Australia and England are @26 million and @69 million respectively, a fraction of the U.S. population of 315 million. The number of guns in private hands in the U.S., estimated at @400 million, exceeds the total U.S. population. Also, neither Australia nor England has the equivalent of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment protecting private gun ownership and neither has a historically based culture of exploration, expansion and habitation of vast areas of wilderness over a time starting with near universal gun ownership, a trend which moved west with the geographical expansion and growing gun technology. Thus the number of private gun owners in the U.S., estimated at 81.4 million, each with an average of five weapons, is equivalent to 85.6 percent of the total populations of Australia and England combined. Most of these individuals are the hunters and sport shooters who are the heirs of the historical gun culture, others keep a gun at home for personal protection. Unfortunately, the dark side of gun ownership is inhabited by criminals, and currently, gang members, who compete to control the benefits of crime in "urban territories". They are joined by a small number of psychologically impaired young men and boys seeking vengeance for their own low self esteem and perceived social rejection by engaging in school shootings.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>There are things that can be done on both the state and federal level to mitigate the problem of what seems to be out of control gun violence. Some of these were discussed in bipartisan settings in the Congress and have recently resulted in legislation, a starting point for further gun "management", if not "control"</span></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">The point is that progress depends on concentrating on the "doable" and avoiding useless debates on the extremes. Banning the sale of so called "assault rifles" has been done in the past where the federal ban had a ten year life before a "sunset' provision in the law killed it. The ban had weaknesses in terms of the legal definition of the weapons included. This often made small variations in design enough to make similar weapons not subject to the ban. This is a fixable weakness. The gun itself however, is only part of the problem. Other weapons can be fitted with large capacity magazines, which also should be separately banned, as has been done in some states. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>This was a common sense law that was passed during the Clinton Administration although it was limited in scope because it faced opposition among the more conservative gun rights groups. What should remain in the debate, is raising the age for individuals to legally purchase any guns. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the sale of "hand guns" to anyone under the age of 21. Rifles and shot guns referred to as "long guns", may be purchased by anyone over the age of 18. The emphasis now is on "assault type" weapons but for consistency and clarity there is no reason why it shouldn't be all types of "long guns". The facts speak for themselves. Most of the mass school shootings were carried out by young men, under the age of 21. Currently, individuals under 21 cannot purchase alcoholic beverages or cigarettes, so the logic of allowing sales of semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines to 18 year olds fails the common sense test. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Enhanced "red flag laws" were also included in the recent legislation. This is as controversial as age requirements, because it involves subjective initiation involving reporting by individuals, of possible threats of gun use by other individuals. This procedure could certainly be abused by individuals with personal motives but judges then determine the level of threat and can issue warrants to confiscate weapons in possession of the accused while more detailed investigations are pursued Records indicate that few confiscations have been carried out based on red flag warnings and in the recent mass shooting in Highland Park, Il, both the background check and current red flag procedures failed completely. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Securing schools is completely doable and should not be controversial given the horrendous outcomes in recent years.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Still, there are those opposed to the idea who need to be convinced that common sense measures can be employed that would reduce the risk of entry by heavily armed individuals. Limited and monitored entry points, along with exit only safety points, as well as monitored security cameras of all approaches to buildings, are simply a matter of money and are commonly used in the nation's court houses, public buildings and private residences.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The suggestion to arm teachers is in the non-doable category and should not be included in policy debates. This is not a popular plan with teachers and putting loaded firearms in classrooms would require them to be safely secured, which would make them not readily accessible in an emergency. Keeping them accessible to teachers would make them accessible to students and would create an inappropriate and dangerous situation. Also, requiring teachers to undergo the firearms training necessary would meet with personal and legal opposition.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Universal background checks is probably doable since it's already in place for purchases at licensed gun dealers, but it will be difficult to enforce at short term gun shows and individual internet sales. Nonetheless, it seems to have public and political support.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>It has often been pointed out that some cities that have strict gun laws also have high levels of gun violence. This is the direct result of a lack of, or soft, enforcement of illegal possession laws. Reasons offered are insufficient manpower, or "social justice" implications offered by liberal prosecutors, some of whom are now coming under fire for putting multiple offenders back on the street after arrest. Enforcement of gun laws which have survived court challenges, fall into both the "doable" and common sense categories, especially illegal possession laws. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The single claim that "there are too many guns" is simplistic and incorrect. The truth is that there are too many guns in the wrong hands. Statistics show that most crime is committed by previous offenders and most gun violence is carried out with hand guns. Some states have laws in place that make gun possession by a convicted felon a crime in itself. It is just a matter of connecting the dots and making law enforcement commensurate with the levels of genuine public concern and political posturing. If gun control voices are to be taken seriously then fund police departments and prosecutor's staffs, take guns off the streets and ignore the inevitable shouting about "mass incarceration" and that possession enforcement disproportionately and "unfairly" impacts minorities when in reality it simply disproportionately impacts criminality which is in everyone's interests.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Confiscation, registration, government buy backs and imposing civil liability on gun manufacturers for the criminal use of their products are all either unconstitutional, politically impossible, impractical or obviously ineffective in reducing gun crime.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Until some future Supreme Court decision affirms a fundamental state's interest in regulating the sale, and or, the possession of firearms beyond what exists currently, the political goals should be to do what is politically doable in the short run and then pursue the more difficult long run cultural changes that underly the massive criminal use of firearms.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">No level of gun control in the U.S. will completely eliminate gun violence. Like all crimes it represents a failure of advanced cultures to overcome a basic flaw in human nature as well as being a sacrifice made in the maintenance of a democratic system to protect the rights of the law abiding . Nevertheless, progress can be made where there is the will. Political compromise is necessary while whitling away at extremes like "ban all", "arm all" and "slippery slope" opposition to all types of regulation. Personal and collective security is not a "red or blue" issue. Shooters don't check political party registrations before opening fire. </span></p><p><br /></p><p dir="rtl" style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p dir="rtl" style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-92032232440206952602022-05-19T09:49:00.005-06:002022-05-21T18:56:33.887-06:00<p><br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> ABORTION: PROTESTS, CHOICES, AND COMPROMISE </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><br /></p><p>The decades old abortion controversy is irreconcilable. It is, and has been, a battle between an ideology, feminism, and religion, conservative Christianity, thus leaving no room for compromise between the "true believers" on both sides. Statistics show the importance of the symbolic status to the debate. Reliable sources report that between 2015 and 2019 an average of 890 thousand abortions were performed annually in the U.S. That computes to only @ 1.2% of the 74.6 million females according to census data, between the ages of 15-49; a large absolute number but a low participation rate considering the millions of advocates on both sides who are concerned about others than themselves obtaining abortions. </p><p>The issue seemed to be settled by the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision which found the right to abortion to have implied Constitutional protection. This decision was upheld in the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision. Now however, changes in the ideological composition of the Court and in the political makeup of various states legislatures, have brought forth several challenges to the Roe decision. The Court has heard a case from Mississippi which restricts abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy and directly challenges the constitutional protections of Roe. </p><p>In a despicable violation of the Court's deliberation confidentiality, a draft opinion of the case was released to internet opinion journal "Politico". The draft opinion, which may not be the final opinion due in June, has stimulated a chaotic protest movement and media blitz by supporters of Roe. In what seems to be an unfortunate replay of the protest culture of the past two years, chants have become personal vilification and threats, and graffiti has morphed into violence as churches are targeted, a building housing a pro-life advocacy group was fire bombed and the homes and families of Supreme Court Justices have been the targets of intimidation.</p><p>In every dispute resolved by the judiciary there are winners and losers. In most cases the losers accept the judgement of the court. The current response to the draft opinion suggests that even before the final judgement is rendered, this is not the case. But there are wider issues that must be considered. There are several basic pillars to the foundation of the U.S. democratic system. This collective response of pro-choice lobbying groups which is being exploited by Democrats for political advantage in the face of their popularity challenged policies and economic conditions, has negative implications for one of the most important, the existence of an independent judiciary. </p><p>The founders of our republic prioritized the need to avoid concentrations of power in any executive branch of government which left unrestricted, could lead to autocracy. The concept of ""separation of powers", of which an independent judiciary was a component, resulted. To create balance in the judiciary, federal courts have been created with a graduated appeals process, to afford thorough review but with ultimate final decisions, if so ordered, by the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding the possibility of public disapproval of the Court's decisions, the independence of the courts must be maintained as intimidation and political pressure if allowed, could destroy the integrity, effectiveness and credibility of the system. </p><p>The independence of the judiciary must be combined with a second foundational principal, the acceptance of the "rule of law". The Supreme Court is not, and has never been, a quasi-representative legislative body. The Court's nine members are charged with interpreting the Constitution and its applicability to the laws created by the only representative governmental bodies, the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of the various states. The Court simply cannot base its decisions on the vagaries of public opinion which may not comport with constitutional standards. The alternative to a commitment to the rule of law is anarchy. </p><p>This history of the nation is replete with important cases, often characterized by moral, religious, or ideological issues. These include the advocacy and availability of birth control methods, pornography as "free speech", legal gambling, and gay marriage and numerous civil rights related decisions. The imposition and reversal of prohibitions on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages even required two amendments to the Constitution. In all these cases despite protests prior to their passage, the results have largely been accepted. The current level of extremist advocacy over the constitutional protection of abortion could set a dangerous precedent. </p><p>Despite the arguments in the draft opinion, a substantial case for the constitutional protection of abortion has been made based on the "right to privacy" found in the Constitution's First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments and as well in the "liberty" provisions of the Forthteenth Amendment. Privacy rights have been subsequently applied in numerous cases before the Court in which these provisions were reasoned as "implied" rights for those not expressly stated in the Constitution. The released draft opinion does not expressly deny the theory or use of "implied privacy rights". It simply seems to find that the right to abortion is not one of them. Future courts may disagree and rule differently but if the draft opinion accurately reflects the final opinion the decision will be the law and must be respected. </p><p>The Supreme Ct. is not moving towards outlawing abortion. In denying constitutional protection it is leaving the process up to the individual states in the context of our federal system. Several states have already passed laws protecting abortion rights. Protestors are free to move their energies to those state's legislatures that pass laws restricting abortion, a venue where public opinion is properly a factor in the legislative process. </p><p>It is also possible for the U.S. Congress, with the approval of the President, to legislate federal protections for abortion which would be superior to state laws restricting it. A bill has already been presented to do just that but fell short of approval in the Senate. A Democrat victory in the 2022 congressional elections giving them control of the Senate and continued control of the House, although looking unlikely, would present such an opportunity. This would be the proper strategy as it would accomplish the same goal as a Supreme Ct. ruling and would preserve the foundational concept of "separation of powers" that an independent judiciary is a vital part.</p><p>Still, Democrats are trying to politicize the impending court decision as one of a very few "straws to grasp" in the face of a dramatic failure in the November, 2022 congressional elections. Desperate opinion journalist have claimed that over turning Roe will lead to similar efforts and decisions by the courts to overturn gay marriage or transgender protections. One such journalist at the Left wing internet journal VOX proclaimed that the Supreme Court's coming decision was illegitimate because the Court itself was illegitimate. Carrying this illogical assertion one step further, she said the Court was illegitimate because five of the sitting Justices were appointed by Presidents who won office without a majority of the popular vote. She was referring to George W. Bush who nominated Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Samuel Alito to the Court after his Electoral College victory in 2000, and then to Donald Trump who won in 2016 and subsequently nominated three Supreme Ct. justices. This is just a recurring attack by Democrats on the Electoral College system. Found in Article 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Electoral College has performed satisfactorily for the entire history of the Republic. Only three times in that history has the Electoral College outcome been different than the popular vote. Democrats don't like it because it takes away the advantage of large Democrat majorities in California and in the coastal states and has resulted in Republican Presidents in the two elections just mentioned. The Constitution contains its own method for revision but Democrats don't have the votes for that either. But the claim that the Presidents so elected are illegitimate is absurd and irrelevant to the decisions of the Supreme Court. One other over excitable abortion activist went so far as to claim that even if the Constitution allowed states to restrict abortion rights the Constitution itself was illegitimate because it was written by "old white men" who had no allegiance to equality. </p><p>Even if one believes the upcoming decision based on rejection of the applicability of a right to privacy is wrong, the level of hysteria and ridiculous "end of equality" and "end of democracy" hyperbole that is being deployed ignores the truth which is abortion, while made more difficult for some will still be available. An estimated 21 states will ban abortion or pass restrictions on its use. But of those 21, 9 will share a border with a state where it available, leaving only12 states, mostly in the South, where it is banned and geographically difficult for poor women to gain access. </p><p>Of course, alternatives to unwanted pregnancies are available. Birth control pills and accessories are a less severe and safer choice and are available everywhere. Perhaps pro-choice advocates should now become anti-unwanted pregnancy advocates and promote these alternatives. In addition "morning after" abortion pills offer an earlier and thus less traumatic solution.</p><p>Constant organized protests in states where the legislatures and governorships are safely dominated by one party or the other are pointless and divisive. Such protests, in front of the Supreme Ct. are also pointless and ineffectual and an affront to the "rule of law" and an "independent judiciary", as well as attracting counter protests that create dangerous situations and over tax law enforcement assets.</p><p>Protests in general, now organized on any and every subject, have morphed from being primarily about policies to being about the protestors as an expression of personal theater, a form of entertainment, self promotion and "virtue signaling". If protestors were serious they would direct their energies to the ballot box which has the ultimate power over public policies; but of course that requires patience, organization and hard work. In the current environment of economic inflation, supply chain shortages, environmental extremes, open borders and rising crime, the nation should be spared the continuing public display of divisiveness, potential violence, and social instability that seems to be coming. </p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p> </p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-33995077517914759762022-03-10T14:56:00.000-07:002022-03-10T14:56:07.974-07:00 UKRAINE, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND THE FUTURE OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY<p><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Russian invasion of Ukraine is still in its early stages as Russian President Putin escalates the violence and expands his territorial control. While the Ukrainian military has put up unexpected levels of resistance, the medium and long term outcomes in the face of superior Russian numbers and equipment realistically predict a Russian military victory but a prolonged insurgency. But the story of the war doesn’t end there. Once organized military resistance is subdued, Putin, unless he has limited objectives, will be faced with the problem of occupying and controlling the nation. Ukraine is larger in size than both France and Germany. It’s population of approximately 42 million people has shown a defiance that will likely remain. Putin’s invasion force of 150,000-165,000 is not nearly large enough to carry out the requirements for widespread occupation and control. Even if he decides on a strategy of occupying just the larger population centers he would need a much larger force. This would be a long term commitment with enormous economic and political costs that he may not have fully contemplated. It may even be beyond his economic reach, especially if the current program of economic sanctions and isolation are continued after the armed conflict subsides.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">However, Putin’s war on Ukraine will have lasting impacts on the post WWII and post Cold War European security order neither of which properly addressed the possibility of an attack on the liberal democratic system that seemed to have permanently replaced the centuries old European conflicts between or involving, nationalist authoritarian regimes. The trends toward international cooperation, diminution of military readiness, and economic and political integration now must be rethought to include the reality of renewed resistance to these models. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">On a more specific level the political/military process which led to the Ukraine invasion should have set off early alarms in 2014 when Putin invaded and occupied the Crimea which was part of Ukraine This act of aggression was a specific violation of the 1994 Budapest Agreement signed by Russia, Great Britain and the United States which was in response to the 1991 dissolution of the former U.S.S.R. which transformed Ukraine and other former Soviet republics into independent, sovereign states. The Budapest Memorandum committed the parties “to “respect independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. In return the Ukrainian government in Kyiv agreed too give up its large inventory of nuclear weapons which were part of the former Soviet Union’s arsenal.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">While the international response to Russia’s invasion of the Crimea included significant economic sanctions which remain in place today as part of the new sanctions policies in response to the February, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine proper, it had no effect on the Russian occupation which in effect annexed the Crimea into Russia.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">But the implications for the future of a new international security order stimulated by Russia go beyond Europe. The world has few “super powers” but many authoritarian regimes who routinely reject international laws and norms. Putin has now elevated the issue of the use of nuclear weapons from the unthinkable to the conceivable; from deterrence to tactical, with the implied acceptance of associated risks of escalation and their strategic use. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">To be sure, his statements had the ring of bluster to deter any possibility of NATO intervention in the conflict. But his language regarding the possibility of a NATO imposed “no fly zone” over Ukraine, which would put Ukrainian pilots flying NATO aircraft in direct combat with Russian aircraft. Putin warned of “colossal and catastrophic consequences not only for Europe but also the whole world.” Along with his increased readiness status of his nuclear forces, his words were an unambiguous nuclear threat which he correctly assumed to be an effective end of discussion of even indirect NATO involvement. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">One could easily argue, as Biden and Secretary General of NATO, Jens Staltenberg have, that the risk of “escalation” is too great for direct or indirect military action against Russian troops, a position given even more substance in light of Putin’s nuclear remarks. But it raises an important question about NATO’s credibility. What would Biden’s and Staltenberg’s position be if a similar situation arose in which Putin threatened the territory of a NATO member? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Biden has stated that “Every square inch of a NATO member’s territory would be defended.” Certainly major European states such as Germany or France would be, but Putin’s goals seem to be to rebuild the former U.S.S.R, not by formal absorption of the now independent republics but by creating demilitarized client states on Russia’s borders by force. Three such states are Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. These are tiny nations and they are also NATO members. Would an invasion of any one or all of them plus an implied threat of a nuclear response if NATO sent troops or aircraft to defend them, make such a response impossible? Citizens of NATO countries would ask; “Do we want to start a global nuclear war over these “insignificant and unimportant countries”? It would be taking a risk on principle vs. national interests; a gamble that Putin was bluffing and would also not take the risk of destroying his own country in a nuclear conflict. But it would be a risk nonetheless if Putin believed that the U.S. led NATO would back down but they didn’t.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Now the possibility of other nuclear armed, authoritarian governments, wishing to carry out aggressive acts with conventional weapons and then use a similar threat, specific or implied, to deter outside intervention, could be the “new normal”. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">China of course comes to mind first, given its huge military, greatly enhanced development of high tech modern weapons systems like aircraft carriers, hypersonic missiles and digital warfare capabilities. China is of course a nuclear weapons state and has a long term geographical claim to the island nation of Taiwan, lying just 100 miles off its southern coast. China as well is engaged in a process of claiming, and building, islands in the South China sea in violation of international law and the territorial claims of other Asian states. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Recent penetrations of Taiwan’s airspace by Chinese military aircraft are a intimidation strategy and warning sign to convey the message that Taiwan’s drift towards independent status or close political/economic or defense integration with other nation’s will bring a serious Chinese response. Speculation is that China will indeed at some point in time initiate an actual take over of the island. Taiwan has no formal defense commitments from other nations but President Biden has expressed a commitment to “assist” in its defense if threatened. This would seem to invite a Putin like response from Chinese leadership. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">But nuclear weapons provide non-super powers with the similar leverage that Putin used in his territorial aggression. North Korea has a large military and has developed a small nuclear capability. It seems unlikely that its dictator Kim Jong-un has genuine interests in invading the Republic of South Korea but he uses the threats implied by multiple tests of ballistic missiles and specific threats of nuclear attacks on U.S. territory to intimidate and make demands of his neighbor on the peninsula and its security partner the U.S. Regional aggression with conventional forces by Kim or a successor is not entirely out of the question. What would be the response if such an event were to occur and Kim renewed his nuclear threats to the U.S.? South Korean officials must be asking themselves that question. U.S., South Korean and Japanese efforts to negotiate a nuclear free Korean peninsula with North Korea have failed for decades.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Thus the issue of nuclear proliferation also comes in to play in the context of a different level than the possibility of terrorist acquisition. The Biden administration is now “close” to reestablishing the Iran nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) first signed in 2015 by Barack Obama and France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany and the EU and Iran. The intent was to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons development program. Such an effort and the ensuing Agreement would not have been necessary if Iran was not actually on a path to acquire nuclear weapons which it claimed but which Israeli intelligence has produced abundant evidence in support of. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Parties outside the Obama administration found the Agreement, which did not have the status of a treaty which would have required approval of a non-existent 2/3 majority in the U.S. Senate for ratification, to be fundamentally flawed and the Iranians untrustworthy. President Trump withdrew from the Agreement and imposed punishing economic sanctions on Iran to persuade them to renegotiate a stronger agreement. The Iranian government under the autocratic rule of the Grand Ayatollah reacted by increasing the enrichment of uranium toward weapons grade levels. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">If Iran achieves nuclear weapons status in spite of the proposed restrictions in the revised agreement, the already politically unstable and conflict ridden Middle East becomes several orders of magnitude more dangerous. Iran has pursued regional dominance for several decades by supporting terrorism and intervention in conflicts across a swath of the Middle East, especially using its Shia Muslim identity as leverage to influence other nations with similar religious affiliations. This is true in Iraq where it supports that nation’s Shi’ite majority population and government. Iran has also engaged in military intervention in the civil war in Syria in support of the Alawite (an off shoot of Shi’ism) minority government of Bashar al-Assad. It has done this with its insertion of its client Hezbollah, a Shi-ite militia based in Lebanon. