American demand for heroin is destroying large swaths of Mexico.
Interestingly, as American demand for marijuana decreases with various forms of legalization and decriminalization, the demand for heroin is rising. The fact that Congress can't come together to find and fund an opiod treatment plan is among the many spectacular failures of our current government.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Monday, May 29, 2017
Always Another Barrel
Every time we hit the bottom of the barrel we find another barrel. This week has led to much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Predictably, the strong showing of a Democrat in a losing effort in Montana has made the usual suspects fret that the Democratic party is doomed. This is good clickbait but bad political science, though Taibbi is right that Democrats have to limit their losses among rural voters, which is not the same thing as winning those voters.
We had Mango Mussolini blow up NATO for shits and giggles, while genuflecting before the Saudi terror sponsors and glad handing Netanyahu's ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Trump is full of praise for the Saudi monarchy, the Turkish dictator and the Filipino madman. He seems to hate actual democratically elected leaders.
Oh, and he's going to pull us out of the Paris Accords.
And maybe destroy health care.
All of this comes with an unhealthy denial of objective reality, praising goons like Greg Gianforte and creating tears within the very fabric of American civil life.
This sucks. And I don't know if anything less than a complete and catastrophic collapse of the economy and America's standing in the world can truly reverse this.
I'm reading a biography of FDR by HW Brands. In the 1920s, as FDR recovered from polio, he shrewdly refrained from allowing himself to be dragged into the race for president in 1924 and 1928, because he knew those would be Republican years. He only reluctantly allowed himself to be drafted to run for governor of New York in 1928, because Al Smith asked him to.
Yet, by 1932, Democrats would control both the House from 1932-1994 with only a two year break. They controlled the Senate for almost as long and held the White House from 1932-1968, with only the anomalous Eisenhower years to intervene.
The problem is that it took the Great Depression to create this Democratic majority. I fret it will require something as ominous to loosen the grip of the GOP on certain segments of the voting public.
We had Mango Mussolini blow up NATO for shits and giggles, while genuflecting before the Saudi terror sponsors and glad handing Netanyahu's ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Trump is full of praise for the Saudi monarchy, the Turkish dictator and the Filipino madman. He seems to hate actual democratically elected leaders.
Oh, and he's going to pull us out of the Paris Accords.
And maybe destroy health care.
All of this comes with an unhealthy denial of objective reality, praising goons like Greg Gianforte and creating tears within the very fabric of American civil life.
This sucks. And I don't know if anything less than a complete and catastrophic collapse of the economy and America's standing in the world can truly reverse this.
I'm reading a biography of FDR by HW Brands. In the 1920s, as FDR recovered from polio, he shrewdly refrained from allowing himself to be dragged into the race for president in 1924 and 1928, because he knew those would be Republican years. He only reluctantly allowed himself to be drafted to run for governor of New York in 1928, because Al Smith asked him to.
Yet, by 1932, Democrats would control both the House from 1932-1994 with only a two year break. They controlled the Senate for almost as long and held the White House from 1932-1968, with only the anomalous Eisenhower years to intervene.
The problem is that it took the Great Depression to create this Democratic majority. I fret it will require something as ominous to loosen the grip of the GOP on certain segments of the voting public.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Treason? He Went To Jared!
In actuality, I don't necessarily think Kushner was committing treason when he established a back channel to Russia during the transition. I think he - along with much of the rest of the Trump people - were enriching themselves at the expense of the state. When this whole sorry mess gets written out in history, it will feel more like Warren Harding than Benedict Arnold, although to be fair, Arnold was enriching himself, too.
The best line I've heard is that the problem with the Trump Crime Family is that they are all Fredos.
The best line I've heard is that the problem with the Trump Crime Family is that they are all Fredos.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Played
Fareed Zakaria makes the excellent point that Trump got played by Saudi Arabia. I've been having an argument on Facebook - always a good idea! - with a conservative Israeli and his minions about the nature of Islam and terrorism carried out by Muslims. They love Trump, because....well, I don't know precisely, except they feel he's "tough on terror" which really means bigotry and simplistic thinking about Islam.
As Zakaria points out, the true "bad actors" are usually Saudi. Iran - whom Trump singled out for vilification in his speech - is a "bad actor" generally, but not when it comes to terrorism. To think that is to be stuck in decades old thinking.
But that's where we are. Led by fools who can be duped by autocrats.
Good job, Republicans.
As Zakaria points out, the true "bad actors" are usually Saudi. Iran - whom Trump singled out for vilification in his speech - is a "bad actor" generally, but not when it comes to terrorism. To think that is to be stuck in decades old thinking.
But that's where we are. Led by fools who can be duped by autocrats.
Good job, Republicans.
The Cold Comfort Of Moral Victories
Good job, Montana. Perhaps you had already cast enough votes to elect odious billionaire Greg Gianforte before he allegedly assaulted a reporter for asking questions about health care. But clearly people went to the polls yesterday and voted for this guy.
Matthew Yglesias makes the not unreasonable point that the margin of victory demonstrates a continuing collapse of support for the GOP in the Age of Trump. Mathematically, he's correct. Similar arguments about the unexpectedly close races in special elections in Oklahoma and elsewhere can be and were made. After a while, however, we need more than moral/mathematical victories. We need to win elections.
This puts a ton of pressure on the coming special election in Georgia. Montana was, indeed, tough sledding for Democrats; it is precisely the sort of aging, WWC electorate that prefers Trump. GA-6 is the sort of suburban district that might be flipped in 2018. Current polling has Ossoff winning, but that will only make a possible defeat all the more demoralizing. Liberals in the age of Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 and 2016 are predisposed to expect defeat. Currently they are mobilized, but a string of these defeats would be crushing.
Democrats also need to reach out to so-called moderate Republicans like Michael Gerson who have shown the potential of breaking with the GOP over Trump's politics. He represents a certain type of Republican voter who is sickened by the nature of our politics in the age of Fox News and Trump. That means expanding the Democratic Tent to include people that the Sanders Left might be uncomfortable with. Hopefully they will show enough flexibility to actually start winning some of these races.
Matthew Yglesias makes the not unreasonable point that the margin of victory demonstrates a continuing collapse of support for the GOP in the Age of Trump. Mathematically, he's correct. Similar arguments about the unexpectedly close races in special elections in Oklahoma and elsewhere can be and were made. After a while, however, we need more than moral/mathematical victories. We need to win elections.
This puts a ton of pressure on the coming special election in Georgia. Montana was, indeed, tough sledding for Democrats; it is precisely the sort of aging, WWC electorate that prefers Trump. GA-6 is the sort of suburban district that might be flipped in 2018. Current polling has Ossoff winning, but that will only make a possible defeat all the more demoralizing. Liberals in the age of Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 and 2016 are predisposed to expect defeat. Currently they are mobilized, but a string of these defeats would be crushing.
Democrats also need to reach out to so-called moderate Republicans like Michael Gerson who have shown the potential of breaking with the GOP over Trump's politics. He represents a certain type of Republican voter who is sickened by the nature of our politics in the age of Fox News and Trump. That means expanding the Democratic Tent to include people that the Sanders Left might be uncomfortable with. Hopefully they will show enough flexibility to actually start winning some of these races.
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Stay Classy
Remember when we were surprised when a political figure accidentally shot a guy in the face?
Now we have the GOP puking up a House candidate accused of assault and reports have notorious goon Corey Lewandowski being rehabilitated for Trump's crisis management team.
I've had a hard time accepting the term "fascist" for Trump's brand of politics, because Fascism means something specific. But every time the Trump GOP embraces political violence - or even just explains it away - we are getting close to having that term slip from the realm of hyperbole.
UPDATE: And, sure enough, the conservative wing descends quickly into the gutter. I think we can objectively describe the modern conservative movement as "Fuck all of y'all, I got mine." Modified with incessant whining over any form of taxation to provide for the common weal.
Now we have the GOP puking up a House candidate accused of assault and reports have notorious goon Corey Lewandowski being rehabilitated for Trump's crisis management team.
I've had a hard time accepting the term "fascist" for Trump's brand of politics, because Fascism means something specific. But every time the Trump GOP embraces political violence - or even just explains it away - we are getting close to having that term slip from the realm of hyperbole.