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Iran also supports and supplies weapons to the Shi’ite Houthi insurgency in Yemen which has launched drone and rocket attacks on Saudi oil facilities and airports. Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Gulf States supports the government of Yemen. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">But the focus of Iran’s hostilities has been directed at the state of Israel since Iran’s Islamic revolution of 1979 and the accession to leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Since then Iran’s political and theocratic leadership has seen Israel as an anti-Muslim, westernized client state of the U.S. which should be “wiped from the map”. Israel is a nuclear weapons state engaged in a decades long conflict with the PLO and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza of the Palestinian territories. Iran supports both of these Palestinian groups. Israel has had political support and military aid from U.S. presidents and Congress since becoming an independent state in 1948 but no specific mutual defense arrangement.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Iran’s proxy aggression in the region could become first party military aggression over time and if backed up by possession of nuclear weapons and delivery systems a fraught game of a nuclear threats similar to Russia’s in it’s current invasion of Ukraine could become a reality. What this creates is a high level of uncertainty in the willingness of the U.S. and its collective security partners to actually live up to their stated commitments. A new era of political instability and violence could be the result. Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and the U.S. and its Western security partners must reaffirm their commitments against aggression of all sorts.</span></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-33355748645519074172022-02-10T15:28:00.000-07:002022-02-10T15:28:39.365-07:00 TRUMP: 2022 AND 2024<p> </p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It may be too early to start the media consuming speculation about the 2024 presidential election. Just thinking about it can be exhausting in the context of the current crises. Inflation, Covid, Ukraine, open borders, climate change, are enough to dominate the feeling of unease underlying polls indicating that “America is on the wrong tack”. However, it is not too early to contemplate the outcomes of the 2022 elections and these contests will have a significant impact on the 2024 process.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The current political predictions, bolstered by historical trends, all indicate that the control of the House of Representatives will flip to the Republican Party in 2022. Democrats, under the reign of Speaker Nancy Pelosi now control the House by a mere ten seats, a 222 to 212 majority with one seat vacant. Thus Republicans just need to gain six seats to win to gain a 218 to 217 majority in the 435 seat body. Since all House members are up for reelection, that outcome seems to be an unrealistically low estimate of what can actually occur. In the Senate elections, Republicans need only flip one seat and hold on to their other twenty that are being contended to gain control. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The dismal outlook for the Democrats is based on several polls over the last few months. President Biden's job approval stands at 40.1% with 54.1 % disapproval. Sixty-five percent of poll responders say that the country is on the “wrong track”. The Gallup Poll found that while the Democrats still had a party registration advantage over Republicans of 28% to 24%, Independents far out numbered both party’s self identification at 46%. Independents however tend to “lean” towards one party or the other and when combined with the Republicans and Democrats as a group, the results were Republicans 47%, Democrats 42%.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> However, despite the political advantage that the Republicans currently hold, the November elections are almost nine months away and the political environment is likely to change. The Omicron Covid-19 variant which now dominates new cases reported, is rapidly declining and is likely to become much less of a threat by next November. Barring another variant, this decline will have a positive effect on employment, supply chain issues, inflation and a general lessening of stress on the voting public. Federal Reserve monetary policy is predicted to result in periodic interest rate increases which will also reduce demand in key sectors of the economy and have a beneficial impact on inflation. A diplomatic settlement of the Russian threat of invasion to Ukraine could also have a positive effect on Biden’s approval ratings with a positive “coat tail” benefit to Democratic congressional candidates. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The message is clear; Republicans cannot assume that favorable results in November while likely, are inevitable. The election could be further complicated for Republicans by the continuing attempts by former President Trump to influence the Republican primaries through endorsements, including against some Republican incumbents, as well as his “off the rails” personal vilification of prominent members of the Republican House and Senate caucuses. These public positions and rants include his support for the Republican National Committee’s recent vote to “censure”Republican Representatives Cheney (R-WY) and Kinzinger (R-IL) for their participation on the House committee investigating the January 6, 2022 riot and invasion of the U.S. Capitol. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While there is little doubt that the Democrat controlled committee has cast a very wide and politically motivated net, finding out the truth of the motivating and participating individuals who may have been involved in such an egregious act is important in itself. The RNC censure describes the riot and insurrection as “ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate discourse.”; an absurd characterization of the well documented violence and destruction carried out by an out of control mob. Numerous former Republican former government officials and several current Republican Senators have “condemned” this act by the RNC which has Trump’s personal anger at the two Representatives, both of whom voted to impeach him the second time, for his role in the insurrection, all over it. The issue is now dividing the party at the congressional level and risks dividing it at the primary voter level this year. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Trump’s adolescent name calling of those who have rejected his demands for complete sycophancy has reached absurd levels and make him look foolish to some and unstable to others. Trump continues to attack current and former senior Republican officials who were his supporters during his administration. He has labeled Senate Minority Leader, and possible 2023 Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, as “Old broken Down Crow” and a “Loser” and called on Senate Republicans to depose him. McConnell’s “crime”?; assigning partial responsibility to Trump for the Jan.6, riot. Trump has called Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), a key swing vote in the 50-50 partisan Senate, a “Wacko” for supporting a review and modernization of the vague 1887 Electoral Count Act. He has turned on his own former Vice President Mike Pence who was presiding at the time, for saying he had no constitutional authority under the Act, to overturn the 2020 Electoral College vote during the certification process being held at the time of the riot as Trump demanded. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One of the most important qualities of the U.S. constitutional system since it came in to effect in 1789, has been the peaceful transition of power characterized by the two term limit on the office of the President and the respect for our democratic election process. Trump has disgraced this tradition and process with his unfounded claims of the election being “stolen”, his refusal to attend the inauguration of his successor and his incentivizing of the January 6 insurrection of the capitol. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As he continues to try and make himself the face of the Republican Party, influence the outcomes of the November, 2022 Republican congressional primary elections while dangling the prospect of another presidential run in 2024, he forces the Party and its candidates to carry the weight of this personal and political baggage. While some candidates seem happy to openly support him and seek his endorsements, his continued intervention is a dangerous game at best. Many voters in his 2016 victory obviously did support his “American First” philosophy and the policies that followed from it. Border security, lower federal taxes, protection of U.S. energy independence, negotiations to improve international trade relations, low inflation an unemployment and resistence to the movement of the Democrat party towards the radical Left. However many of these same supporters made it clear that they disapproved of Trump’s volatile, ego centered, personality and unstable administration. In his single four year term Trump had four different Chiefs of Staff and three different Secretaries of Defense; two of the key posts in any administration. These character and personality flaws have even gotten worse since his loss in 2020. The outcome, and the shifting of attitudes away from Trump in both the electorate and Republican political establishment since then are worth noting.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton, Trump identified a profound populist feeling of anger and alienation from the Washington establishment which he characterized as “the swamp”. He combined policies of border security and immigration reform, trade improvement, low taxes and reduced government regulatory power under a banner of unabashed patriotism and national identification.His pugnacious personality was overlooked by some and celebrated as a “fighting spirit” by others. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Hillary Clinton, a former “First Lady”, Senator from a liberal state, and Secretary of State under a liberal President, was the very personification of an entitled member of the Washington elite. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Trump broke down the Democrat’s fragile “Blue Wall” of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and won the Electoral College vote 304 to 227. But Trump lost the national popular vote by 2,865,000 votes.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After four years of hyper partisan conflict and savage pe rsonal attacks on Trump, by Democrats at all levels, including the majority of the national media, Trump responded with obsessive Tweets targeting anyone who criticized him. Political exhaustion in the electorate had set in and “Trump fatigue” became a factor in 2020.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Voting participation was up dramatically from 2016 and Trump lost the national popular vote to Joe Biden by 6,552,000 votes and the Electoral College vote 306 to 232. But more telling, Trump lost his populist appeal in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and Biden flipped Arizona and Georgia as well. Perhaps the most significant trend shown in 2020 was that Trump’s support in all three categories measured of younger voters (18-49) lost ground from 2016. Also, among the large group of self identified “Independent” voters, Trump’s support declined from 47% to 41%. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Polls now indicate that “Trump fatigue” has held over from the 2020 election. A January, 2022 poll of self described GOP primary voters agreed with the opinion that “a new Republican candidate was needed to defeat Biden in the next election” (Nov.2024). Sixty-seven percent of this same cohort agreed with the statement that “Joe Biden is legally the President”; thus refuting the only issue that Trump is currently identifying himself with and one that will play a role in the 2022 congressional election for those who have won Trump’s endorsement and those who haven’t.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But the problem for the Trump endorsed candidates is serious. Another recent poll found that only 16% of Republican voters would “definitely” vote for a Trump endorsed candidate.” They might anyway, but the value of Trump’s endorsements and his credibility have all but disappeared. In an incredible attempt to finish it off he recently said that if he were reelected President he would pardon the insurrectionists who might be convicted in federal courts. This political version of putting on a suicide vest in a lightning storm may do the job.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Thus, the big picture currently for both the 2022 elections and looking ahead to the 2024 presidential elections supports the view that Trump’s time as come and gone. Republican voters cite Trump’s personality as a “major issue”. That’s a serious understatement and one that is certain not to change as his rants, lies, exaggerations and charges continue to grow. The 2024 Republican presidential primary contest will certainly be as crowded on as it was in 2016. In an admittedly early, hypothetical nine candidate contest of likely Republican candidates, Trump won only 36 percent against a field that for the most part lacked national voter identification or existing groups of “core supporters” like Trump. Put another way, these GOP primary voters preferred 64% of the other listed candidates or hadn’t made up their minds. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are many unknowns with respect to the future 2024 Democratic presidential candidate which will effect voter’s choice including Biden’s age and health; Vice President Harris’s unpopularity and any number of external factors that might stimulate one or more Democrat challengers. But there are few unknowns about Trump. He is what he is and what you see is what you will get. Republican candidates in the upcoming 2022 elections should begin, or continue, the process of, divorcing themselves from Trump’s hold on the Party. They need not attack him as he will them but they should follow the change in attitudes which started in November, 2020 and have continued over the last year, and make him irrelevant to their campaigns, as the recently elected GOP Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin did. It is not necessary to be a Trump supporter to be a conservative and having Trump on the ticket in 2024 would dramatically change the focus away from the issues that the polls show are alienating voters from the Democrat’s far Left agenda and make Trump and his single issue “Big Lie” about the “stolen” 2020 election, plus his role in the January 6th insurrection and his inflammatory and irresponsible personality the main issues. A losing proposition.</span></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-15528926913265312342022-01-14T10:44:00.001-07:002022-01-15T10:07:48.021-07:00 THE STATE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY<p><span style="font-size: large;"> You can tell it’s an election year. Democrats, divided among themselves and in near panic over the likely loss of control of both houses of Congress in the upcoming November elections are searching for an issue to counter both the historic trends of mid-term presidential election s and the collapse of President Biden’s approval ratings across a wide range of issues. Vice President Kamala Harris’s poll numbers are even lower than Biden’s.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Their struggle is complicated by reality. The chaos of the Afghan withdrawal; the millions of illegal aliens who have crossed Biden’s open southern border; the year long contradictions in messaging and the unpopular Covid 19 vaccination mandates; high levels of consumer price inflation especially in food and energy, are all real. They have happened and can’t be denied. In one recent week the Supreme Ct. has found Biden’s vaccination mandate for private businesses with over 100 employees to be an executive branch overreach and Biden’s attempt to make “voting rights” legislation into a viable campaign victory has hit a wall with Democrat senators Sinema and Manchin refusing to provide the 51 vote (including VP Harris’s tie breaking vote) majority to remove the Senate filibuster rule that requires a 60 vote majority to pass legislation in that body. What to do?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">At the presidential level Biden is still campaigning against former President Donald Trump. Of course Trump isn’t running for anything at the present time but Biden apparently thinks that the 2022 mid-term voters are still thinking about Trump and can be convinced that he’s the root of all the current problems. But Biden’s poll numbers indicate that voters are focused on Biden, not Trump. So Democrats in Congress and the media have adopted a different two pronged strategy. Why not spend trillions of dollars in an attempt to buy votes and at the same time add a level of fear with a hypothetical systemic threat that they can lay at the feet of the Republican opposition.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The first effort has failed to gain much political traction. Over the objections but eventual acquiescence of the Progressive, far Left wing of the Democratic party congressional caucus, a 1.2 trillion dollar infrastructure bill was passed. But it was passed with bipartisan support and the basic “roads and bridges” out in the future theme didn’t generate much excitement and hasn’t overcome the angst and anger of many voters which are driving Biden’s low job approval.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The second half of the “see how much of your money we can spend to help you” vote buy, was the 2.6 trillion dollar “Build Back Better” social welfare legislation that hit a monstrous speed bump also with the defection of Senator Joe Manchin (D-WVA) in the evenly divided 50-50 Senate. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Ignoring the fact that all 50 of the Republican senators also opposed the bill on sound economic reasoning, the Democrats have demonized their own Senator Manchin with the </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">nonsensical claim of “the injustice and undemocratic position of one Senator defying the will of the Democratic Party and the people’. Of course the Republican Senator’s votes count just as much as Manchin’s and they believe that they represent the preferences of their constituents who are also “the people”. While the size of the bill has been trimmed to around 1.75 trillion dollars it still lacks the necessary support to pass intact. Portions of the bill will probably eventually pass in pieces of separate legislation or in a further much reduced collective version but it may be “too little, too late” to have much effect on the November elections.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This leaves the Democrat election strategists with the “change the subject” option. The primary focus of this charge being made by Democrat politicians, “cherry picked “ liberal college professors, and the ususal far Left opinion writers, is the January 6, 2021 riot and assault on the U.S. capitol by President Trump supporters responding to his claim that Biden and his supporters in various states, “stole the 2020 presidential election’. While the now labeled “Big Lie” has indeed found no credible supporting evidence it remains a mixed dynamic for Trump’s credibility and that of his supporters in the Congress and a convenient target of attack for Democrats. Engaging in common political hyperbole and activating the new election strategy, Biden characterized the riot as Trump personally holding “a dagger at the throat of democracy.” </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While the nearly year long Democratic House committee investigating the events of January 6th, has not yet found any specific ties of Trump to the actual assault, the Department of Justice has recently announced that a charge of “seditious conspiracy” has been filed against eleven members of the Oath Keepers, a far right extremist group with a few members present at the insurrection. The leader of this group had outlined a plan for the use of armed force and military like tactics to attack the capitol. He went on to talk about the necessity of “civil war” in opposition to federal government policies. This is serious language and should not be taken lightly. However, the proposed military tactics did not materialize and while force was used armed force was not. This is not entirely surprising since the rhetoric employed by small extremist groups typically exaggerates their capabilities. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Even before the revelation announced by the Dept. of Justice, Biden’s theatrical “dagger” meme had been seized on by numerous media types to explore the “possible ‘end’ of democracy” in America. Giving the threat a somewhat broader base, the Democrats have incorporated a claim that Republicans in control of state legislatures are rigging election laws to deprive voters access to the ballot box. In a recent interview a Harvard professor portrayed these revised election regulations as Republicans “legally stealing” upcoming elections. The obvious contradiction of the terms “legally” and “stealing” aside, the solution for Democrats would seem simple; win more elections in these states but they seem to be focused on winning more elections in “toss up states” by stereotyping all Republican candidates as “undemocratic”.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Republicans claim that voting regulation changes are intended to support voting integrity. This claim is not without justification. The “handwriting is on the wall”. There are two separate “voting rights” bills in the Democrat controlled Congress which would give a “one size fits all” federal control of elections in the 50 states. Included in these bills are a variety of loose standards for voter registration and identification and procedure and reinstatement of the provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Bill that required federal approval of an changes to voting procedures in specific states mostly in the South, with a history, no matter how distant, of discriminatory voting procedures. The Supreme Ct. struck down this provision in 2013 as unconstitutional and outdated. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the critical 2020 senate elections in Georgia, some Democrats urged voters in safe “blue states” to take advantage of Georgia’s permissive registration residency requirements and travel to Georgia temporarily for the sole purpose of voting in this election and then move back home. New York City has recently approved voting for non-citizens in their municipal elections. The only requirement being residency for at least 30 days. This new “voting right” applies to approximately eight hundred thousand immigrants. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Democrats have long opposed such basic voter identity requirements as a photo ID even in states that issue such special voting versions for free. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">However, even if the Democrats voting rights legislation fails in the Senate it does not mean “the end of democracy”. Once again all evidence in support or opposed to the changes in the various Republican controlled states will be the subject of judicial review if Democrats feel their claims have legal merit. Of course, the legislation passed in these states itself is “legal” according to the Harvard professor as well as the product of a healthy democratic process in both the election of the legislators and in the enactment of policies by majority vote in their legislative bodies. Democrats are defining democracy not by process but by outcomes which only fit their ideological conformity and partisan advantage. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This process is an obvious election tactic to try and diminish the focus on, and importance of the aforementioned policy and economic issues that loom over the Democrat’s probable failures in the November, 2022 mid-term elections. To evaluate the actual “threat to democracy” in the U.S. a broad view and contextual approach is required. First however, it is a simple fact that the January 6th, 2021 riot and invasion of on the U.S. capitol was in itself an egregious assault on the institutions and democratic political processes of America. The peaceful transitions of U.S. governance at the highest level has been a fundamental principle of the American political experience and vital source of stability for our entire constitutional history. There is simply no way to legitimately diminish the seriousness and unacceptability of the assault. Those responsible, either as participants or provocateurs should face the full application of the law. Over 700 individuals have already been charged.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But does this single irrational act of rejection of our democratic system represent a continuing process of diminution of that system through violence and intimidation? Does it presage a nation wide acceptance of a general anti-democratic system based on a lessening of support for the core concepts of rule of law, separation of powers, and representative democracy? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are indeed, polls that show a disturbing level of acceptance of violence in pursuit of policy goals. In a December, 2021 poll, 34% agreed that violence against the government is some times justified. While 40% of Republicans polled agreed, 41% of Independents and 23% of Democrats also agreed. The bipartisan nature of this orientation is further demonstrated by the 25% in a second poll that agreed that “force might be justified to achieve” the mostly liberal goals of “civil rights”, “gun control”, “election results” and “labor” policies. But polls are not “movements” which require dedication, organization and participation. Also, solid majorities of Americans remain opposed to violence or the use of force against the government. Despite rampant speculation and political posturing the fact remains that in the face of the riot and invasion of the capitol and the fantasies of the eleven Oath Keepers, the democratic process actually worked.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The motive of the attack on the capitol was originally described as an attempt to stop the constitutionally required certification of the Electoral College results from the November 2020 presidential election. While the motivation of the mob seemed to quickly change into one of general occupation and an orgy of vandalism and violence against authority, it failed in it’s original purpose. It’s failure was inevitable. The invasion was bound to fail as reserves of law enforcement were brought in. The certification of the Electoral College results while disrupted, was only delayed a matter of hours as the Congress reconvened in the early hours of January 7 and carried out its duty. In other words, both the rule of law and the democratic process prevailed even in the face of profound and senseless hostility. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Once again, law suits claiming that the election was corrupt have all failed and do not represent broad based anti-democratic reality. Judicial findings based on facts have represented the health of the democratic principal of the “rule of law”.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">“The end of democracy” might sell books and stimulate opinion shows and journal articles but our democratic system is not defined by individual events in Washington or anywhere else. Our democracy operates as a centuries old, extremely broad pyramid whose base is occupied by thousands of “free and fair” elections starting at the local level of school board membership and city councils, and growing through county commissions, state legislatures and governors, judges elected or appointed by elected officials, and finally reaching the top with elections of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the President. The American public overwhelmingly supports this system, the Constitution which protects it, and the Bill of Rights that guarantees our basic individual freedoms. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Virtually all public elected public officials, members of the military, members of the judiciary at all levels and law enforcement personnel take and oath of office in which they swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and of the United States”. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Unfortunately politically inspired violence hiding behind the protection of the claim of “peaceful protests” has become the “new normal” after a year of excess allegedly in response to the murder of George Floyd in 2020. This will probably continue until police forces are rebuilt and allowed to contain it. The perpetrators have been small extremists groups on both the Left (Antifa) and the Right (Proud Boys) as well as some members of, or adherents to, the Black Lives Matter groups. The violence was mostly carried out against businesses, empty government buildings and police forces responding to the ensuing riots. With the exception of a few enabling local politicians and district attorneys this violence has been widely condemned by the public and political figures. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The major political crisis in the U.S. today is the uncompromising polarization of the Congress and the electorate. There is a profound sense of hopelessness, frustration and cynicism that citizens face with the apparent inability of government to deal with the challenges of the continuing pandemic, punishing inflation, spikes in crime and the constant drumbeat of racial hostility and environmental doom sayers. Democracy doesn’t seem to be working well but the targets for American’s frustrations are the members of the political class not the democratic system.</span></p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-7784633309261044122021-02-01T12:55:00.003-07:002021-02-01T13:00:45.599-07:00BIDEN: UNITY VS. POLITICAL ADVANTAGE<p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As the nation comes out of what can only be described as an historically terrible year, the public and political focus remains on the pandemic, its economic and social affects, and the new presidential administrations plans to deal with these enormous issues.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Unfortunately, the political and social context existing at the time the pandemic first appeared in the U.S. in January, 2020 was already in a state of chaos as the Trump Administration entered it’s final year. The previous three years had been ones of extreme political conflict including rabid personal attacks by both sides and their allies in the media as Democrats and the Left turned their shock at Trump’s upset defeat of Hillary Clinton into a program of hate and “resistance”. This of course was exacerbated by Trump’s reliance on daily hyperbolic Tweets and his thin skinned public hostility to any criticism. Democrats initially staked their hopes of an early demise of his Administration on a twenty-two month long investigation of allegations of Russian interference and possible collusion with the Trump 2016 election campaign. While the investigation finally found no evidence of “collusion”, the political divisions and hostility it engendered remained. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Since then the nation has endured a “dead on arrival” politically motivated impeachment and trial attempt by the Democrat controlled House of Representatives in December, 2019; the full onslaught of the Covid19 pandemic and angry debates over school and business closings and mask wearing. Months of race based protests, violence, destruction, looting and attacks on police and demands to eliminate or “de-fund” police departments were followed by the outrageous and disgusting mob attack on the halls of Congress, and now a second futile, politically based process to impeach and convict a former, none serving President despite the unambiguous language of the Constitution’s Article 2, Section 4 which says “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States” shall be removed from office if convicted in an impeachment trial of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The political divide has become a chasm. Emotions have conquered reason, tolerance for opposing viewpoints on public policy is non-existent.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now comes President Joe Biden whose first words as President conveyed a sense of conciliation and a goal of “uniting” the nation”; not to overcome deep seated political differences but to supposedly to seek compromise on some of the less polarizing legislative issues, and a return to some measure of civility. Unfortunately the warm glow of his words lasted about one day as they were exposed as mere platitudes. The Trump presidential era is over but his 74 million supporters remain. The Congress is almost evenly divided although the Democrats have a narrow majority in the House and a Vice Presidential tie breaker in the 50/50 Senate. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Even with strong and persistent presidential leadership, reducing the intense level of partisan based mutual contempt would be a long and difficult process. But when the new President, like Trump, becomes and agent of division there is little hope for any measure of reconciliation.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Biden’s first working day of “unifying” the nation was taken up by signing a pre-prepared stack of Executive Orders. Even though he and the Democrats control all three branches of government and can, with party discipline, pass any legislation they wish, Biden felt it necessary to send a theatrical “on day one” message to the “progressive” far Left while sticking a political finger in the eye of conservatives who supported Trump’s positions. Out went border control and deportation of millions of illegal immigrants; construction of the border wall; energy leasing on government lands and sea beds; travel bans from Muslim nations identified as sources of terrorism; restrictions on the military’s ability to exclude costly and dysfunctional enlistment of trans-genders; the completion of the Keystone pipeline with Canada on which over a billion dollars has already been spent and which would provide huge economic benefits to workers, state governments and oil storage and refining centers in Illinois, Texas and Oklahoma. Gone is the order excluding illegal immigrants from the census based on the assumption that they won’t now be deported. He also restored the ability for collective bargaining (unions) for federal workers and ended federal contracts with private prisons (without specifying what will be done with the thousands of federal prisoners confined there.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Biden’s message was clear; revoke the four year Republican-Trump policy agenda and steam roll the progressive agenda over night. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But even with presidential leadership if it was to be a political priority, there is much more to the problem of “unifying”, or even modifying the divisions in both the Congress and state legislatures and in the wider culture. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>The nation’s education systems from K-12 to it’s colleges and universities are busy teaching revisionist American history and a curriculum of divisive </span><span>“multiculturalism”, “victimization” and “oppression”. Of course the “victims” are all racial and ethnic minorities and genders. The “oppressors” are heterosexual, politically conservative, white males. Even white females can’t escape the viral nonsense and unscientific condemnation of Critical Race Theory which is spreading through the education system as well as the corporate world.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Mandatory “sensitivity and inclusiveness” “re-education” training i.e. guilt and thought control, and enforcement by government and education administrators, is demanded as the only solution to evidence challenged claims of “white privilege”, “white supremacy” and “systemic racism”, all of which are racist stereotypes themselves. Such broad based condemnation will perpetuate ideological, racial and partisan hostility. Resistance is inevitable as the racialized economic and social agenda and Biden’s own commitment to “identity politics” become legislation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Social media. Beyond education, each ideological bloc and over lapping political party, contains it’s extremist fringe groups. While these polarizing groups are equally radical, they, and minority political parties, represent tiny percentages of the population. Unfortunately they have a disproportionate public voice enabled by social media and even “main stream” cable and internet “opinion sites”. First Amendment rights protect them but the establishment news and opinion sites feel little responsibility to offer objective analysis or exclude the hysterical or fraudulent content they derive from the fringes as controversy creates readers, viewers and revenues, which overcome social and journalistic responsibility.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The influence of this spectrum of extremism of both the far Left and far Right is thus enhanced beyond their real importance by the political figures and opinion leaders who through simple political malice and ambition or intellectual laziness, insist on stereotyping the broader political parties as reflecting the values and viciousness of the fringes. Thus to many on the Left, Republicans are “racists, “sexists”, “homophobes”, “Fascists”, and “xenophobic” “chauvinists”. Democrats are all labeled as “socialists”, “Marxists”, “communists”, “globalists” and “America haters”. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As members of Congress and state legislatures adopt this inflammatory rhetoric and media figures and celebrities join them, civility and cooperation ends and legislation becomes conflict. Here is former Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor and current professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, Robert Reich, in a recent commentary in the Left wing Guardian journal entitled “Why Biden Must Be Bold & Ignore Republicans”.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span> </span>“If Biden is successful, Americans’ faith in democracy might begin to rebound – marking the end of the nation’s flirtation with ‘<i>fascism’</i>. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span> </span>“The worry is Biden wants to demonstrate “bipartisan cooperation” and may try so hard to get some Republican votes that his plans get diluted to the point where Republicans get what they want: failure.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“Biden should forget bipartisanship.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So what is to be done? Do the nation’s divided voters really want some level of “unity”, cooperation and civility across society and especially in legislatures tasked with the creation of important public policy that supposedly makes individual lives better? Certainly some do not and for them conflict becomes and end in itself. But polls seem to indicate that nation-wide, people are unhappy and frustrated by the hate and the “victory and defeat” character of the political process. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A 2020 poll by the Hoover Institute at Stanford University shows distinct differences in terms of trust and policies at the party identification level but it also found a more general positive result: “Overall, the results of our poll show that there are major differences between the political parties that will make it difficult for the newly elected president to bring about unity. On the other hand, majorities of both parties say they prefer representatives who compromise on politics and would prefer to be American rather than citizens of any other country.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The nation will never be “united” on specific public policies. Social policies especially have taken on the character of civil religions in which moral certitude makes compromise impossible. This attitude then spreads like it’s own virus to just about all other issues i.e. the economy and issues of political procedure, environmental and national security. Progress, if at all possible, would seem to be limited in scope to fundamental agreement on the virtues of constitutional government; rule of law, individual liberty, and equality of opportunity. Within that context and with enhanced interaction between individuals not encumbered by demagogues or “group think”, perhaps progress can be made on civility and objectivity.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">There is no question that Donald Trump was an instigator and provocateur for whom aggression was a political tactic, albeit a successful one in his upset victory of 2016. But Trump’s election defeat seemed to have a component of “Trump, or conflict fatigue”, especially among “independent voters”. Although President Biden has a different, more traditional political personality, if he continues to define “unity” as exclusionary defeat of non-“progressive” far Left agendas and he quietly supports hate speech by proxy, he will, as the leader of his party and as the public focus of national government, defy his own message of national reconciliation and the chaos will continue.</span> </p>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-17061903783879368392020-06-10T14:13:00.001-06:002020-06-10T20:48:12.080-06:00THE RACE-RADICALISM NEXUS<div><font size="4">With the nation still trying to cope with the corona virus and just as the devastation to the economy seems to be on the way to improvement, America is steeped in new turmoil initiated by the death of “another unarmed black man” at the hands of police officers, three white, one Asian. The original focus of the ensuing social protests was police violence against blacks and an alleged general lack of equal justice for blacks by the country’s law enforcement and judicial agencies. These are the claims which produced the name of the most prominent organizing group in the protests, “Black Lives Matter”. Now the original focus has quickly been expanded to include numerous groups and governmental bodies, into a broad radical agenda of societal upheaval.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The physical circumstances of the death of George Floyd at the hands of the four Minneapolis police officers is not in doubt. The video of the event speaks for itself. What occurred before the video started, what possibly motivated the officers to do what they did, must be investigated to achieve a full understanding of the “why?” But causing the death of a man restrained by handcuffs can’t be justified.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4">The demands of “Justice for George Floyd” will be met by the criminal justice system itself. The four officers involved have all been criminally charged and the legal process will be completed through the normal and accepted rules and procedures; but that is not the goal of the nation’s racial activists and the radical Left. The death of George Floyd has now been transformed from a personal tragedy into a tool to be exploited by these ideological and racial extremists. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4">The leading organization in that movement, Black Lives Matter, itself is not simply focused only on criminal justice reform, although that was the issue stated as the original ,basis for it’s creation, as its web site explains.</font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. ”</font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The facts are that there was no police involvement in the death of Trayvon Martin. He was shot by George Zimmerman a mixed race Hispanic, who was acquitted of murder charges in Florida while defending himself after being attacked by Martin. There was no evidence submitted at trial that race was a motivating factor in the incident. An investigation by Obama’s Department of Justice found no violations of Martin’s civil rights.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4">But since then BLM has adopted a much broader, more militant, public ideological orientation. Again, from their web site:</font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy.”</font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“We foster a queer affirming network. We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege”</font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement”</font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><span style="white-space: pre;"><font size="4"> </font></span><span style="font-size: large;">However, using the public perception of Black Lives Matter as simply i.e. a racial justice organization, fringe ideologues on the radical Left are defending looting and destruction of buildings. Even more extreme are their claims that police departments should be defunded or even abolished, as the recent vote by the Minneapolis City Council intends. Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti wants to cut funding to the L.A. police department by $150 million and give the money to the “black community”. Left wing school superintendents are removing police “school resource officers” to show their displeasure with police in general and are supporting anti-police activists. Of course the presence of police officers at schools is intended to protect the children and faculty, a policy widely supported after the rash of school mass shootings in recent years. </span></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4">What is obvious are the race based and anti-police tactics of collective guilt and thus collective punishment. “Systemic racism” has become a popular charge even among white Democratic politicians, which is an easy way to claim universality without identifying “ the system” or providing any data to substantiate the claim. Of course there are racists in the world, they come in all colors and exist in all societies. It’s an unfortunate remnant of tribal mentality. Fortunately, in the U.S. racial extremists are a tiny minority and awareness of racial differences in the general population is mostly cultural and doesn’t substantiate racial bias in “the system”. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4">The individual acts of a very few police officers does not prove racial hostility among all of the nation’s 800,000 officers. In some of the largest urban cities police department demographics would indicate otherwise (2013 figures: “Govern.com”): New York City Police Dept.: minorities 48%; black: 16%: Los Angeles.: 65% minority; black 12% : Chicago: 48% minority; black 25%: : Detroit: 67% minority; 63% black. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Claims of “white supremacy” and “white privilege” nation wide are vague concepts and essentially themselves racist slogans which too few are willing to challenge and which are distortions of outcomes in social and political status largely based on demographics. Blacks make up only 13% of the U.S. population; the white population is 68%. Disparities in wealth and income have many causes including cultural factors that black intellectuals have identified. Shelby Steele , Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, University cited the “75%” figure for black children born out of wedlock; “no fathers” (6/9/20), as just one important factor, and government dependency as another. He points out that confrontation and violence won’t solve either of these problems. Oft cited imbalances in incarceration rates are based on imbalances in criminality which improvement in the factors described by Steele would have help ameliorate. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The protests and marches have quickly become politicized and offer opportunities for politicians at all levels of government for exploitation for their personal benefit. The fact that the country is in the final five months of an election year is a stimulative for these kind of behaviors and has had a serious negative impact. Since politics is adversarial by nature, the political exploitation adds to the hostility and societal divisiveness that already plague the nation.</font></div><div><font size="4"> </font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> Democrat House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charles Shumer made sure to wear their printed version of Kente cloth African attire when recently announcing a hurried, “knee jerk”, Democrat sponsored federal “law enforcement reform bill” in an “us against them” theatrical news conference. The “them” of course is President Trump and the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Protests, rallies and marches also stimulate demagoguery among those who seek status and profit by being self appointed “leaders” among aggrieved groups. Al Sharpton for whom racial conflict is a career, is planning yet another “march on Washington” in which he will be the “drum major” at the head of the mob. He is no doubt hoping for prime time coverage of conflict with local and federal police which he and sycophantic CNN commentators will brand as evidence of “systemic racism”. Thus the underlying need for clear thinking and conflict resolution is pushed aside and the conflict is perpetuated. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>What is to be done? A single bill passed by Congress won’t be enough. Inane overreach like attacks on the nation’s police forces will make things worse. This conflict has been accurately described as a “culture war”. It is not new and has little to do with the death of George Floyd except as the flash point in a new Leftist offensive in the “war”. Radical educators in the nation’s public schools and in its universities, have been indoctrinating young adults for generations with anti-social, divisive class warfare, and hostility, towards their government, culture and history. Products of this “education’ in anger, victimization, and divisiveness, inhabit the media in all its forms where “news” has become opinion, and discord and ideological hostility have become the currency of the information market place. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Honest, realistic, issue oriented leadership is needed from top to bottom in the political establishment and in the nation’s minority communities. Ideological extremism must be opposed and replaced by measured compromise on all sides. This process might seem to be impossible given the role of the mainstream media and social media and the access they provide to all angry voices. The radical Left, both in the streets and in politics, riding the heady wave of support by the media and market fearful corporations, are expanding their demands and claims to ever more extreme levels. Still there is hope. The popular rejection even among the political Left Democrat Party, of Bernie Sander’s social and economic “revolution” indicates a still healthy respect for moderation and stability among a majority of Americans. The majority of American blacks who were gainfully employed and enjoying increased wages in the economic boom prior to the corona virus, and who value the social aspects of traditional family values, might find new leadership and speak up. Once the excesses of the 2020 election are over, and the inevitable bitterness that will ensue subsides, perhaps a combination of common purpose and crisis fatigue will lead to some level of conflict resolution. It will still take enlightened leadership on many sides; academia, media, business and of course politics. A tall order but the alternatives serve no one.</font></div>Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-38552521951824861642020-02-19T13:44:00.001-07:002020-02-24T09:08:34.743-07:00MODERATES AND REVOLUTIONARIES: STARK REALITIES<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The early election 2020 primaries are finally underway and the operative description so far is “confusion”. After months of leading in the polls, former Vice President Joe Biden has apparently tripped over his tongue and fallen off the edge of the Progressive’s far Left platform.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">After completion of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the Left’s media pundits are promoting the claim of a Bernie Sanders “surge”based on Sander’s victories in both early states. To be sure, some are casting wary eyes at the rising popularity of another candidate. It’s not the runner up in both contests, junior achiever, former mayor Pete Buttigieg, it’s one of the three billionaires currently in play in the national election; not Donald Trump, the “evil greedy” billionaire on the Republican ticket; not Tom Steyer, the “good greedy” but quixotic and largely irrelevant billionaire still in the Democratic race, but the newcomer, the used to be “bad but now trying to be good”, billionaire Michael Bloomberg.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Bloomberg wasn’t even on the ballots of either Iowa or New Hampshire but campaigned from the outside, spending millions of his billions on television aids. Although Bloomberg didn’t enter the race until November 21, 2019 long after his Democratic competitors had begun their campaigns, he in three short months, has risen to third in the national polls average with 16.1%</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">preference, topping long time candidates Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Bloomberg has been anointed as the best “moderate” alternative to Bernie, a title formerly bequeathed by the media on Biden, then Buttigieg, and sometimes Klobuchar. But of course compared to Bernie, anyone to the “right” of, and including, Fidel Castro, who Bernie once praised for his “progressive” social policies, is in relative terms a “moderate”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Still, Bloomberg has a steep hill to climb to put a dent into the commitment of Sanders’ far Left activist popularity. His campaign website lists many “plans” but few details and no mention of costs or financing. But to the Progressive Left, especially the young, he is another “old white male billionaire” who won’t receive the socialist exception for these “oppressive flaws” that the 78 year old Sanders has. Bernie has always been a political radical while Bloomberg was a Democrat until 2001 when he switched parties to become a Republican. Then in 2007 he switched again to become a registered Independent, only becoming a “born again” Democrat shortly before declaring his candidacy for the presidency in 2019. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">This checkered past is giving a clearly concerned Sanders an abundance of raw material for attacks on Bloomberg who served three terms as mayor of New York City. Campaigning in Nevada prior to their caucuses on February 22nd Bernie who has previously attacked Bloomberg’s wealth, added Bloomberg’s pre-Democrat "racism", opposition to a minimum wage increase, opposition to increased taxes on the wealthy and advocating cuts in Medicare and Social Security to Bloomberg’s “moderate”“ heresy. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Early polls show Bernie likely to win the Nevada caucuses, not surprising given the huge number of service employee union members who work in the state’s hotels and casinos. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">That would give Sanders another boost in his goal of portraying the inevitability of his nomination ahead of the Super Tuesday primaries held in fourteen states on March 3rd.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">But Democrats themselves are concerned with how broad Sanders support really is, given his self identification as a “Democratic socialist” and his plans for a “revolutionary change” in the nation’s free market capitalist system which is currently booming. Bernie’s victories have so far been close calls in small states with a significant lack of diversity. He won in Iowa with 26.5% of the vote over Buttigieg’s 25.1%. Thus 73.5% of Iowa’s voters were unenthusiastic about his proposed “revolution” and it’s most prominent feature, government controlled Medicare for all and the end of private health insurance. It also worth noting that since 1972, while the Iowa caucuses winner has gone on to win the Democratic nomination for President 7 of 10 times in “contested races” (no incumbent president in the race), only two, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama went on to win the presidency.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In New Hampshire, where Sander’s was supposed to have a huge advantage based on his residence in neighboring state Vermont, the results were similar. Sanders won with 25.7% of the vote to Buttigieg’s 24.4%. Thus the combined votes of the “moderates”, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden, even with the exception of the “queen of plans”, Elizabeth Warren, was still 52.6%, more than double the “revolutionary” vote.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">How can this be? In more normal times with more “normal” i.e. establishment candidates, three victories in a row would definitely be seen as a significant momentum advantage which brings more money, more enthusiasm and a media boost. But these are not “normal” times and Sander’s is the most far Left major contender in modern history. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">So in the context of uncertainty, important questions remain:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">1. If Sanders goes on to win the nomination by just squeaking by in the remaining primaries, will the revolutionary doubters, the supporters of the so called “moderates”, lose their interest for the national election and stay home; or will the “anyone but Trump” meme overcome their fears and give Sanders their votes?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">2. If Joe Biden somehow achieves a “Phoenix” like resurrection on Super Tuesday and beyond and regains a lead sufficient to win the nomination, will irate and disheartened Sanders believe the nomination was once again “rigged” against their man like in 2016 and stay home on election day in November?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">3. If Biden’s Phoenix bird fails to get airborne and Buttigieg stays close to Bernie, will the likely withdrawal of Klobuchar, the only candidate deserving of the title “moderate”, move her supporters to Buttigieg allowing him to edge out Sanders for the nomination?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">4. Is the “anyone but Trump” incentive strong enough to overcome Bernie’s or Buttigieg’s basic disadvantages? Buttigieg is young (38 yrs.) and would be the youngest U.S. President to ever serve. His political resume’ is thinner than Elizabeth Warren’s tomahawk collection. He was defeated in his 2010 State Treasurer of Indiana run,before wining two terms as Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, population 101,000. That’s it. Despite his relative success among the Progressive Left dominated Democratic primaries, being openly gay is still a problem on a national level. Only 50% of registered voters declared that they were “ready” for a gay president. Thirty-two percent of Independents and twenty-two percent of Democrats said they “weren’t ready”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Bernie’s “socialist” problem:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Sanders says he’s not a socialist; he’s a “democratic socialist”. What is a “democratic socialist”? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Apparently it’s whatever Bernie and his thirty year old sock puppet and campaign participant Ocasio-Cortez says it is. The short academic definition of socialism has always been the “public” (gov’t) ownership of the means of production.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Sanders was a member of the Liberty Union Party, a socialist party founded in Vermont in 1970.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">He was the party’s Senate candidate in 1972 and the party’s candidate for Vermont Governor in 1976. He went on to become the party’s Chairman until 1977 when he resigned reportedly because of the party’s lack of activity between elections.