UPDATE: And, sure enough, the conservative wing descends quickly into the gutter. I think we can objectively describe the modern conservative movement as "Fuck all of y'all, I got mine." Modified with incessant whining over any form of taxation to provide for the common weal.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Putin Country
I just finished Anne Garrell's Putin Country: A Journey Into Real Russia. It was a nice easy read in the tradition of journalists who write books. What it showed about Russia was fascinating by looking at Chelyabinsk, a medium sized city near Kazakhstan rather than a cosmopolitan city like Moscow or St. Petersburg. As Sarah Palin might put it, It's real Russia, flyover country.
What comes across so clear in the book is the authoritarian mindset among the people of Russia. Russia in the '90s was awful, chaotic and corrupt and catastrophic. Putin brought order. This gibes with something I read recently by Richard Hofstadter that most reform movements actually occur during good times, rather than bad times - the New Deal being an exception. Bad times call forth the Hobbesian need for a strong, masculine leader, rather than a respect for difference and differences.
Listening to these Russian talk about themselves, their country and the world, it was hard not to hear the Republican base. They hate gays. They think women should stay home and serve the man, while also earning money, but no public day care. They don't want the environment to stand in the way of jobs. They hate the rest of the world. They believe in a strong link between the church and state. They hate Muslims. They hate immigrants. They prefer superstition to science.
But it is their sense of grievance that rings out most powerfully. It is cultural rather than strictly economic. Russia was a superpower, but 1989 changed all that. Putin made Russia great again! America tries to undermine Russia at every turn, and in fact the reason life in Russia mostly sucks is because of America and the West. First, you can see why Russians would want to screw around in American elections.
Most of all, we can see how this broad sense of grievance in the developed world leads to figures like Putin, Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, Erdogan and Farage. There is a growing tide of these figures who are rolling back the postwar global liberal order that seemed so promising in 1945 and again in 1993. Oddly, their ambitions mesh nicely with the same fanatics who blow themselves up at a concert hall in Manchester.
Clearly the important need of the moment is to find someone who can lead the West - broadly speaking the liberal order of civil rights and liberties, tolerance and the rule of law - away from the authoritarians and the bigots.
Just as clearly, we don't have that person in the White House now.
What comes across so clear in the book is the authoritarian mindset among the people of Russia. Russia in the '90s was awful, chaotic and corrupt and catastrophic. Putin brought order. This gibes with something I read recently by Richard Hofstadter that most reform movements actually occur during good times, rather than bad times - the New Deal being an exception. Bad times call forth the Hobbesian need for a strong, masculine leader, rather than a respect for difference and differences.
Listening to these Russian talk about themselves, their country and the world, it was hard not to hear the Republican base. They hate gays. They think women should stay home and serve the man, while also earning money, but no public day care. They don't want the environment to stand in the way of jobs. They hate the rest of the world. They believe in a strong link between the church and state. They hate Muslims. They hate immigrants. They prefer superstition to science.
But it is their sense of grievance that rings out most powerfully. It is cultural rather than strictly economic. Russia was a superpower, but 1989 changed all that. Putin made Russia great again! America tries to undermine Russia at every turn, and in fact the reason life in Russia mostly sucks is because of America and the West. First, you can see why Russians would want to screw around in American elections.
Most of all, we can see how this broad sense of grievance in the developed world leads to figures like Putin, Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, Erdogan and Farage. There is a growing tide of these figures who are rolling back the postwar global liberal order that seemed so promising in 1945 and again in 1993. Oddly, their ambitions mesh nicely with the same fanatics who blow themselves up at a concert hall in Manchester.
Clearly the important need of the moment is to find someone who can lead the West - broadly speaking the liberal order of civil rights and liberties, tolerance and the rule of law - away from the authoritarians and the bigots.
Just as clearly, we don't have that person in the White House now.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Monday, May 22, 2017
The Message and The Messenger
The big debate roiling Democratic circles is how Democrats should find their way out of the wilderness that November thrust them into. Here is a mildly representative piece, naturally from Daily Kos. The basic assumption of issue advocates is, naturally, that a failure to address their issue is what led to Trump's victory* and therefore Democrats must jump on board their message, which is usually something that Bernie Sanders said. Because Clinton lost, the assumption is that the person who got 3 million more votes than the loser despite high personal unfavorables was bearing a flawed message.