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">While a member in 1971 Sanders advocated for the nationalization of major industries, specifically energy, banking, and manufacturing, as well as state control of Vermont’s public utilities, all of which fit neatly into the definition of “means of production”. In 1976 he proposed a marginal federal tax rate of 100% for “millionaires and again called for the government of Vermont to seize all public utilities without compensation. In 1976 he called for the conversion of privately owned manufacturing industries into “worker controlled enterprises”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In the years since Bernie’s youthful radicalism, he hasn’t changed much. Although he’s tried to soften his approach in the 2020 campaign by emphasizing “free stuff” he remains true to his assault on free market capitalism and the promotion of big government to fulfill most of society’s needs.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In 1981 he expressed opposition to private charities claiming that “Government should take over responsibility for social programs.” In 1987 he defined “democracy” as “ public ownership and worker self management in the workplace.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">As recently as February, 2016 on the far Left website Daily Kos, he declared that “Democracy means public ownership of the major ‘means of production’. And in December of that year in a quote published in the New York Times, he advocated for politicizing the Federal Reserve, an independent regulatory agency, by creating a Federal Reserve Board made up of “representatives of labor, consumers, homeowners , urban residents, farmers, and small business owners.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">It only gets worse, if one actually takes the time to read Sander’s campaign web site which is a blue print for social and economic disaster.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Here’s just a few items from that site:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Immigration: “Break up Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and stop deportations of illegal immigrants, essentially an “open borders policy”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Green New Deal: This is Bernie’s rendition of Ocasio-Cortez’s Democratic Socialist of America’s plan to bankrupt the federal government. Unlike that plan he leaves out the danger of methane producing “farting cows” but includes actual dollar amounts he would spend to save the world while destroying the U.S. economy.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Support the Green Climate Fund, an aid program for developing countries to “mitigate” the effects of global climate change.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $200 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Guarantee health care, housing, and a good paying job to every American.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $ unknown</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"> “100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administration to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $16.3 trillion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">A “Climate Justice Resiliency Fund”to provide grants to racial minorities, elderly, children and other special “victims” deal with the impact of, and prepare for climate impacts”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $40 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Free electricity for all by 2035 requiring a new national renewable energy power grid.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $526 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Grants to change heating and cooling systems in homes and businesses from fossil fuels to electricity.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $964 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Grants to “low and moderate income families and businesses” to trade in their gasoline powered automobiles for electric vehicles.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $2.09 trillion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">National network of automobile electric charging stations.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $85.6 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Grants for electric school buses.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $407 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Grants to replace diesel commercial trucks.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $216 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Research to “decarbonize industry”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $500 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Fund public transportation.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $300 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Fund high speed rail.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: 607 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Research to “decarbonize” aviation and maritime shipping and transportation.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cost: $150 billion</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">While doing this Sanders would shut down the already “decarbonized” electric power generation nuclear power industry which currently provides 19.4% of the nation’s electricity.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Add to this Sanders’ most prominent policy of free Medicare for all which is estimated to cost $34 trillion over ten years and his free college tuition which is estimated to cost $79 billion per year, his plan to cancel all $1.6 trillion in existing student college loan debt and grant $1.3 billion per year to historically black colleges, and the sheer fantasy of this “democratic socialist’s” remake of the entire U.S. economy should be a stark political reality for 2020 voters.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span></div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-89648720107609175962020-01-25T14:42:00.004-07:002020-01-25T14:47:28.654-07:00FOREIGN POLICY: DEMOCRATS QUALIFICATIONS AND THE LEADERSHIP DEFICIT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Democratic Party’s nomination campaign has now thankfully been reduced from its original platoon sized gaggle of “not him again”, “who’s that”, and “you’ve got to be kidding” candidates, to a still large but more manageable twelve, of which only three are polling in double digit numbers and only six qualified for the January debate. <br />
The first six debates have consisted mostly of a combination of the usual “values” platitudes, condemnation of Trump, and an endless argument about the political and economic viability of “Medicare for all”. The seventh just held, was not much different, best exemplified by the fact that the media’s post mortem made the issue of whether Sanders told Warren in a private meeting a few years ago that he didn’t think a woman could win the presidency. He denies it; she says it’s true. If true, Sanders didn’t say he didn’t think a woman “should” be president. He said he didn’t think a woman “could” be president. This absurd non- issue, attempt by the media to create a politically relevant “issue” just shows how flaccid and superficial the whole process had become. What has been noticeably missing, even in the sixth debate which was supposed to feature the subject, has been any meaningful discussion of foreign policy.<br />
<br />
The Constitution awards almost exclusive powers and responsibilities in this area to the President as “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces and chief diplomat with his attendant power to “receive diplomats” and “make treaties”. The first is a shared power only by the requirements of a declaration of war by the Congress and the largely ignored War Powers Act of 1973 which places restrictions on the deployment of troops without Congressional consent, and the second, with respect to treaties, which requires a 2/3 approval by the Senate.<br />
<br />
Given the preponderance of foreign and national security powers that reside in the office of the President it would seem obvious that an understanding of the candidates positions on the many current issues in this realm as well as their respective backgrounds, level of knowledge and experience, if any, should be examined as part of their candidacy.<br />
<br />
The debates, never known for vigorous policy examinations by the journalists who moderate them, have so far shed little light on these important issues and the candidates themselves have shown little interest in the subject.<br />
<br />
Of the three front runners , those polling in double digits, only Joe Biden would seem to have any credentials for foreign policy expertise. As a Senator from Delaware for many years, he served as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. As President Obama’s Vice President for eight years, he held a seat on the National Security Council. If he attended the meetings and played an active role is not known. Now it has been asserted that he was the Obama Administration’s “point man” on relations with Ukraine, an association he may now regret.<br />
Unfortunately he also has a reputation, summarized succinctly by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates , as getting everything wrong about “nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”<br />
<br />
A look at Biden’s campaign web site reveals an Elizabeth Warren like blizzard of “plans” which he, like she, promises will solve all the problems Americans face. Of the eighteen “plans” however, none addresses any of the world’s or America’s foreign policy problems. Voters have to look elsewhere to see what Biden thinks about what’s going on beyond our borders.<br />
<br />
Fortunately the Council on Foreign Relations contacted the candidates and asked a few specific questions about current issues. Not all the candidates responded and since then, some of them have dropped out of the race. But Biden, Warren and Sanders did provide written answers to the questions, a sample of which provide some insights into the candidates knowledge and preparedness to assume the responsibilities of the Commander in Chief and “chief diplomat”.<br />
<br />
THE JCPOA, i.e. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran nuclear deal) signed by Obama and from which Trump withdrew.<br />
<br />
Biden:<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“I would re-enter the JCPOA as a starting point to work alongside our allies in Europe and other world powers i.e. China and Russia, to extend the deal’s nuclear constraints.”<br />
<br />
I would take “a redoubled commitment to diplomacy to more effectively push back against Tehran’s other malign behavior in the region.”<br />
<br />
Sanders:<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“I would re-enter the agreement on day one of my presidency and then work with the P5+1 and Iran to build upon it with additional measures to further block any path to a nuclear weapon, restrain Iran’s offensive actions in the region and forge a new strategic balance in the Middle East.”<br />
<br />
Warren:<br />
<br />
“If Iran returns to compliance with its obligations under the nuclear deal, the United States should return as well. If Iran is not in compliance, I will pursue strong and principled diplomacy in concert with our allies to bring both the United States and Iran back into the deal.”<br />
“The JCPOA is only the beginning. We will need to negotiate a follow-on to the agreement that continues to constrain Iran’s nuclear program past the “sunset” of some of its original terms. “<br />
<br />
“We also need to address serious concerns about Iran’s policies beyond its nuclear program, including its ballistic missile program and support for destabilizing regional proxies. ”<br />
_______<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Biden seems to acknowledge indirectly, that the JCPOA was flawed from the outset. It contained a “sunset provision” in which the constraints of Iran’s development of weapons grade nuclear material would have to be renegotiated. It relied in part on Iran’s self reporting of nuclear development sites to the UN Atomic Energy Agency and did not contain any restraints on Iran’s development of long range missile nuclear capable delivery systems. It also made no mention of Iran’s regional interventions and support for international terrorism. Reentering the agreement would require the lifting of the harsh economic sanctions imposed by Trump to incentivize a return to negotiations to correct these serious flaws. This would remove any pressure on Iran to agree to more comprehensive terms which they have already said they would never do.<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Sander’s and Warren’s responses are pure naivete’. They join Biden in thinking that the removal of sanctions as a first step would lead to broader based renegotiations. Russia, is a member of the P5+1 nations and is a partner with Iran in the intervention in the Syrian civil war on the side of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad , and would not be a useful negotiation partner. Reentry on “day one” would simply be a concession to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and would provide huge oil related financial assets to support Iran’s regional ambitions.<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> Warren’s idea of pressure is “strong and principled diplomacy with our allies”, whatever that is, and she also seems to have forgotten about the other participants in the agreement Russia and China, who are certainly not “our allies”.<br />
<br />
<br />
NORTH KOREA: Question: “Would you sign an agreement with North Korea that entailed partial sanctions relief in exchange for some dismantling of its nuclear weapons program but not full denuclearization?”<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />
Biden:<br />
<br />
“As president, I will empower our negotiators and jumpstart a sustained, coordinated campaign with our allies and others – including China – to advance our shared objective of a denuclearized North Korea.”<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />
Sanders:<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“I would offer partial relief of economic sanctions in return for partial progress on denucleariztion:” “I will work to negotiate a step-by-step process to roll back North Korea’s nuclear program, build a new peace and security regime on the peninsula and work towards the eventual elimination of all North Korean nuclear weapons.”<br />
<br />
Warren:<br />
<br />
“Our goal should be the full elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. But while we work toward that goal, we must reduce the threat now. “<br />
<br />
“We need serious, realistic negotiations to address this threat. As a first step, and in coordination with our partners and allies, I would be prepared to consider partial, limited sanctions relief in return for a strong, verifiable agreement that keeps North Korea from expanding its arsenal or proliferating to other countries. An interim agreement would open the door to negotiations to reduce North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, control conventional weapons, and stop the regime’s crimes against humanity. That’s not only an imperative for our national security, it is the only credible path toward denuclearization.”<br />
_________<br />
Biden’s brief response is a statement without substance and a complete dodge of the question, reflecting a lack of any diplomatic strategy or acknowledgment of North Korea’s goals or negotiating tactics.<br />
<br />
Sanders and Warren offer a return to the past by offering “partial sanctions relief” for “partial denuclearization”. Warren’s response is typical of the simplistic and fatuous approach she has to most complex issues. Discussions, negotiations, bargaining and inconsistent behavior by the Kim dynasty with regard to nuclear weapons development has been on-going since December,1985 when N. Korea’s founding leader, Kim Il-sung agreed to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970), which basically states that non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) will agree to not pursue development of nuclear military capability.<br />
<br />
Since then four U.S. Presdents, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and Obama, in cooperation with our allies i.e. S.Korea and Japan, as well as China and Russia/, have been carrying out “serious, realistic negotiations” with the three Kims who have ruled North Korea. These negotiations have included sanctions relief, aid, renewed sanctions in response to blatant violations of the NPT and the negotiated agreements. All along it has been all three of the Kim’s position that no meaningful progress would be made unless all sanctions were repealed first. Essentially, it has been a fundamental goal of all of the N. Korean leadership to acquire nuclear weapons, live with the resulting sanctions and become a permanent nuclear weapons state. Warren offers nothing new.<br />
Kim Jong-Un’s motivations are to acquire the international importance that goes with such nuclear power status and to make his regime immune from any possible attempts at regime change. Concessions on nuclear development could also create push back on the part of hawks in the N. Korean military and even in competitors for power in Kim’s own family. Also development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems validates the myth of U.S. aggression which justifies the hardships imposed on the N. Korean people.<br />
<br />
Sanders is engaging in simple campaign blather to say he will “ will work towards the eventual elimination of all” N. Korea’s nuclear weapons. As long as China is willing to keep N. Korea’s economy afloat the U.S. should focus on deterrence while making it clear that proliferation on his part is unacceptable and result in even more punitive economic isolation and sanctions. Partial economic sanctions relief could be used as an incentive for de-escalation of tensions and strict adherence in this regard, but there is no reason to think that such a policy will result in complete denuclearization.<br />
<br />
RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IN UKRAINE<br />
<br />
Biden:<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“On the military side, I would provide more U.S. security assistance including weapons to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. I would also expand the successful training mission for the Ukrainian Armed Forces that was initiated by the Obama-Biden administration.”<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“Economically, I would work to increase Western direct investment and support for Ukraine’s energy independence from Russia, particularly if the Nordstream II pipeline is built in the coming year, because this project would severely jeopardize Ukraine’s access to Russian gas.”<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“Finally, I would support a much stronger diplomatic role for the United States, alongside France and Germany, in the negotiations with Russia. For diplomacy to work, however, we need stronger leverage over Moscow, and that means working more closely with our European partners and allies to ensure that Russia pays a heavier price for its ongoing war in Ukraine.”<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />
Sanders:<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“My administration will make clear to Russia that additional aggression will force the United States to increase pressure, including expanding beyond current sanctions. For now, our main priority should be to work closely with our European allies to help the new Ukrainian government make good on its promises to reform the economy, improve standards of living, and substantially reduce corruption. “<br />
<br />
Warren:<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“Ukraine faces immense challenges that will require patient, long-term diplomacy and support from the West. We should start by shoring up relations with our EU partners in order to maintain the strongest possible diplomatic front, and by keeping pressure on the Kremlin to encourage changes in behavior. “<br />
<br />
__________<br />
Biden at least seems to understand the issues. The Russian intervention into Ukraine is a complex issue which for several years has been the subject of French, German and Ukraine diplomatic efforts with Russia. Essentially, Russia has intervened and supported an armed separatist movement in the eastern provinces of Ukraine which is populated by a large number of ethnic Russians. Diplomatic solutions are complicated by the fact that polls show that a majority of the population in the disputed territories want to rejoin the post- Soviet Union Russian Federation. The governments of France and Germany have specific foreign policy/security interests in not allowing Russia to extend its control past its Western borders.<br />
France is leading the diplomatic efforts. An aggressive involvement by a Biden Administration in the negotiations could complicate the problem and would have to be carefully analyzed prior to its inclusion.<br />
<br />
Sanders seems to be saying ‘don’t worry”about the current Russian intervention and conflict, let’s rebuild the Ukrainian economy and tell the Russians, “no ‘further aggression’ or we’ll put big pressure on you’.<br />
<br />
Warren response is similar, just more platitudes. “Long term diplomacy”? “Shoring up our relationships with our EU partners”. With respect to this problem our relationship with the EU is sound. Russia is the problem. This is a follow on to Putin’s successful annexation of the Crimea.<br />
There is a state of armed conflict currently in the eastern regions of Ukraine. Ukraine’s sovereignty needs to be defended with military assistance by the U.S., France and Germany. Economic sanctions are already in place against Russia and these need to be strengthened especially in light of the potential completion of the Nordstream II pipeline which will bypass the current pipeline to Ukraine and supply natural gas to the EU through a distribution center in Germany. As Biden points out and Sanders and Warren seem unaware, this would allow Russia to cut off Ukraine’s supply of natural gas to force it to make territorial concessions.<br />
<br />
WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN<br />
<br />
Biden:<br />
<br />
“I would bring American combat troops in Afghanistan home during my first term. Any residual U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would be focused only on counter terrorism operations. We need to be clear-eyed about our limited enduring security interests in the region: We cannot allow the remnants of Al Qa’ida in Afghanistan and Pakistan to reconstitute, and we must destroy the Islamic State presence in the region. Americans are rightly weary of our longest war; I am, too. But we must end the war responsibly, in a manner that ensures we both guard against threats to our Homeland and never have to go back.”<br />
<br />
Sanders:<br />
<br />
“I would withdraw U.S. military forces from Afghanistan as expeditiously as possible.<br />
“It’s time to end our intervention there and bring our troops home, in a planned and coordinated way combined with a serious diplomatic and political strategy which helps deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid. Withdrawing troops does not mean withdrawing all involvement, and my administration would stay politically engaged in these countries and do whatever we can to help them develop their economy and strengthen a government that is responsible to its people. “<br />
<br />
Warren:<br />
<br />
It's long past time to bring our troops home, and I would begin to do so immediately. “Redirecting just a small fraction of what we currently spend on military operations toward economic development, education, and infrastructure projects would be a better, more sustainable investment in Afghanistan's future than our current state of endless war. We should enlist our international partners to encourage a political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban that is sustainable and that protects U.S. interests. And we should redouble efforts to support the Afghan government and civil society as they work to promote the rule of law, combat corruption and the narcotics trade, and ensure the basic rights of all Afghans.”<br />
_________________<br />
<br />
Biden appears to miss the point that the underlying problem is the Taliban forces that have ruled Afghanistan off and on since the Soviet Union withdrew its forces in 1989. Peace negotiations between the Afghan government and the fundamentalist Taliban have broken down in their early stages. The war against the Taliban is not winnable. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and fought a losing nine year effort to destroy the Taliban’s antecedent Islamic militias ,the Mujahideen. The Taliban are more centrally organized and reflect the same problems of asymmetric warfare in a rugged and mountainous country.<br />
<br />
Sanders’ response is purposely vague: “Expeditiously as possible”? “Serious diplomatic and political strategy” ? “Stay politically engaged” ? Bernie needs to offer some definitions of these generalities. He also totally ignores the basic issues: the civil war with the Taliban insurgency which wants to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan, and the issue of the possible re-emergence of Al Qaeda, the international terrorist organization which launched it’s 9/11 attacks on the U.S. from Afghanistan and precipitated the U.S. invasion in 2003.<br />
<br />
Staying “politically engaged” conforms with Warren’s “plan” which is essentially to abandon military assistance and training and rely on others, “are international partners” to solve the problem of the insurgency.<br />
Unless the Taliban finds some kind of motivation to agree to a political settlement which would necessarily grant them significant political power, the conflict will continue and “economic development, education, and infrastructure projects” won’t be possible in a hostile, unstable environment.<br />
<br />
Biden’s plan to stay until Al Oaeda and the Islamic State elements are eliminated requires the cooperation of both the Taliban and the Afghan government and might still take years. But if successful, it would make possible the claim, even if not entirely true, that the “mission was accomplished” and withdrawal was then fully justified. But the conundrum for the U.S. now, and in the future, is continuing military support for the Afghan government to avoid a complete Taliban victory, or abandon a hopeless enterprise and accept the consequences of endless internal conflict with the ultimate prospect of the establishment of another fundamentalist Islamic state in the region. Either way, Sanders plan to “strengthen the government” or Warren’s plan to “redouble efforts” to create a viable non-corrupt civil society in what is essentially a failed state without the unlikely cooperation of a murderous theocratic military and political entity is just non-specific 2020 election blather.<br />
<u><br /></u>
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS: THE TWO STATE SOLUTION<br />
<br />
Biden:<br />
<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“I believe a two-state solution is the only path to long-term security for Israel, while sustaining its identity as a Jewish and democratic state.”<br />
“I will restore credible engagement with both sides to the conflict. America must sustain its ironclad commitment to Israel’s security. Palestinian leaders should end the incitement and glorification of violence, and they must begin to level with their people about the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as a Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. Israeli leaders should stop the expansion of West Bank settlements and talk of annexation that would make two states impossible to achieve. They must recognize the legitimacy of Palestinians' aspirations for statehood. Both sides should work to provide more relief to the people of Gaza while working to weaken, and ultimately replace, Hamas. And Arab states should take more steps toward normalization with Israel and increase their financial and diplomatic support for building Palestinian institutions.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sanders:<br />
<br />
“Two states based on the 1967 lines, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states. Ultimately, it’s up to the Palestinians and Israelis themselves to make the choices necessary for a final agreement, but the United States has a major role to play in brokering that agreement. My administration would also be willing to bring real pressure to bear on both sides, including conditioning military aid, to create consequences for moves that undermine the chances for peace. “<br />
<br />
Warren:<br />
<br />
As president, I would take immediate steps to reestablish America’s role as a credible mediator by welcoming the Palestinian General Delegation back to Washington and reopening an American mission to the Palestinians in Jerusalem. I would also make clear that in a two-state agreement both parties should have the option to locate their capitals in Jerusalem, as all previous serious plans have acknowledged. We should immediately resume aid to the Palestinians and financial support to UNRWA, and focus real financial and political resources on fixing the man-made humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip. I will oppose incitement to violence and support for terrorism by Palestinian extremists like Hamas. And I will make clear my unequivocal opposition to Israeli settlement activity and to any moves in the direction of annexation of the West Bank.<br />
___________<br />
<br />
Biden’s response includes a lot of “shoulds”, and “musts” which may make sense, but he doesn’t seem to recognize the complexities of the seventy-two year old conflict whose roots go back to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Bernie thinks his simple solution, which has defied negotiations and included wars in 1948, 1956, 1963 and 1967, as well as conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, would be successful. Hamas, which controls Gaza is a militant, Islamic terrorist organization with armed components, which has denied Israel’s right to exist in its founding documents. It is supported by Iran and shows no interest in a diplomatic solution or in allowing it’s “replacement” as Biden suggests.<br />
The issues of the status of Jerusalem, the “right of return” of Palestinians to Israel proper, and existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank don’t seem to have been focused on by Biden. Jerusalem, where Warren wants to put a U.S. mission to the Palestinians is currently the capitol of Israel as declared by the government of Israel and by President Trump. The current political administration in Israel believes that a Palestinian state on it’s borders would inevitably be weaponized and only control over the disputed West Bank can maximize its security. Until a new administration comes about, and advocates a politically risky position towards a Palestinian state, the status quo is likely to be maintained.<br />
<br />
Also, without a change of governments in Israel, Bernie has already squandered his credibility for the U.S. to have “a major role to play in brokering” an agreement by calling Israeli Prime Minister a “racist” and now threatening to block U.S. military aid which has been vital to Israel’s survival through all these years. Even with such a change, Warren’s stated “plan” is heavily slanted towards accommodating the demands of the Palestinians. But she doesn’t acknowledge the problem of the lack of a single Palestinian government with which to negotiate. She states opposition to Hamas inspired violence but has no leverage to use to make them agree to a secure Israeli state. Jerusalem, as a capital for two independent and hostile states is fraught with political and practical problems and it’s status, as well as West Bank settlements and possible annexation cannot be dictated by any U.S. President. Bernie is correct on this; saying any final settlement must be negotiated by a unified Palestinian authority and the government of Israel whose national security is its primary concern and responsibility.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that President Trump has just announced that both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his major challenger in the March 2nd general election, General Benny Gantz of the more moderate Blue and White political party, are both coming to Washington D.C. to discuss the second phase of Trump’s “Peace Plan” for Israel and the Palestinians. The plan will be released prior to the visits and leaks from “informed sources” indicate that it will be strongly pro-Israel including U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the entire city of Jerusalem and the 100 plus Israeli settlements in the West Bank along with a highly limited “right of return” for Palestinians wishing to reenter Israeli proper.<br />
<br />
The Palestinian Authority which speaks for the West Bank portion of the Palestinian territories not including Gaza, has already said they will reject the new proposal as they did the first part which included substantial economic development in Gaza. The Trump proposal will probably be enthusiastically supported by the Netanyahu government. But he first must overcome an indictment for alleged corruption in office by a vote for immunity in the Knesset. Then he must put together a conservative coalition government even if his Lukud party wins a plurality in the election. His challanger, General Benny Gantz might take a different view of the proposal which essentially would make a Palestinian state in the West Bank an impossibility.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, a new Netanyahu government would almost certainly affirm its claim for sovereignty based on U.S. affirmation even if the peace plan is rejected by the Palestinians.<br />
The Democrat candidates will certainly reject and condemn the proposal but even if Trump is defeated, a new conservative Netanyahu government will proceed under its terms and make it difficult for a new Democrat administration in the U.S. to reject an official U.S. position after the fact.<br />
<br />
Conclusions:<br />
<br />
Biden seems to know far more history and details of the foreign policy issues queried by the Council on Foreign Relations. Sander’s shows little interest, apparently more focused on getting his “socialist revolution” started and transforming the economy and culture of the nation. Warren is just minimally informed and her constantly mentioned preference for multi-national “diplomacy” seems to indicate an aloofness and lack of leadership with difficult problems. Foreign policy doesn’t play a role in her election strategy. Promising trillions of dollars in government handouts has more private citizen appeal than instability in far away places. When forced to address those problems ,she ignores the fact that Iran, North Korea ,Hamas and Russia and China are not responsible negotiating participants. They all have adversarial intent and perceived national interests that run counter to U.S. goals. Warren and Sanders use “diplomacy” as an escape for a reluctance to the proposal of specific strategies. Thus for them, “diplomacy” becomes a strategy itself, but it isn’t. Diplomacy is a negotiating process which seeks to identify mutual interests between parties in the pursuit of strategic goals and compromise on other interests or implementation. Both, or all parties, must have goals and real strategies in mind in order to avoid prolonged and useless conversations with the attendant frustrations and political theater which can deepen the divide.<br />
<br />
Ir should go without saying that the roles of Commander in Chief and “chief diplomat” are extremely important components of presidential power. Trump has little experience in this are, but the does now have a three year record in trade relationships and national security. Voters should take the time to examine his record and the qualifications and current positions of his would be replacements which unfortunately, with the possible but uncertain, exception of Biden, seem to indicate a lack of knowledge, a naive dependency on ununified groups of "diplomatic partners" and a withdrawal from vital U.S. leadership. </div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-23647663825852366762019-11-26T13:30:00.001-07:002019-11-26T13:30:39.979-07:00IMPEACHMENT: FLAWS AND FOLLY<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The stability of the Executive branch of the United States has served as a hallmark of a functioning democracy since the creation of our constitutional republic 230 years ago. The wisdom of the framers of our Constitution has not only stood the test of time, it has proved its value in comparisons with the democratic parliamentary systems in Europe and the flawed and less democratic presidential systems in other parts of the world.<br />
<br />
Parliamentary changes of “government”, i.e. the executive branch, by the mechanism of “no confidence” votes or failed coalition governments in legislative bodies have created numerous periods of political instability, multiple divisive national elections and non-functioning governments in advanced democracies such as England, France, Israel and Italy, just to name a few. Prime Ministers in these nations have fallen to the failure to pass core policy initiatives and to “scandals” both political and personal. The high bar of the U.S. presidential fixed term and removal of a sitting President only through the purposely difficult impeachment process in the House of Representatives and conviction for the constitutionally mandated standard of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” by a 2/3 majority in the Senate, has spared the American people the instability and political chaos so common abroad.<br />
<br />
The 45 Presidents of the U.S. have included both strong and weak, effective and ineffective, and popular and unpopular individuals, but only two have been impeached i.e. charged, by the House of Representatives, and neither was removed from office by the Senate. President Nixon resigned office before he would certainly been impeached and removed for the “high crime” of accessory to felony burglary and to obstruction of justice in the subsequent investigation.<br />
<br />
The current charges and impeachment investigation being conducted by the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has, to date, provided more heat than light and so far has proved insufficient to meet the Constitutional requirement of “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors”. <br />
<br />
The Democratic effort is flawed on several levels. <br />
<br />
First, context and credibility:<br />
<br />
Democratic politicians and liberal activists went into a state of shock on election night, November 2nd, 2016,, when the blustery, iconoclastic, real estate developer billionaire with no political experience defeated the pre-ordained Democratic, life long political insider and chromosome entitled Hillary Clinton. That psychological trauma, more commonly described as<br />
“Trump derangement” still infects a large segment of the extreme Left today and has guided their actions since that fateful night three years ago.<br />
<br />
Overturning the election results before Trump was inaugurated in January, 2017 was the immediate emotional knee jerk response.<br />
<br />
First came an attempt to demand a recount in enough states with close results with the hope of changing the Electoral College count. This effort failed to meet the legal requirements regarding vote totals and was denied in federal court.<br />
<br />
But desperation can be the mother of invention and the next ploy was to convince enough Electors in the various states which Trump won to defy state laws which require them to vote for the candidate who won that states majority. One elector in Texas was convinced and abandoned law and principle, but the attempt on the national scale failed.<br />
<br />
Since then, Democrats, have claimed correctly that impeachment of a President by the House is not a legal/criminal process but a political exercise. However, while ignoring the Constitutional requirements for removal of the President by the Sen, they have fallen back on impeachment as a remedy for their frustration and emotional pain. Some demanded impeachment of Trump for alleged acts and things he said prior to winning the election and even before he took the oath of office. <br />
<br />
Faced with the obvious futility of these demands, Democrats found new hope when it became apparent that the Russians had attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 election using social media and hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers as well as Clinton’s e-mails and making their findings public through WikiLeaks.<br />
<br />
A Special Prosecutor was named by the Department of Justice and the two and one half year saga of the Mueller investigation into possible “collusion” between Trump, his campaign organization and the Russians stimulated a frenzy of hopes and predictions by the Left that Trump was sure to be politically destroyed. When the Mueller report was finally released it crashed, not with the sound of an explosion of scandal and malfeasance but with the soft thud of a waste of time and public money, accompanied by the wails of despair and denial by the Democrats. Mueller found no collusion between Trump, his campaign and the Russians, found that the Russian interference had no effect on the outcome of the election, and took no position on possible illegal attempts by Trump to obstruct justice in the inquiry.<br />
<br />
It is in this context of on going failed attempts to overturn the 2016 presidential election that the current Democratic “impeachment inquiry” and partisan investigations are taking place.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />
<br />
The ideological/partisan personal hate that is the basis for the continuous effort to overturn the 2016 election can perhaps best be displayed by the re-emergence of former Nixon Administration White House Counsel, John Dean who is exciting the Left wing media with his “expertise” on presidential impeachment. The 81 yr. old Dean who himself spent four months in prison for obstruction of justice in the Watergate cover up, has since tried to make a living writing books demonizing the Republican Party and its former officials. He has written that former President George W. Bush should have been impeached, and forgetting his “expertise” on the Constitutional requirements for impeachment and removal of a President from office, he said this about the Trump impeachment “inquiry”.<br />
<br />
-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>"I think this president probably should have been impeached the day he walked in," Dean said on CNN. "He's incompetent. He has a terrible attitude. He doesn't understand government. He is in there trying to build his own brand, and he's taking advantage of the office from day one.”<br />
<br />
Fortunately, the low standards for Trump derangement syndrome haven’t replaced the high standards of Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
Second:<br />
<br />
The Democrats are divided on what the most politically advantageous charges against President Trump should be emphasized. Politicians and pundits on the Left have argued since the “investigations” barely started that Trump is guilty of: abuse of power, bribery, illegal campaign donation solicitation, obstruction of justice, and illegal emoluments. Some simply say “all of the above”.<br />
<br />
While the impeachment process is indeed a political exercise and federal officials don’t have to break a law to be impeached (charged by the House), that is just the first stage but the standards for removal from office in the second stage of “treason, bribery or “other high crimes” and misdemeanors”, are all statutory based crimes as their plain language describes. In fairness, it should be noted that there exists a body of thought that this language can mean more than just crimes, and bills of impeachment by the House for lesser federal officials than the President have included non-criminal charges. Even so, this wider interpretation of the Constitutional language which was applied by the House Judiciary Committee with regards to the Nixon impeachment effort, reflects the need for very serious misconduct by the President.<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“The Framers intended that the impeachment language they employed should reflect the “grave misconduct that so injures or abuses our Constitutional institutions and form of government as to justify impeachment.” (Staff Report of Committee on the Judiciary: “Grounds for Presidential Impeachment”: Nixon: 1974)<br />
<br />
These standards makes it clear that removal from office, especially of a President, is not allowed because, you don’t like him or your candidate didn’t win, or even if he engages in “troubling” or “inappropriate” but legal behavior. <br />
<br />
Abuse of power:<br />
<br />
It is clear from the testimony of diplomatic and national security staff, that Trump tried to pressure the President of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into the Ukrainian energy company Burisma and some claims that the Ukraine, under their previous president, was involved somehow in the Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Trump also wanted the publicly announced investigations to include the possible roles of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden . The pressure was in the form of a delay on Ukrainian President Zelensky’s desire for a “heads of state” meeting with Trump and on the funding of $400 million in military aid.<br />
Internal investigations into a Ukrainian corporation based on possible corruption, which had been previously investigated by the Ukrainian government, would be perfectly legal and proper on the part of the Ukrainian President, with or without Trump’s request or pressure. Investigations into the Bidens relation to Burisma on whose Board of Directors Joe Biden’s son Hunter had held a seat paying him $60,000 a year since 2014, though legal, would be politically sensitive and generally considered “improper” if initiated by the U.S. President’s request given Joe Biden's potential candidacy in the 2020 U.S. federal election .<br />
<br />
The problem for the Democrats becomes the question: Did Trump's communications with the govt. of Ukraine personally in a phone call on July 24th, 2019, and through his subordinates, primarily his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, constitute an "abuse of power" because they referenced the Bidens, as well as the two month delay in the funding of the military aid, and did such an effort constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor"? Testimony by Lt. Colonel Alexander Vidman, Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council (NSC), who Democrats hoped would provide damaging information against President Trump, said that there had been a National Security Council opinion that Trump’s delay of the funding of the military aid was “legal” and based “on a purely legal point of view.”<br />
<br />
Thus the weakness in the argument is obvious. The legal temporary hold on the military aid was released on Sept. 11, 2019 and he "Heads of State" meeting desired by Zelensky, was held on Sept. 24th at the UN. No "quid pro quo", “something for something” ever came about because Zelensky never made a public announcement of any investigations into the 2016 U.S. elections or into Burisma and the Bidens. Trump's pressure, which never met the Constitutional requirement of “high crimes or other misdemeanors” anyway, and which he characterized as “a favor” in the phone call, failed.<br />
<br />
In addition, and specifically to the point, Ukrainian President Zelensky “has said repeatedly that he never felt extorted in his July 25 phone call with Trump. Zelensky told journalists on Sept. 25, “nobody pushed me.” During extensive discussions with some 300 journalists in Kiev, Zelensky said on Oct. 10: “There was no pressure or blackmail from the US.” (New York Post: 11-4-19).<br />
<br />
Bribery:<br />
<br />
With the weaknesses of the “abuse of power” claim becoming more apparent, House Democrats are talking up a switch to “bribery” which sounds more “criminal” and is less subjective in definition. But such a charge in reference to the Ukrainian affair requires a redefinition of significant proportions to push the square shape of the charge into the round hole of reality.<br />
<br />
The constitutional standard of bribery for impeachment implies an agreement between a President and another person in which, by acceptance of a personal monetary gift to the President, he uses his powers to provide a policy or services that personally benefits the other individual, a “quid pro quo” in reverse of the Ukrainian situation. Zelensky didn't make an initial offer of anything to induce Trump to offer military aid, which simply continued a long term policy of military support by the Obama Administration. Trump didn't agree to a request for military aid by Zelensky in return for something of monetary or any other kind of value. The military aid in question was legislation passed by the Congress as part of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Zelensky didn’t try and “bribe”Trump with anything and on the flip side of the coin, Trump didn't try and "bribe" Zelensky. The aid was a congressional appropriation which preceded the Trump-Zelensky phone call and was going to go out at some time and it did. Trump did try to pressure Zelensky, which most people agree was "improper" given the “possible” domestic election connection to a “possible” Joe Biden candidacy.<br />
<br />
Essentially, the big picture in which the impeachment process resides, explains the true nature of the exercise. It is just the latest attempt in a three year effort to overturn the 2016 election. All the previous attempts failed. This one will also fail also since it doesn’t have the support of a large majority of the American public, or even based on one recent poll, any majority.<br />
<br />
No impeachment effort in the House of Representatives should ever be undertaken without highly serious, provable offenses to support it; a bipartisan consensus to commence the procedure (not a single Republican member of the House voted to proceed with the “impeachment inquiry”); broad based public support for the effort and a high probability that the Senate will find the charges sufficient to take the drastic step of removing the President. <br />
<br />
This exclusively Democrat led process, fails to meet any of these important standards and the Democratic leadership knows this. So the only possible explanation for their motivation is to attempt to further discredit the President in an effort to win the 2020 presidential election.<br />
The Democratic majority has simply usurped the responsibilities and legislative functions of the House to carry out a partisan election “dirty trick”.</div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-12337350003158124622019-04-25T15:48:00.000-06:002019-04-25T15:48:54.973-06:00TRUMP, ISRAEL, AND THE DOMESTIC POLITICS OF FOREIGN POLICY<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">While the attention of the nation is being focused by the media on the early stages of the crowded Democratic presidential primary campaign, important events in the international arena are happening. These events could give the many Democratic candidates an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, or at least informed awareness, of international relations. But for the most part the candidates are still caught up in a competition of slogans, Left wing “grand” promises, and condemnation of President Trump, all of which avoid hard questions and detailed answers.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">One important event that impacts U.S. interests and has an domestic political consequences as well, was the recent parliamentary election in Israel. The regional implications of the election are enormous. The complex Israeli/Palestinian conflict which has been a source of international tension and war since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 remains unsettled and in apparent stalemate despite changes over the years in the political leadership of both Israel and the Palestinians and their supporters. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The history of the conflict shows a spectrum of political and military support by American presidential administrations but the political significance of the recent election in Israel and the 2016 election of Donald Trump has potentially redefined the relationship between the two nations.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The Israeli election was won by a prospective coalition of conservative, nationalist and religious political parties. The largest of these was the Likud Party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu who has been the incumbent Prime Minister for three previous, though not consecutive terms of office.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">It was a very close election, a virtually unavoidable condition based on the structure of the Israeli government and political process. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Israel has a parliamentary system which means that voters don’t vote directly for the head of government. They vote for lists of candidates submitted by political parties which will determine the make-up of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Membership is determined by proportional representation based on each party’s percentage of the voter’s preferences in the total vote. The head of the largest party based on the new make-up of the legislature is usually chosen by the President of Israel, a mostly symbolic office, to “form a government”. That means picking cabinet secretaries from among a coalition parties to create an executive branch. The problem in Israel is that the political spectrum is fractured into a great number of political parties, sometimes as many as 40. Parties much achieve at least 3.25% of the total vote to gain seats in the Knesset which has only 120 members. Achieving an absolute majority by any single party has been impossible for the entire history of the nation. In a close contest, several coalition partners may be necessary and often results in a “strange bedfellows”, and sometimes contentious executive branch, as cabinet seats are doled out to minor parties with their own political agendas.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">This was the result in the recent election. The Likud Party won only 30% of the vote and 36 seats in the Knesset, narrowly beating their major rival, the new Blue and White Party which won 29.2%. and 35 seats. This requires Netanyahu to create a majority of 61 seats from among the conservative portion of the remaining 49 seats won by smaller parties. This he appears to have done by prior agreement, creating a ten seat majority in the Knesset with several conservative and religious parties.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The U.S. political connection with this recent event represents both a long term relationship of support and a new environment with potentially serious problems.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">President Trump has been “Israeli friendly” since taking office in January, 2017. This has been a notable contrast with the tensions between the two nations during the Obama Administration. Still, Trump’s orientation has reflected the generally tolerant to supportive alignment of the U.S. since the post WWII international discussions relating to the creation of the state of Israel. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"> On November 29th, 1947, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution affirming the recommendations of it’s Special Committee on Palestine (SCOP) which devised a partition of the former League of Nations British Mandate of Palestine. The partition divided the territory between a new Jewish Provisional Government of Israel and a proposed Arab state.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">On May 14, 1948 the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed itself a new independent state and President Truman personally recognized the new government as the legal governing authority of the new state of Israel. The next day a coalition of regional arab states attacked Israel and the First Arab-Israeli War began. Although the Truman administration provided little material support, Israel successfully repelled the Arab forces and UN sponsored cease fire agreements were negotiated.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">However, Israel’s relationship with the U.S. has not always overcome all policy disagreements, as in the 1956 Suez Crisis, the Second Arab-Israeli War. The conflict began when Israeli, French and British troops attempted to take control of the Suez Canal after Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized it. President Eisenhower facing threats by the Soviet Union to intervene, ordered the French, British and Israel forces to withdraw or face economic sanctions, which they did. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Presidents Kennedy and Johnson in cooperation with the British, sought to avoid a military arms race in the region and withheld arms sales to Israel after the Suez conflict. But Soviet arms transfers to Egypt and Syria upset the balance and President Johnson changed U.S. policy in support of Israel with significant armor and aircraft sales. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Arab nationalism led by Egypt’s Nasser, and a series of terrorist attacks on Israel from Jordan connected to the issue of the partition of Palestine, complicated the Cold War issues and resulted in the 1967 “Six Day War” between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan. This was the Third Arab/Israeli War and resulted in a complete Israeli victory including a large expansion of territory in the Egyptian controlled Sinai Peninsula; the mountainous Syrian border with Israel called the Golan heights, and the West Bank territories and Eastern portion of the city of Jerusalem controlled by Jordan.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">After, the Six Day War, the U.S. under President Nixon tried once again to achieve a more permanent settlement of hostilities by supporting UN Resolution 242 that required Israel and its Arab neighbors to conclude peace treaties in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory. These attempts failed as the parties could not come to an agreement. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">In 1970, after the death of Egypt’s Nasser, Anwar el-Sadat became the President. Hoping to regain control of the territory lost to Israel in 1967 and persuade Israel that the never ending conflict with Egypt was not in Israel’s national interests, he made a new compact with Syria and plotted a surprise attack on the formerly Egyptian territory of the Sinai. It began on October 6, 1973 while Syrian forces attempted to retake the Golan Heights. Thus began The Fourth Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Yom Kippur War because October 6, was the similarly named Jewish holy day. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The surprise was successful and the combined Arab forces armed with up to date Soviet weapons, made early advances. The Nixon Administration provided massive amounts of military equipment to Israel and the Israeli armed forces managed a successful counter attack. Th conflict soon turned into another military disaster for the Arab forces including the successful encirclement of Egypt’s Third Army just East of the Suez Canal. However, the war, and Israel’s military domination set the stage for a series of peace negotiations between the Egypt and Israel.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">In 1974, the first of two Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreements providing for the return of portions of the Sinai to Egypt were signed. In 1978 Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin met in the U.S. at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, in what was to be an historic event. After tough negotiations, a framework for a future peace agreement was reached and in March, 1979 a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was signed. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">In general terms, the policy of all U.S. administrations after the creation of the Jewish state, has been to create stability in the region, seek balance in terms of military capabilities, and encourage a permanent peace through negotiations. An underlying approach was to minimize regional influence by the Soviet Union and to assist Israel at times when they faced the possibility of military defeat at the hands of the Arab states. The Camp David Accords and the following Israeli/Egyptian peace treaty changed the character of the conflict by removing Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab state, from future region- wide Arab/Israeli wars. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Despite the significance of the Israeli/Egypt peace treaty and a subsequent peace treaty with Jordan, the peace has not come to the area. The creation of an Arab (Palestinian) state as provided by the UN partition proposal and which was rejected immediately by the Arab states, has never been accomplished. Armed conflict, limited and wide, between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization created in 1964 and led by Yassir Arafat from 1969 until his death in 2004, wars with Hamas, the terrorist and political organization in control of the Gaza Strip, the “Arab Spring” revolts which failed in Egypt and is still ongoing in Syria, cross border terrorist attacks from Gaza and the Palestinian territories in the West Bank, all have produced constant conflict since the end of the 1973 war.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">From the beginning, in 1948, all U.S. presidents have also supported the original concept of UN Resolution 181 which called for the partition of the Palestinian Mandate into a Jewish and an Arab state as the only effective way to end the now 71 year old conflict. Now commonly just called the “Two State Solution”, it remains as complicated as always. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">While the Cold War has ended, new entities have entered the environment. Iran, has declared itself a permanent and implacable foe of the state of Israel, even calling for it’s annihilation. Iranian and Russian forces have entered the civil war in Syria and along with Iran’s proxy terrorist organization Hezbollah located in Lebanon and now also fighting in Syria. Hamas, in Gaza also refuses Israel’s “right to exist” and is in a permanent state of hostilities with Israel which has occasioned several major conflicts with the Israeli Defense Forces. The Palestinian Authority, which was created by the Oslo Accords in 1993, is in administrative control of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank, thus creating a divided Palestinian government. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"> U.S. relations with Israel have always been considered in the larger Middle East regional context with most regional consideration going to the primary players, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. However, Iran’s growing influence and development of a nuclear research program with possible military applications created a new source of instability and ramifications to the long term Arab/Israeli conundrum.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Iran has been the target of economic sanctions since 1979 when Iranian militants occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took the diplomatic staff hostage. The hostage crisis ended on January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President of the United States.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">However, in the ensuing years the U.S., the EU and the UN Security Council added additional, and broader economic sanctions against Iran in connection with their support of international terrorism and their nuclear development program. On July 14, 2015, after months of negotiations, the “ P5+1" nations (UNSC permanent members plus Germany) signed an agreement with Iran called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which began a process of reducing the sanctions on Iran contingent on Iran adopting limits on its nuclear fuel processing production and nuclear weapons technology. The plan came into effect on October 18th of that year.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The plan had been a special project of President Obama who had been seen during his first term by the Israeli government as a committed friend and ally. “Obama put an end to the linking of loan guarantees to Israel’s spending on settlement construction and increased defense assistance to Israel to the unprecedented level of $38 billion over 10 years, making permanent hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to Israel’s anti-missile programs. He authorized assistance to Iron Dome, the short-range anti-missile system that has proven critical in Israel’s three wars since 2009 with Hamas on its border with the Gaza Strip. ," (TJP 7/28/18).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">However, Obama as a candidate for President had expressed a level of disdain for Likud, the Israel’s largest conservative party whose leader at the time was Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama, like the last several American Presidents had hoped to be the arbiter of the evasive solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and Netanyahu and Likud represented a hard line, security oriented approach which seemed to Obama as inflexible and an obstacle to productive negotiations. The problem became more real by the fact that shortly after Obama was inaugurated in 2009, Likud led a conservative coalition to victory in the Israeli Knesset elections of the same year and Netanyahu once again became Prime Minister. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">In 2011, in a speech outlining his approach to Israeli/Palestinian peace negotiations Obama included the controversial requirement that Israel withdraw to it’s pre-1967 borders as stipulated in UN Resolution 242 but which had been rejected for years by the establishment of numerous Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He later ordered his UN Ambassador not to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Israeli policy of creating the settlements; a departure from all previous U.S. president’s policies of defending Israel when each of many anti-Israel UN Resolutions were submitted for votes in the Security Council.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The Iran nuclear deal, JCPA, approved in 2015 was the breaking point between the Obama Administration and Netanyahu’s government. Netanyahu was adamantly opposed to the deal and came to the U.S. to appeal to Republicans in the Congress to kill the deal. He complained that; “. . .A nuclear-armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief,”. He made the point to Obama and the rest of the P5+1, that the JCPA was a temporary diplomatic achievement but to Israel it was a threat to their very existence.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The U.S. presidential election of 2016 has fundamentally changed the U.S./Israeli relationship and Netanyahu’s victory in 2019 cements that relationship at least until the 2020 U.S. presidential election.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The French Ambassador to the U.S. who is also the former Ambassador to Israel, recently said that Trump was more popular in Israel than Netanyahu. If that is so, it can be partially explained by the tenuous Netanyahu/Obama relationship which featured open disdain on both sides. Trump has supported Israel both diplomatically and materially. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">On December 6, 2017 Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his plans to move the U.S. embassy there. Although Israel’s important government offices were located there, they are in the western half of the city. The Palestinian position was that East Jerusalem was to be the capital of the future Palestinian state. Also , though Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama had all said they would move the embassy, all had deferred to what was the pro forma U.S. and EU position of keeping all territorial issues in the conflict on the table to help stimulate negotiations between the parties. Thus Trump’s recognition of the entire city which had been under Israeli occupation since the 1967 War, as Israel’s capital, was a major blow to the Palestinian view of a “two state solution”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">On May 8, 2018, fulfilling a campaign promise, Trump announced the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (PCPOA), the “Iran Nuclear Deal”. Calling the agreement deeply flawed and dangerous, he reimposed U.S. economic sanctions and handed Prime Minister Netanyahu a major diplomatic and political gift. The effect was to destroy Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement and reimpose significant economic pressure on the government of Iran.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Trump wasn’t finished in his rebuilding of the U.S. relationship with Netanyahu. On May 25, 2019, he surprised his own State Department and U.S. allies in Europe by announcing that the U.S. government now recognized Israel’s claims to the Golan Heights region on the border with Syria. This territorial, under Israeli occupation since 1967 had also been viewed by the EU leadership and Syria as a negotiable component of a broader Arab/Palestinian/ Israeli peace plan.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Of course Trump was simply rejecting diplomatic maneuvering and recognizing the reality that no Israeli government was going to relinquish control of the strategically important defensive region which had gained greater importance since the Iranian entry into the Syrian civil war.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">It is believed by some political observers in Israel that Trump’s pro-Israeli acts and the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in Golan helped Netanyahu build his conservative coalition to win the parliamentary elections in April, 2019.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">During the campaign and encouraged by Trump’s support, Netanyahu stunned the international community by saying if elected Prime Minister he would assume sovereignty over the @131 (in 2017) Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This promise, if accomplished, in combination with Trump’s recognition of all of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would effectively end the seventy-one year old prospect of a “two state solution” to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Of course, Netanyahu may delay, modify, or even reject such a plan in the face of what will be certain international pressure. And, Netanyahu will not always be the Prime Minister and head of a governing conservative coalition. Future Prime Ministers could have a very different approach. Still, there are an estimated 413,400 Israelis living in the 131 modern villages (settlements) and “outposts” in the West Bank. An additional 209,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem, presenting an enormous obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state in these areas.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Prior to Netanyahu’s “sovereignty” announcement, a Trump “peace plan” had been in negotiation for about two years, led by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. After Netanyahu’s announcement, Kushner announced that the plan which was to be revealed in April, would now be delayed until sometime in June, apparently signaling that adjustments would have to be made to accommodate what appears to be an intractable blockade into any proposed “two state solution”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Now, in the beginning of the Democratic presidential primary campaign with an ever growing crowd of candidates competing for headlines by attacking Trump, all his policies, and everyone connected to him, including the Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli/American relationship is at risk of becoming a domestic political football. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Former House Representative Robert (Beto) O’Rourke who the media declared a viable Democratic candidate after losing his campaign for the Senate from Texas in the 2018 mid-term elections provides an unfortunate example. In a highly contradictory campaign speech in April, he declared that :</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"> “The US-Israeli relationship is among the most important "on the planet" .That relationship, if it is to be successful, must transcend partisanship in the United States, and it must be able to transcend a prime minister (Netanyahu) who is racist, as he warns about Arabs coming to the polls, who wants to defy any prospect for peace as he threatens to annex the West Bank, and who has sided with a far-right, racist party in order to maintain his hold on power," </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">O'Rourke continued, saying he did not believe Netanyahu "represents the true will of the Israeli people" or the "best interests" of the relationship between the US and Israel. “Beto” went on to endorse a two-state solution to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Thus “Beto”, believes that the all important U.S. relationship with Israel must “transcend partisanship in the United States.”? The partisan divide in support of the state of Israel is obvious and is being led by members of Beto’s Democratic Party. The “first” two Muslim female members of the House of Representatives were elected in the 2018 mid-term elections. Somali born Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has made attacks on Jewish organizations and Israel the most prominent part of her new status as a member of Congress. In May she claimed the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) was “funding Republican support for Israel”causing a major controversy . In spite of the fact that AIPAC offers no financial support for political parties, she went on to say she was “simply criticizing Israel.” She went on to “clarify” that she was opposed to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and “the occupation” (of the West Bank).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"> “Palestinian-American”, Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) a highly partisan, vociferously crude, anti- Trump newcomer, supports Omar and since being elected says she rejects a “two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and now supports a “one state solution” and canceling U.S. aid to Israel. A “one state solution” is essentially the incorporation of millions of Palestinian Arabs into the state of Israel and the elimination of the Jewish state. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"> Both Tlaib and Omar support the Left wing Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement popular among U.S. college students and faculties. One of the goals of the international BDS movement is the “right of return” for all Palestinians and their descendants who lived in the territory of what is now the state of Israel prior to its UN recognized independence in 1948, a similar tactic to a “one state solution”. “Transcending partisanship” in the U.S. doesn’t seem to be a possibility.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Beto” also believes that the U.S. relationship must “transcend a Prime Minister (Netanyahu) who is racist”. Transcend (ignore?) the head of government of “one of the most important relationships on the planet”? Does O’Rourke really believe that should he actually become the President, dismissing that head of government of Israel by calling him a “racist” will lead to an improved or even viable “relationship”?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Unsurprisingly, self described “socialist” candidate Bernie Sanders, hater of all things conservative, foreign and domestic, agrees: “ Israel is currently run by a “right-wing, racist government”, Bernie says, thus establishing his own “relationship” with the vitally important state of Israel.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">“ Beto” shows his lack of understanding of the highly complex nature and history of the challenges facing the Israeli state when he simplifies the conflict to a simple choice of a “two state solution”’ That goal has been negotiated since the original Partition Plan of the UN’s Special Committee on Palestine and was rejected by the Arab states resulting in the First Arab/Israeli war. Bernie knows better but just doesn’t care.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Similar “solutions” have been rejected by the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s leader Yassir Arafat and currently by Hamas, the political leadership in Gaza, which still calls for the eradication of Israel.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Beto” concluded his simplistic and uninformed comments with the assertion that he does “not believe that Netanyahu "represents the true will of the Israeli people . ..” This is a very difficult claim to justify given that Netanyahu has just been elected in a democratic process for his fourth term as Prime Minister.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Prime Minister Netanyahu is a realist who for his whole political career has been faced with the problem of armed aggression by larger, regional states in three general wars, numerous limited wars against the PLO and Hamas, three violent general uprisings (Intifadas) by the Palestinians, decades of cross border terrorism, and rocket attacks and threats by Hamas and now Iran, to destroy his nation. He, and all other heads of the Israeli government have had to defend a tiny country, of only 8,355 square miles, only 9.3 miles wide at its most narrow point between the West Bank, the proposed site of a Palestinian State, and the Mediterranean Sea. Netanyahu sees such a state as an inherently hostile threat to Israel’s existence. His positions are not about race but about security. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">As the history of the conflict shows, there are no easy answers. The domestic partisan hatred of Trump has extended to his foreign policies and the foreign beneficiaries of those policies. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Israel is America’s only ally in the volatile and important Middle East region. It is also the only democratic nation in the region, and possessed of one of the most efficient militaries and intelligence services in the world. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Former four star general and Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration, Alexander Haig once said that: “Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">If any of the prospective Democratic U.S. Presidents want to have a productive relationship with the dominant player in the conflict, they must avoid the presumption of telling Israelis that they know what is best for them for the protection of their very existence as a nation. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Putting pressure on Israel to “negotiate” is pointless without a first fundamental change. There can be no negotiation for peace as long as the Palestinians are governed by two separate and opposing governments in the West Bank and in Gaza and while one such government, Hamas, refuses the “right of Israel to exist”. </span></span></div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-4238103843735624912019-01-16T15:53:00.000-07:002019-01-16T15:53:02.460-07:00THE PARTY'S HAVING A PARTY!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">It’s begun. The Democratic Party is having a party. It’s a theme party called the Democratic Presidential Primary Campaign and self invitees are all coming as “candidates for POTUS”. It’s also a progressive party (in both common usages of the word), with the formal festivities starting in June, 2019 with a fun debate between the party goers. Then those who choose to keep on dancing will move to eleven similar events over a monthly schedule. Prizes in the form of “who won” and who is still “viable”will be awarded by pollsters and the media eager to influence the outcomes. Participation trophies, although probably the motive of some, won’t be handed out.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Currently, the number of celebrants appears to be somewhere around 40-45, an unrealistic and unmanageable group but a number that is sure to sink as the reality of the cost of participation takes hold. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Why such an unprecedented large number of contestants? Several reasons new to presidential politics are in play.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">First, and most important is the remarkable upset 2016 victory by the current incumbent of the other party. The guiding belief among the crowd trying to push their way into White House is that “if an obnoxious, erratic, billionaire real estate developer with no political background or experience can be elected President, then anyone can.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Second is the belief, the product of a two year drumbeat of mainstream and social media angst, hate and derision, that this President is a political disaster who anyone can defeat. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Third is the effect of social media on the money problem. In 2016, Bernie Sanders had relative success raising large sums of money in the form of small donations from large numbers of individuals using social media as the point of contact. This has fostered the belief that a viable campaign can be financed without the traditional support of large donors or self funding by rich candidates. Of course Bernie was out resourced and defeated by Hillary who employed no such restraints on fund raising, but no matter, the dream lives on. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Taking a short look at the “interested” candidates shows a common thread among the long list of physically and regionally diverse individuals. With few exceptions, the possible candidates are, or have been pushed, far to the Left. But there is considerable variation in the traditional characteristics and qualifications of the pre-Trump candidacy.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Because the Democratic (and Republican) primaries are state based, unlike national primaries in some countries, the appeal of candidates can vary greatly based on local cultural and ideological characteristics and thus not closely reflect national preferences. This is important because the larger, most populace states send larger numbers of delegates to the nominating conventions. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In the Democrats case, most of the larger population states are the bastions of the most Left wing elements of the Party: California (San Francisco, LA); New York (NYC); Illinois (Chicago).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Texas and Florida may be more moderate as a whole but this is still just the Democrats in action and “Beto mania” in Texas is a bad sign in the search for moderation. Thus a far Left candidate out of touch with the more moderate national population might create a problem for the Democrats in the general election. George McGovern and Michael Dukakis come to mind.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">How will Democrat primary voters sort out this proliferation of almost like minded liberals?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">First, things have changed since 2016. The Democrats have divided themselves into competing identity groups, so for now, the traditional (pre-Trump) evaluations of candidates mostly based on qualifications like political experience and previous success, have taken a back seat to things like, age, sex, race, and level of hostility towards Trump and Republicans.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">One less narrow characteristic is still acknowledged by experienced pundits however and thus seems to have survived in the background. This is “likeability”. Maybe this will be the great separator in the final determination. It’s impossible to know much about the personalities of so many candidates but a look at one of the “front runners” may be informative.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Here is Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) who a couple of long term Democrats watching one of her recent speeches in Iowa had eye rolling fits declaring her “boring”. In an attempt to look chummy and like one of the regular guys, the Harvard law professor posted a video on Instagram from her kitchen where she popped open a brewski and drank it out of the bottle. That was it; no political message attached. Sorry Warren advisers, this cringe worthy episode looked like an obvious re-run of Hillary’s 2008 election visit to a tavern in Crown Point, Indiana where she tossed down a shot of Crown Royal Canadian whiskey and a beer chaser with the guys, duly recorded in a video. At least neither Hillary nor Warren were wearing camo but it’s probably not a good plan to use Hillary as a campaign role model.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Likeability aside, here’s a simple classification of the possible candidates as a starter. Unlike Trump, all of the possible Democratic candidates are politicians or former politicians although there are important differences in experience. At the outset, the primary battle seems to be shaping up as a battle between the radical left and the establishment left; the young Left and the old Left; the diversity Left and accepting of white males Left. There is some overlap and some contradictions among the candidates however.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The Radical Left:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Independent, Senator from the rural commune of Vermont, who did unexpectedly well against the Clinton/DNC team in 2016. Bernie’s anti-capitalist, “revolutionary” rhetoric and goals attract a mix of young radicals and some so called “millennials”. But at age 77 now, and 80 if assuming office in January 2021, Bernie runs into trouble with the “old white guys” barrier which has become a popular meme among the “new Left” since 2016. Never mind that according to the “experts” on “political correctness”, college sophomores nation wide, this hostility is “ageist”, “racist”, and “sexist”. But Bernie will still excite some college radicals and get the liberal geezer vote.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The Identity Politics Left:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">This was tried with mixed success, working for Obama who ran in 2008 as “the first Black President to be” and garnering 95 percent of the black vote. To be fair, that vote was not enough to win and he attracted majorities from Hispanics , 67%, and Asians 67% well as 43% of the white vote to give him the win. But the fact that he was an historically important candidate by virtue of his race can not be denied as contributing to his appeal. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Hillary ran her “I am woman” “break the glass ceiling” campaigns in both 2008 and 2016 and came up short in both. Also, in 2008 Obama was the only minority candidate and Hillary was the only female. This was also true for her in 2016. The situation for 2020 is more daunting for such candidates because there are several of each which will split the vote of these blocs. Still, the motivation for this appeal appears enticing to many because of the clamor by the Left for “new leadership” which in many cases translates into the anti-“old white men” narrative.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Cory Booker: The black Senator from New Jersey and former Mayor of Newark, NJ. Booker is a fast talker with a tendency to shouting and theatrics who has made, and will continue to make race a national campaign issue if he runs as expected. This may win him approval with minority voters but could complicate the campaigns of the other minority candidates and hurt him with the non-minority majority of voters who are experiencing “race issue fatigue”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Eric Holder: The former Attorney General in Obama’s first administration is known as “the first Black AG”. He’s intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable about the political process in Washington D.C. He is also highly partisan and was oriented towards the racial implications of social justice issues as Attorney General. Ironically, he is the quintessential Washington “establishment” insider, going back and forth between a high profile law firm and government most of his career. Also, in January, 2021 he will be an “old black man” of 70. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Kamala Harris: The current junior Senator from California. Harris’s political background is limited to her stint as District Attorney for San Francisco and then Attorney General of California. Thus she’s a high profile minority in California but not so much nationally. She is also currently light on the credentials side of the political ledger for the common but outdated “Leader of the free world” label. The “what about Trump” response doesn’t work for her or anyone else unless the Democrats are willing to accept the Trump anomaly as the new standard for POTUS. She has tried to boost her status and name identification mostly by media coverage of the nomination hearings for former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, taking an overly hostile and confrontational approach which led the media to some how conflate rudeness as a positive attitude along with her being a black female and thus a “potential” presidential candidate. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Julian Castro: The former mayor of San Antonio, TX whose youth , 44, and third generation immigrant status check two of the boxes for the “new blood and diversity” movement in the Democratic Party. Castro is the “ Hispanic candidate”. He portrays his brief political career as an example of how the nation’s largest minority group can achieve status and success. His issues as Mayor and then as Obama’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development were immigration, early education, and then housing assistance, and disaster relief. He set himself on a political fast track starting with college politics at Stanford University. He became the youngest member of the San Antonio City Council and then the youngest mayor. He followed in Obama’s footsteps to gain attention as a Democratic “rising star” by delivering the keynote address at the 2012 Democratic National Convention before joining the Obama Administration. He was mentioned, and then passed over, as Hillary’s Vice Presidential running mate. With his thin resume’ and narrow focus on his Hispanic minority appeal which nevertheless would be important in “red” Texas, and “battleground” Florida, he looks more like a Vice Presidential candidate than a top of the ticket player, and that may well be part of his well planned political assent. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Tulsi Gabbard: Gabbard is a mixed race female whose background doesn’t offer support specific to a politically important minority group. Born in American Samoa, her father is also mixed race, Samoan/Causcasion. He mother is Caucasian but is a practicing Hindu. Gabbard is herself a practicing Hindu. Her credentials for the presidency are had to find. Her political experience includes the Honolulu city council and two years in the Hawaii House of Representatives and six years in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing the district combining Honolulu and surrounding small towns. She is apparently trying to use her veteran status from two Middle East tours in the Hawaii National Guard as resume’ filler. But, and it’s a really big “but”, the ever vigilant far Left is already shouting heresy about Gabbard’s past positions while a legislator in Hawaii. Like her father, a Catholic active in his church and a state senator, she espoused anti-gay positions and legislation. She has since claimed that she has “evolved” and apologized to the unforgiving activists on these issues. “But”, again, she has praised Russia’s Putin for bombing Islamist insurgents in Syria and criticized Obama for not doing the same. She has endorsed torture in extreme situations affecting U.S. national security and visited Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. She is also connected to an extremist, anti-Islamic Hindu religious/political group in India. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">It took Charles Darwin’s evolution process about 3 million years to produce a walking, talking, modern, radical leftist Democrat (mistakes do happen; look at the duck billed platypus ). But the amount of “evolving” Gabbard will have to claim to the forces of the Left and a hostile media to get past these politically incorrect heresies will resemble the Darwin process.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Women: The 2018 elections had a large number of female candidates and resulted in a record number of female members for the U.S. House of Representatives, virtually all Democrats.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">This has pushed a narrative among the “Progressive” wing of the party that a woman should be on the Democratic ticket, preferably at the top but at least in line for the top as the Vice Presidential candidate.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">No conditional requirement for such things as competence, experience, or leadership has been attached to the demand, as this is either assumed for all potential female candidates or is deemed less important than the symbolic achievement i.e. the “glass ceiling”. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The result is that there are at least five female candidates so far. Two, Harris and Gabbard are looking for support as possessors of all three “time for a . . .” characteristics, i.e. “young”, “woman”, “person of color”. The third, Elizabeth Warren, morphed into an “old white woman” after her DNA fiasco took away her tomahawk, but many on the Left will probably forgive her being white, (“hey, she tried!”) if she looks like a front runner.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The remaining women who are prominently mentioned are New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobochar. They both currently suffer from significant name identification problems and associated political records which don’t stand out from the crowd.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">To raise money and generate enthusiasm, both will have to have high level performances in the numerous “debates”, which will be difficult given the initial high number of participants and the soft ball questions typically asked by the self-important moderators.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">However, lacking controversy in their quasi-anonymity, they would both probably be safe choices for vice president by a male nominee seeking to “balance the ticket”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">That leaves most of the announced and speculative candidates who don’t fit into an obvious sub-category and who with a few exceptions can be only be described as “long shots”. These are all sitting or former politicians and number about fifteen with perhaps more waiting in the wings. The few prominent exceptions are the “old white men” Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"> Bernie, a 2016 candidate who generated unexpected enthusiasm will probably be forgiven by his core supporters for not being able to pick his parents or sex and living too long. Joe Biden, former Vice President in the Obama administration will likely benefit from an “admiration by association” effect with Obama. Biden’s support, though currently leading others in early polls, can be partially, or even largely, attributed to that fact that Democrats know who he is. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"> His support however, seems to lack the emotional intensity of the “progressive” identity groups which include younger activists and voters. Joe is “a good old boy”, a double edged attribute in the current political environment.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Michael Bloomberg, is a “former”; a former mayor of New York City; a former Republican; a former Independent, and formerly young. Now he is a current billionaire, and “old white man” and a Democrat.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">He’s intelligent, sophisticated, money wise and politically astute. But he seems like a political anachronism and thus politically irrelevant in the new quest for political change. Nevertheless, he has the personal resources to stay in the race while the field narrows.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The other exception to the mostly anonymous group is Robert Francis (Beto) O’Rourke. He’s not old (46), but he is a man. He’s a little short on old fashioned presidential qualifications with just two terms representing the El Paso, TX area in the House of Representatives but he became a media made celebrity by losing (narrowly) to Ted Cruz in the 2018 race for Senator. He thus achieved “rising star” status after months of pre-election liberal media assertions that he was turning conservative Texas “blue”. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In terms of policy O’Rourke tried to walk the tight rope of not sounding to liberal to Texans while not offending his supporters by sounding too conservative. He did most of this by limiting his policy preferences to generalistic platitudes about “more opportunity”, “better health”, “better education” etc. He affirmed his loyalty to the Second Amendment on gun rights, a necessity in Texas, but gambled with a call for universal background checks and a ban on “assault rifles” and large capacity magazines. He may have over reached as far as the national progressive movement’s Republican haters and “resistance” movement are concerned with this quote from his senatorial campaign web site: </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“ He has made it a priority to work across the aisle to secure bipartisan support for his legislation, because Beto knows our country is at its best when we can put party aside to work together, build consensus and find common ground.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">So essentially, he probably has fallen into the possible Vice Presidential candidate category if a female becomes the Democratic candidate for President. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The Rest of the Herd: Have you ever heard of John Delaney, Eric Swawell,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"> Richard Ojeda? How about Steve Bulluck, Pete Buttigieg, Roy Cooper? These are announced candidates for President; there are others. These are all elected officials at the state, local and national level who have grand ambitions and believe that “Anyone can be President of the U.S. if . . .” But presidential politics has become a billion dollar popularity contest which includes a level of viciousness and character assassination carried out without accountability on social media, ideologically steeped web sites and opinion pages. If you haven’t already been “vetted” i.e. examined from birth for social insensitivities, and are now forced to build name identification starting from scratch, you have an enormous challenge. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In the initial stages of the campaign, the candidates will run against Trump not each other. They will engage in similar panel show discourse with generalities, platitudes and rally slogans about “income inequality”, the threat to the environment, middle class tax cuts, jobs, “the wall”, “immigration reform” etc. Even in the early debates, they will be reluctant to offend the other candidates supporters by strong criticism of each other. But eventually, with so many candidates, the realization that in order to achieve some separation in the polls will become apparent and they will have to engage in separation from their competitor’s policy goals. They all can’t be for and against the same things. Then is will get nastier and more interesting. The money will follow the polls and the media’s “who won the debate” pronouncements and the herd will be thinned quickly.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In the mean time Trump will go crazy trying to Tweet insults about this many candidates but he’s up to the challenge.</span></span></div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-17366021493022150222018-11-28T15:21:00.000-07:002018-11-28T15:27:25.434-07:00 KHASHOGGI: TRUMP IS RIGHT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">On October 2, 2018 Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian citizen living in the United States since June, 2017, went to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul,Turkey to obtain Saudi marriage documents. He never left the Consulate. It was later determined that a team of Saudi executioners attacked and killed Khashoggi and disposed of his body, which has yet to be found.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The incident has since become an international <i>cause célèbre </i>especially among a few Western European states, Turkey, and even more so in the United States. Why this is so is interesting considering that while state sponsored murder is condemnable in any context, it is also unfortunately, historically and contemporarily commonplace, even on a much greater scale. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The International Criminal Court (ICC) has indicted and prosecuted leaders of Serbia, and African nations for genocides involving thousands of civilians. The Russian government, led by Vladimir Putin has been accused of assassinating and trying to assassinate Russian citizens living in both Russia and England. Civilian Al Qassam Brigades suicide bombers sponsored by the governing Hamas party in Gaza have killed not only themselves at the instruction of their government but hundreds of Israeli citizens and are ignored or even praised by some as simply “resistors”. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">What makes the Khashoggi case different is again context. Although Khashoggi was a Saudi citizen, killed in a Saudi government facility, by Saudi operatives, his death is being described as particularly heinous, first, because he was a political dissident highly critical of the autocratic, and in many ways, medieval, government of the Saudi kingdom. Also, Khashoggi’s murder appears to have been given special significance in the U.S. because he was a temporary legal resident and an opinion contributor to the Washington Post.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">But the Khashoggi affair has quickly been politicized. Trump has adopted a realistic position towards the Saudi kingdom choosing not to jeopardize America’s influence and vital interests with Saudi Arabia based on the important role it plays in Middle East politics and yes, in the world’s energy markets. Democrats see it as yet another opportunity to attack and discredit President Trump, and some Republican politicians like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) haven’t been able to resist the urge to adopt a morally superior attitude usually favored by liberals by declaring that the Saudi head of government, Mohammed bin Salman is “insane”, and that he “won’t deal with him” in any capacity. That politically motivated proclamation while being irresponsible, is also a safe threat to make since Senator Graham is not in a position to deal with Saudi Arabia in any way save his own vote in the Senate.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">This position fits neatly with the other dire exaggerations coming from the Left which howl about Trump abandoning “American values” and “giving a green light to the world’s dictators to commit murder.” Trump of course declared the Khashoggi murder to be “ . . .an unacceptable and horrible crime.” But that is not enough for his critics, many of whom on the Left oppose the autocratic Saudi government on ideological grounds and wish to diminish the President in any way possible.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Trump has not made his basic common sense position not to disown or reject the decades old U.S. relationship with the Kingdom any easier by engaging in his usual Trumpian exaggerations and lack of focus on those issues. Seeming to once again contradict his own intelligence assets with respect to the Saudi Crown Prince’s connection to the murder, making questionable claims about the size and importance of pending Saudi defense spending with U.S. contractors, and diminishing the role of the government of Turkey in their investigation and conclusions of the crime which occurred in their territory, has unnecessarily provided more fuel for his critics.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">However, the real issue is not Trump’s leadership incompetence; it is a matter of prioritizing critical foreign security and economic issues against the symbolic exercise of confirming a universally known American rejection of political murder on moral grounds.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The Saudi/U.S. diplomatic relationship is, and has been, important on at least three vital issues for decades. The first is the seventy year old Arab conflict with Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the region, which has resulted in four multi-state wars in the Middle East and several separate conflicts between Israel and Palestinian guerilla forces.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Saudi Arabia, as a conservative Islamic, Arab state has for most of that long period been a political supporter of the Arab-Palestinian forces. Now however, the Kingdom, under the rule of the young Crown Prince has taken a more pragmatic approach, distancing itself from the violent tactics and political demands of the terrorist groups the Islamic State and Hamas in Gaza, whose stated goal which they share with the Iranian government, is to destroy the state of Israel. Saudi Arabia has considerable influence with the other Arab “Gulf states” and has even proposed an “Arab peace plan”, which while it has failed to get serious consideration, could still perform as a realistic basis for negotiating a peaceful, two state solution to this seemingly permanent and destabilizing impasse. This is important since it implies an acceptance of Israel’s right to exist.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The second vital issue is the regional aspirations of Iran which threaten to divide the Middle East into two permanently hostile blocs, with the prospect of armed conflict. Iran, an Islamic theocracy, ruled by a religious cleric who holds the title Supreme Leader, is the leader of the Shi’ite sect of Islam which views the larger Sunni branch as religious apostates. Combined with the nationalistic based efforts to expand its influence/ control in the region, Iran has established a Shi’ite proxy in Lebanon with its military and financial support of Hezbollah, the “party of God”, which is a government within a government in Lebanon. Iran is also intervening in the civil war in Syria. It provides troops, weapons and money to the Shi’ite associated Alawite minority government of Bashar Assad, and with the similar intervention of Russia, has secured the reign, and continued dependence, of Assad. A similar effort by Iran is being made in Shi’ite majority Iraq which is battling the Sunni Taliban insurgency. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The civil war in Yemen, a small nation on Saudi Arabia’s southern border in the Arabian peninsula, has also become a major issue with anti-Saudi politicians and opinion writers. The conflict pits Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies against a Shi’ite Houthi insurgency vs. the Saudi supported Yemeni government. The war is a humanitarian disaster, as much of the economic infrastructure of the country has been destroyed resulting in famine conditions for the populace. While critics of the chaos blame the Saudi coalition and U.S air refueling support (which has been terminated), they largely ignore the role of Iran in the conflict which supplies the Houthi forces in yet another Iranian attempt to create an anti-Saudi surrogate in the region.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The major obstacles in Iran’s path to regional dominance are the military and secular leaning government of Egypt and the conservative Sunni monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Iran is a major supporter of international terrorism, anti- West and anti-Israel policies and a potential nuclear weapons state. It is clearly in the interests of the United States its allies to work with both Egypt and Saudi Arabia to block Iran’s goals.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Thirdly, although the political Left is perpetually in denial about the necessity of accepting it, is the significance of Saudi Arabia’s position as the second highest holder of oil reserves in the world. Saudi Arabia exports 13% of the world’s oil supplies. Because the Saudi’s also have the infrastructure to immediately raise or lower their production they have a more enhanced role in the world’s supply of oil and thus its world market price. While critics reject the importance of Saudi oil to the U.S. based on increased domestic production which in terms of volume makes it look like the U.S. is energy independent with respect to oil, this is inaccurate.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">First, oil comes in different grades. Shale oil which has produced the higher levels of supply in the U.S. is a “light” oil which the major U.S. refineries, built years ago, are not designed to process into the types of petroleum products most used by the U.S. Thus most of this shale surplus is being exported. Meanwhile the U.S. still imports oil including 1.1 million barrels a day in September of 2018.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">But even if the U.S. were to become totally oil independent, that would not protect U.S. consumers from an international price shock. The price of oil is based on the world market. A sudden shortage in production would dramatically raise the market price including U.S. assets since U.S. production is part of that market. The damage to the economies of important oil importers like Japan, South Korea and some European nations would be profound and have a serious impact on the U.S. economy. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Saudi Arabia is currently keeping production up, and prices down, to make up for the decrease in the world supply resulting from the U.S. sanctions on Iran’s exports which are part of the strategy to bring Iran back to the negotiating table regarding their nuclear ambitions, missile delivery systems development, and and regional aggression. Putting this cooperation at risk by imposing sanctions on Saudi officials including their head of government makes no sense.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">What is clear is that American values are intact and national leaders across the globe know where the U.S. stands with regard to civil rights and human rights. What should be clear to Trump’s critics is that foreign dictators, friendly or not, don’t look to the U.S. for a “green light” to commit acts that violate these rights, nor are they deterred by by the protestations of U.S. leaders, politicians and media or even the threat of economic sanctions.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">This should be obvious to all based on the murderous acts of Russia’s Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il. Still political engagement with these governments and others like China and Cuba </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">present a sometimes discomforting but necessary alternative to a non-productive and futile attempt to project U.S. “values” onto authoritarian regimes for domestic crimes . This does not mean that such crimes should not be publicly condemned or that similar crimes of greater scale should not be firmly addressed. For these, there are international responses available which the U.S. could lead. Economic sanctions can be imposed through the UN Security Council, and individual heads of government can be indicted as mentioned above, by the International Criminal Court. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">With regard to the Khashoggi affair, the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have written a letter to President Trump triggering the Global Magnitsky Human Rights and Accountability Act of 2016, which requires the President to respond in 120 days as to whether </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">“gross violations of human rights” have been committed by individuals in any nation and whether the President, at his discretion, will impose travel and/or financial sanctions on any individuals in that nation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">President Trump has already imposed such sanctions on seventeen Saudi’s in connection with the Khashoggi murder. There is little prospect, and rightly so, that he will seek to impose such punishments on the head of government of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman or other members of the royal family. The stakes are just too great.</span></span></div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-85566156970786906452018-08-18T13:22:00.001-06:002018-08-18T13:27:31.753-06:00HUMAN RIGHTS AND REALITY: THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY CONUNDRUM<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: large;">On July 2, 2018, Canadian Foreign Secretary Chrystia Freeland proved once again that conducting foreign policy by Twitter is fraught with danger from over simplification, impulsive and/or careless, or simply not well thought out pronouncements. While not in the same league as U.S. President Trump’s daily deluge of Twitter carelessness, her short declaration set off a diplomatic storm with the government of Saudi Arabia. The subject was the arrest and imprisonment by Saudi authorities of one of several female activists who were detained for criticizing the government. Freeland’s “Tweet” was as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">“Very alarmed to learn that Samar Badawi, Raif Badawi’s sister, has been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Canada stands together with the Badawi family in this difficult time, and we continue to strongly call for the release of both Raif and Samar Badawi.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This seemingly innocuous protest would typically be the subject of a brief statement of rejection or be simply ignored by most of the world’s authoritarian governments. However in the case of Saudi Arabia, the broader context is somewhat different.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. It describes itself as “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”. Like all authoritarian, i.e. non-democratic governments, it relies on suppression of basic civil and human rights to maintain itself in power. In the Kingdom, it has always been so. Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist Sunni Islamic state is currently under pressure on its borders from Iranian sponsored Shi’ite forces attempting to overthrow the government of Yemen, as well as Shi’ite militancy in neighboring Bahrain. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">As the birthplace of Islam and the home of the two holiest sites of that religion, Saudi Arabia has declared that its constitution is the Koran and the Sunnah, the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In spite of the social and legal constraints imposed by this strict adherence to conservative Islam, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the thirty-three year old de facto head of government, has embarked on a massive modernization program. This includes a long range plan to diversify the Kingdom’s economy away from dependence on it’s vast oil reserves, a moderation of social restrictions on Western style entertainment, a recent end to the decades old ban on driving privileges for females and a reduction in the powers of the religious police. These reforms have not come without resistance from Islamic conservatives and Salman is sensitive to criticism which might seem to be pushing him to far, to fast. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Thus the Saudi government’s response to Freedland’s Tweet was severe. The Global News’ reports that:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“Since the Middle Eastern kingdom launched the dispute on Sunday evening over tweets sent the week prior, Saudi Arabia has recalled its ambassador, expelled Canada’s ambassador, frozen new business and trade, ordered Saudi students studying in Canada to go somewhere else, ordered Saudi citizens seeking medical care in Canada to go somewhere else, blacklisted Canadian wheat and barley, and ordered the asset managers of their central bank and pension funds to dump Canadian assets “no matter the cost.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It’s hard to know how seriously the Canadian government takes these events. So far neither Foreign Secretary Freeland nor Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seem too publicly concerned.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Trudeau summed up his position briefly: “Canada will always speak strongly and clearly in private and in public on questions of human rights ... at home and abroad, wherever we see the need.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">“Canadians expect that, and indeed people around the world expect that leadership from Canada,” he said.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Despite this slightly grandiose claim, the Canadian government has a particular interest in the case of the Badawi’s. Samar Badawi is the sister of Raif Badawi a Saudi blogger who was imprisoned and sentenced to 1000 lashes for religious apostasy and criticism of the Saudi regime. His wife and three children sought amnesty in Canada and are now Canadian citizens.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In a sign that the Saudi reaction is more troubling than is publically admitted, Foreign Minister Freedland is reported to have sought the assistance of officials in Germany and Sweden, both of which have experienced similar confrontations with Saudi Arabia over criticism of alleged civil and human rights violations.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The importance of this episode is that it is a reminder in the age of national interest based “Trumplomacy”, which is the subject of harsh partisan criticism, of the tension between reality based foreign policy and idealistic based policies. It is an obvious fact that the world would be a better place if all nations observed liberal democratic standards of human and civil rights. Not only would this be a victory for common moral codes, but such codes when embodied in legal systems would produce democratic political systems. Such systems are much less likely to engage in armed conflict with each other, would produce healthier economic conditions which would benefit their citizens and facilitate more efficient international trade and reduce the world’s immigration problems.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">But the reality barrier is significant. Freedom House’s “Democracy Project” uses a measurable list of categories to evaluate each of the world’s nation states. These include: free and fair elections; rights of minorities; freedom of the press; and the rule of law. Similar standards are included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966) which together are labeled the International Bill of Rights.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In 2018, Freedom House found that 25% of countries holding 37% of the world’s population, were “Not Free”. Another 30% of countries with 24% of the world’s population were only</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">“Partly Free” thus leaving only 45% of the world’s countries with only 39% of the world’s population categorized as “Free”.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">While the majority of the offenders in the first two categories are in the developing world, a few, i.e. Russia, China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia have such high levels of international importance in terms of geopolitics, nuclear weapons, and international economic influence that they require a difficult assessment of the proper response to human/civil rights violations in those countries. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This problem is complicated by two other realities. First, at what point does violation of rights within a nation, require a violation by other nations of the offending nation’s sovereignty, a concept also enshrined in international law ?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A second reality is the question of what kind of external policies toward offending nations if any, would be likely to be effective in bringing about changes in the internal policies of the offending nations?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Admonitions, condemnations, public protests by government officials, non-governmental organizations and various public groups, all have a poor record of success in these types of issues as in the case of Raif Badawi whose ten year prison sentence and corporal punishment became an international “cause celebre ” which was summarily rejected by the Saudi government. Although Badawi’s lashing was suspended after fifty strokes, he remains in prison.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Although President Trump has been criticized for not supporting the Canadian position on both Samar and Raif Badawi (Britain has also declined), he has taken the opposite tack with regards to a similar event in Turkey. In 2016, American evangelical pastor, Andrew Brunson who had lived in Turkey for twenty-three years, was imprisoned in a wide spread reaction to a coup attempt against Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan. Brunson was accused of espionage and terrorist related charges and is currently being tried in a Turkish court. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The Trump administration has denied those charges and demanded that Brunson be released. The Erdogan government has refused and President Trump has resorted to economic sanctions in the form of tariffs on the importation of Turkish steel and aluminum. Turkey has responded with tariffs on U.S. cars, electronics and several consumer goods.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">While Trump’s strong reaction to Brunson’s predicament should provide him with some cover over the Left’s criticism of his diffidence in the case of the Badawis, the differences in the two cases are obvious. First, Trump is Trump, and he gets no relief from the criticism by the Left no matter what the facts are. Second, Brunson is an American citizen and entitled to the protection of the American government; the Badawis are Saudis in trouble with their own government. Third, U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia are currently more important than U.S. relations with Turkey or Canadian relations with Saudi Arabia.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This last, may seem harsh to human rights advocates but this fact has the potential to impact many more lives in the U.S. and in the Middle East than the plight of two Saudis whose situation has little hope of redress no matter what the level of outcry from foreign actors. Nonetheless, U.S. relations with Turkey are important in their own right and imposing economic sanctions on Turkey was an over reaction which makes the Brunson situation a face saving situation for Turkey. This complicates Turkey’s role in NATO and U.S. opposition to its support for Iran in the face of Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement and reimposition of sanctions against that nation.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">However, Saudi Arabia stands with the U.S. and Israel against the terrorist support and regional and nuclear ambitions of Iran. An of course there is the issue of the international oil market which is heavily influenced by Saudi production and influence in the OPEC cartel, plus the sales of military equipment by the U.S. to the Kingdom.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Also, because Turkey’s economy is currently in a state of high inflation due to mismanagement by the government and Erdogan personally, Trump’s economic sanctions have unusual weight. While the charges against Brunson seem preposterous, once again, the position of the Erdogan government is based on maintaining resistance against an attack on its national sovereignty. The result so far is a deteriorating impasse.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Dealing with authoritarian governments has been part of international diplomacy throughout history and as the Freedom House report indicates, it remains a harsh reality today and for the foreseeable future. Despite the moral impetus for strong advocacy of human rights/civil rights there is little reason to believe that authoritarian governments and their leaders would be willing to risk their regimes by voluntarily liberalizing the repressive laws and political culture which supports them.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">That doesn’t mean that some progress on individual cases need not be pursued. However, quiet diplomacy involving quid pro quos have more chance of success than public condemnation or simple “demands” that appear to be interference in the internal affairs of target nations. Trump recently had such success with North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-Un when he successfully negotiated the release of several American citizens who were being held captive in N. Korea.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> Basically, a substantive change in the political culture of a nation towards improvements in civil and human rights requires broad support from the people in those states as it did in the Eastern European republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, some cultures which are divided by heavy tribal, ethnic and religious influence are not ready for Western style liberal democratic systems, a fact which the Bush administration found in its failed “nation building” strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such conditions provide opportunities for authoritarian governments to prevail or simply replace similar governments after social uprisings, as was the case in Egypt. Indeed, all the “Arab Spring” movements, with the possible exception of Tunisia, fell victim to such conditions.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In the Badawi and Bruson cases Trump made the mistake of major over reaction which created another set of problems; Freeland made the mistake of not understanding her adversary and using an inadequate and one way public communication tool for a complicated problem. Both her and Prime Minister Trudeau’s public comments appear to be directed more towards civil and human rights advocates than to Saudi government officials. </span></span></div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-62833281735189090922018-07-15T12:35:00.000-06:002018-07-29T12:34:25.137-06:00THE SUPREME COURT AND ELECTIONS<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">If you don’t live on the East or West coasts you probably haven’t felt the earth shaking as the tectonic plates of liberal hysteria break apart. The voices of panic from the Left would have us preparing for the “end of days”. The imminent catastrophe ? The impending seating of fifty-three year old Washington D.C. Circuit Ct. Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Ct.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">That’s it. But Kavanaugh isn’t some radical outlier; he’s the very prototype of the elite legal establishment; a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, a legal functionary in the George W. Bush administration and a long term veteran of the D.C, Circuit Ct., perhaps the most consequential Circuit Ct. in the nation. Those who know him personally sing his praises as a legal scholar, dedicated family man, educator, and volunteer in his community. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Still, what can only be described as unhinged behavior by the far Left fills the media and internet. An open letter by “students, educators and graduates” of Kavanaugh’s own Yale Law School predicts Armageddon. Ignoring the fact that as Dean of Harvard Law School, currently sitting, liberal Supreme Ct. Justice Elena Kagan hired Judge Kavanaugh to teach at Harvard Law, apparently without fear of the end of everything Americans and Harvard Law students hold dear. The Yale group of hand wringers proclaim; “Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination presents an emergency for democratic life, for our safety and freedom, for the future of our country.” Yes, an “emergency.” It even declares that “people will die if he is confirmed.” </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The end of democracy? Death by confirmation? They apparently felt no need to describe why these catastrophes will take place or how one Justice, or even a quasi bloc of five could bring them about. But of course the Yale students are not alone in their condition of brain dissolving ideological hatred and panic.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Here is former governor of Virginia and potential 2020 Democratic candidate for President Terry McAuliffe:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come and will morph our Supreme Court into a political arm of the right-wing Republican Party." </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) didn’t bother waiting for the Kavanuagh nomination before reacting to “any” Trump nomination for the Supreme Ct.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In June shortly after Justice Kennedy announced his impending retirement, Harris dusted off her crystal ball, gazed through the Left hemisphere and predicted “. . . the destruction of the constitution”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Left wing political commentator Paul Waldman:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Overturning Roe v. Wade will be just the beginning. They're likely to outlaw affirmative action, validate every means of suppressing votes and rigging the electoral system Republicans can devise, and perhaps return us to the days when having a pre-existing condition meant you couldn't get health insurance. More than that, they may well launch an attack on the entire structure of government regulation. Environmental laws, labor laws, civil rights laws—any and all could be the target of sweeping court decisions restricting the ability of the government to do anything to stop the powerful from preying on the rest of us.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">And so it goes; from the pages of the so called “mainstream press” aka the Washington Post and the New York Times, to the far Left journals, (The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Nation) to the equally radical internet sites (Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, Vox) who share each other’s simple minded disaster scenarios which require one to believe that by creating an informal bloc of five jurists who share a judicial philosophy that emphasizes legal interpretation vs. judicial legislation based on the constitutional framework of separation of powers, will bring down the 229 year old American success story.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">No doubt there are many on the Left who are energized by their role playing as social justice warriors and pseudo revolutionaries, that have repeated these radical fantasies so often in other contexts that they have come to believe them. But at the risk of being too kind to the Democratic political leadership, it is all but certain that they are fully aware of the absurdity of their claims.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Supreme Court justices may have conservative or liberal philosophies but these orientations are more part of a spectrum of general beliefs rather than a set of specific instructions that one must follow. The Court doesn’t rule on political or social philosophies; it rules on specific cases whose individual legal complexities vary and which can produce inconsistent results if viewed from a political philosophy point of view. Chief Justice John Roberts is well known for being part of the “conservative bloc” despite his deciding vote upholding the penalty for not securing health insurance which was critical to making ObamaCare workable. Thus the personal demonization of Judge Kavanaugh portrays an astounding level of ‘anything goes” political dishonesty and demagoguery. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">In short, with little hope of denying Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, their tactic is to throw red meat to their radical base and foment hysteria among the less informed, Left leaning moderates and Independents in the hope of bringing about 2018 election victories. The ultimate goal of course is to take control of one or both of the houses of Congress. The defamation of Judge Kavanugh’s character, intellect and legal expertise is then simply collateral damage in the fight for political power.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The question then is “Will it work?” Odds makers would probably say no. How many false disaster scenarios can one party shout before credibility becomes comedy. Two years into Trump’s administration the Left’s predicted “authoritarian state” and “destruction of the Constitution” hasn’t happened. Trump’s “irrational finger on the nuclear button” hasn’t started a nuclear war with “North Korea”. . “China” . . .“Russia”, as predicted. The Supreme Court drama has already had one screening with the seating of Justice Neal Gorsuch in the “conservative bloc”. In a recent series of 5-4 decisions the “moderate, centrist” Justice Anthony Kennedy who Judge Kavanaugh will replace, sided with the conservatives and the Constitution still stands, the press is still “free” and no one has died.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">The verbal violence of the Left has been characterized by some pundits and Democrats as a newly energized Progressive movement. The upset winner of the Democratic primary for New York’s 14th Congressional district by political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who defeated ten term House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley, has been described by Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez as “the future of our party”. Republicans can’t wait, and should use her as the ‘current’ face of the Democratic Party in the 2018 campaign. Here’s why.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">While Ocasio-Cortez is young, (28) attractive, intelligent and energetic, she ran as the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants in the heavily minority and poor NY 14th district as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. The DSA is not a political party; it is a self described “movement”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Obviously her appeal in a district which is 50% Hispanic; 14% black and only 32% white and 16% of the population make less than $50,000 dollars a year in high tax, high cost New York City, will not be matched across the nation. That appeal includes the socialist program of the DSA whose goals can be found on their web site.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>1. “Undermine the power of the capitalist sector” through nationalization of major industries and use of “democratic management all businesses by workers and members of the communities where the are located.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2. “dismantle the “privilege” of “whiteness”, “males”, and heterosexuality.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3. oppose “free trade agreements”<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4. “abolish the U.S. Senate” and install “direct democracy” through referenda and the use of proportional representation in the House of Representatives</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5. "free" health care, day care, education K through college, “shelter”, “transportation”, and a “universal basic income”.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6. “create a reduced work week and expand vacation time.”</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The practical absurdity of the economic, social, and political, structural destruction proposed, combined with the rest of the “rainbows and unicorns” socialist babble of the DSA manifesto, is good for a laugh, but at a minimum, Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate should ask their Democratic opponents how they feel about Chairman Perez’s plan for the “future” of their party which calls for the abolition of the office for which they are campaigning.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Meanwhile, Brett Kavanaugh will take his seat on the Supreme Court, the sun will still rise in the East each morning and the Democrats will have to pass legislation in the Congress instead of relying on the Supreme Court to do it for them.</span></span></div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356770729522325072.post-73773789347699764792018-06-11T10:14:00.000-06:002018-06-11T10:14:47.952-06:00THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL: TRUMP'S DO OVER<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The controversy over President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has diminished somewhat in the shadow of the summit meeting in Singapore between Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jung-un. But the Iran deal continues to simmer in the background as angry European leaders and their advisers try to put together a strategy to maintain their sanctions relief to Iran and support their individual renewed economic relations with Iran. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Trump and his advisers believe that the agreement is seriously flawed and he intends to bring maximum economic pressure on Iran to bring them back to the bargaining table. He is correct with respect to the flaws but renewed negotiations will not be easy if even possible.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The written text of the Iran nuclear agreement, contains a ten and fifteen year program to reduce Iran’s stock of gas centrifuges which are used to enrich uranium and to limit the remaining enrichment levels to 3.67%, far less than that required for weapons grade uranium. The basic intent of the agreement is similar to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty which Iran joined in 1970, and the conditions of which are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through the standard use of a separate agreement. The details of these conditions, which include self declarization by Iran of all it’s existing nuclear research facilities and subsequent use of an inspection regime by IAEA experts seem detailed and comprehensive as far as they go. Thus the major “flaws” cited by the agreement’s critics, with the exception of the fifteen year “sunset” clause, are not so much what is contained in the agreement as what is not contained. However, the “sunset” clause is huge. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty contains no such temporary conditions. Once states enter the treaty they are permanently committed to its terms as long as they are members. The fundamental requirement is that states that do not possess nuclear weapons or the technology to create them will not pursue such abilities. Thus the JCPOA contradicts the provisions and intent of the NPT. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The process which would inevitably lead to Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state (NWS) represented an outcome so serious and destabilizing to the entire Middle East region that the West and UN Security Council which includes Russia and China, had imposed strong economic sanctions against Iran several years prior to the commencement of current negotiations. A nuclear armed Iran represents an existential threat to the state of Israel which Iran has sworn to destroy; a major threat of nuclear weapons proliferation by Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, whom Iran considers an adversary, and a shift in the ability of other states with vital interests in the stability of the region to confront Iran’s aggressive behavior. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Why would the P-5 + 1 negotiators (U.S, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, & EU) agree to anything but a permanent ban on Iran’s ability to manufacture highly enriched fuel whose only purpose is the creation of nuclear weapons?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The simple answer is that Iran refused to make such a commitment and the other states conceded the point. Russia, which is currently allied militarily with Iran in the Syrian civil war in support of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and which has achieved a Mediterranean naval base in Syria, obviously sees benefits in remaining an ally of Iran as well as the possibility of renewed negotiations to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the future as a position of leverage against the Western powers who make up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s core membership. China, well known for its long term approach to geo-political expansion would have a similar interest in having an anti-West state in an important region of the world maintain a negotiating position of strength while thus giving China’s support for one side or the other, significant influence in future negotiations.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">U.S. President Obama was determined to find an accomplishment that would enhance his “legacy” and Great Britain, France, Germany and their collective representative from the Europen Union were anxious to get something done to take the problem of a nuclear Iran off the table for the time being and reestablish profitable economic trade and investment in that country. But essentially they were simply out negotiated by an intransigent Iran whose diplomats were willing to walk away if they were pressed to agree to permanent safeguards.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The agreements critics believe that it cannot be credibly evaluated in isolation of the wider political and security contexts within which is must operate. It is here that the agreement represents its greatest weaknesses and the failure of the Western nation’s negotiators to take advantage of the significant leverage they had but which now is for the most part gone.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> The regional security context:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A simple look at a map of the Middle East and the related conflicts therein, make Iran’s regional ambitions obvious. Iran established itself as a Shi’ite Islamic republic after the 1979 revolution which over threw the Western installed and supported Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Internecine conflict between the two major sects of the Islamic religion in the Middle East cannot be underestimated. It played a horrific role in the expansion of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS), and served as an instrument of repression by the Sunni minority government of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Iran now uses the religious identity of Shi’ites as a tool and a wedge to expand its influence in the region. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Iran supports the Shi’ite Houthi insurgency in Yemen which has evolved into an armed conflict with Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state allies who have Sunni majorities and governments. On Iran’s western border, the Shi’ite majority has taken power in Iraq after the U.S. led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, opening the door for Iranian penetration and influence. The recent political victory of Iraqi Shi’ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr over more moderate Shi’ite leaders may lead to further Iranian influence. Iran has also moved one state further west with its military intervention into the Syrian civil war on behalf of the dictator, Hafez al-Assad and his Alawite (an off shoot of Shi’ism) minority government. Iran has long supported the armed Shi’ite militia, Hezbollah which controls southern Lebanon and which is fighting along side Assad’s government troops against the Sunni rebels. Hezbollah represents an on going threat to Israel on its Lebanon and Syrian borders and supplies arms, including missiles, to Hamas, the radical anti-Israeli political leaders of Gaza. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Thus President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have taken the wider view that Iran’s nuclear fuel enrichment program is just part of the national and regional security threat that Iran poses. They believe that the narrow scope of the agreement and the fear of its disruption by Western European nations as well as China and Russia, all of which have strong economic motives for its perpetuation, provides cover for Iran’s expansion and aggression in the region.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Pompeo has said that Iran “must end all nuclear activity completely, halt its support for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and cease development of any nuclear-capable missiles.” He has threatened the imposition of even harsher economic sanctions than those in place prior to the signing of the nuclear agreement.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The JCPOA is not a treaty. President Obama did not submit it to the U.S. Senate for approval because he knew that it did not have anywhere near the two thirds majority support necessary for ratification. Concerned about his “legacy” and confident that his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential election, he agreed to the narrow scope of the agreement required by the Iranian negotiators as well as the return of 1.5 billion dollars in sequestered Iranian funds which represented a significant incentive for the Iranians to reach a deal and could have been withheld as leverage for additional concessions by Iran with respect to regional issues, missile development or a permanent agreement on nuclear enrichment. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Despite the parade of European leaders from Britain, France, Germany, who came to Washington to try and convince Trump not to withdraw from the agreement, Trump was unwilling to let Iran pursue it’s regional aggression and strategic missile development threats as well as leaving the door open for Iran to become a nuclear weapons state in the future.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The agreement is seriously weakened, if not mortally wounded without U.S. participation. Trump’s threat to hold private entities in the other member states of the agreement liable for violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran with sanctions on them as well has caused enormous hand wringing and threats of defiance among them. In an effort to avoid such a confrontation, some have suggested limited renegotiations to expand the agreement in ways to address Trump’s concerns.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">President Macron of France approached Iranian leaders with such a proposal but it was soundly rejected, as should have been expected. Iranian President Hasan Rouhani is quoted as saying; </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">“I have spoken with Macron several times by phone, and one time in person at length. I have told him explicitly that we will not add anything to the deal or remove anything from it, even one sentence. The nuclear deal is the nuclear deal,” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The political fallout from Trump’s decision is, in terms of rhetoric, extreme, as would be expected. The European Left, which didn’t like Trump before and whom many in their ranks have had open disdain, if not hostility, for the U.S. for decades, are claiming that Trump’s decision and threats of collateral economic sanctions on defiant European businesses is an assault on their state’s sovereignty. The American Left is claiming that Trump is “destroying our relationship with our closest allies”. But international relationships are always based on national interests, not “special friendships” between political leaders who are temporarily in leadership positions.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Reagan and Britain’s Margaret Thatcher had a famously close relationship but it was based on an identity of conservative political ideology. The U.S. and Western European nations continue to share an identity of interests in international security as exemplified by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which recently survived Trump’s demand that the membership boost their defense spending to reduce their dependence on the American defense “umbrella”.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Even in the face of Trump’s current demand that trade relations with Europe be liberalized and his imposition of tariffs on selected goods to make his point, trade and investment between EU nations and the U.S. is enormous and ties these economies together with the U.S. no matter what the character of the political leadership in the separate states.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The outcome of this issue is difficult to predict but is sure to create much political grandstanding. What is probable is that Trump will impose harsh economic sanctions on Iran and collateral sanctions on European businesses that continue to violate these sanctions. Several businesses are already cutting back their relationships with Iran and most will probably fall into compliance with Trump’s sanctions. Efforts by individual governments may be made to protect businesses from the effect of U.S. sanctions or retaliatory sanctions may even be attempted on U.S. manufacturers in a face saving political effort.. However the sheer size of the U.S. economy and its global web of relationships should eventually bring compliance.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Iran has already threatened to restart its nuclear fuel enrichment process and will probably make a show of doing it. The outcome will come down to the level of economic pain Trump’s new sanction regime imposes on Iran and how much political pressure the other members of the JCPOA, including China and Russia can apply to the Trump administration. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">There are a number of processes which could lead to a reduction in tensions. It is possible that under political pressure Trump may negotiate some individual sanctions relief for JCPOA businesses in return for trade concessions unrelated to Iran which would also defuse the current tariff controversy between the U.S. and Western Europe. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> A negotiated withdrawal of Iran’s military from Syria could also be a partial solution to the U.S./JCPOA sanctions battle as would a cessation of Iranian support for Yemen’s Houthi Shi’ites. A return by Iran to accelerated nuclear fuel enrichment represents a negative outcome for all sides as it would not take Iran more than one to two years to acquire enough weapons grade uranium to create a nuclear device. Such and outcome would also enhance the possibility of a military strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities as well as the perception by Saudi Arabia that it would need a nuclear arms program of its own as a deterrent against a hostile Iran. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Thus President Trump’s decision to leave the JCPOA was a bold step to address Iran’s current regional aggression and medium term goal of becoming a nuclear power. Like much of what Trump does, what it lacked in finesse it made up for in common sense as neither of Iran’s policies could have been ignored or put off without serious consequences.</span></div>
Bruce Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355656190772209843noreply@blogger.com0