To some degree there is some truth to this, as Clinton was especially vulnerable to the sort of economic and political populism Trump was spouting. Trump was the barbaric yawp against the "Establishment" and Clinton was a perfect representation of that Establishment.
The argument breaks down when you consider the OTHER part of Clinton's flaws: She was way too wonky. Clinton had plans upon plans upon plans. And while many of them didn't go as far as Sanders' plans, they had the advantage of being realistic. Sanders wanted to send everyone to college for free, which is actually kind of a crappy idea. Clinton wanted to reduce current college debt and make college more affordable. That is a good idea, and possibly achievable in a world without a GOP controlled Congress.
Clinton didn't lack for PLANS. Her problem was that Trump managed to set the terms under which the campaign was fought. With Trump's high negatives, you HAD to hit that. How many things did Trump do that were disqualifying for any previous presidential candidate? How do you NOT address that?
Since Clinton lost, the assumption has been that simply running against Trump in 2018 and 2020 won't be enough to win back the Congress and the White House.
I think that's largely wrong. Ruy Teixeira has always been the most optimistic of liberal thinkers - he co-authored The Emerging Democratic Majority - which still seems to hold, even if we have to account for Trump's win. Trump voters are much older than non-Trump voters and there will simply be fewer of them with each election. Meanwhile the young embrace actual socialism in numbers we haven't seen before.
Anyway, Teixeira says that Trump is basically the best thing to happen to liberal ideas. He has a TON of data to back it up, so go take a gander. The key to understanding how something like Trump happens is two things, one of which Teixeira addresses: Americans are "symbolically conservative" and "operationally liberal."
Americans define themselves philosophically as conservative, but tend to embrace liberal policy positions. This has been true for decades, and it drives me insane. On just about every single issue in 2000, more people preferred Al Gore's position to George Bush's. Same goes for 2004 and 2016 with Kerry and Clinton. However, their symbolic conservatism makes them susceptible to conservative messaging. Add in the poor geographic distribution of Democratic voters, and you have the electoral results that we have seen time and again. Democrats get more votes and Republicans get more power.
That leads me to the point that Teixeira doesn't specifically address: the small-c conservatism of Americans doesn't mean Movement Conservatism. Americans don't really want the apple cart overturned. Obamacare was change and that freaked people out. What's more, the party that holds the White House is held responsible for, well, everything. If things are good, the party in power benefits; if things are bad, the party in power suffers.
This is a powerful argument in favor of continued protests. I'm not a huge fan of political theater, but the left needs to have as many big protests as possible, to drive home the idea that things simply aren't OK.
What Teixeira really demonstrates though is that the message already exists. Democrats don't need a "new message." They need to talk about expanding Obamacare via a public option with a general move towards universal single payer. They need to talk about taxing the rich to pay for infrastructure and education, especially college debt. They need to talk about ethics in government.
That's it. And that is largely what Clinton ran on, when she wasn't trying to respond to the latest outrage against civility and decency from Cheetoh, Benito.
Trump is a dumpster fire. We are barely four months into his administration and people are seriously using the term impeachment. The main message the Democrats should be harping on is Trump and Paul Ryan's policies: less health care, more tax cuts for the rich. Less spending on, well, everything. More corruption, well, everywhere.
The problem is NOT the message. The problem is that Democrats need a great messenger. They had one in Bill Clinton, not Hillary. They had one in Barack Obama, not Al Gore or John Kerry. They need someone who jumps through the screen and grabs the viewer's imagination.
And when they do get that person in the White House, they need a Democratic Congress to actually accomplish what they said they would do. Obama ran into the McConnell stratagem of universal obstruction and therefore had to water down every proposal to appease Joe Fucking Lieberman. And then they lost the House and control over redistricting in 2010.
The Democrats have their message. It is the same message they always have had and it's a winning message. Trump alone makes that message more appealing. Now they just need to find someone who can deliver it.
To some degree there is some truth to this, as Clinton was especially vulnerable to the sort of economic and political populism Trump was spouting. Trump was the barbaric yawp against the "Establishment" and Clinton was a perfect representation of that Establishment.
The argument breaks down when you consider the OTHER part of Clinton's flaws: She was way too wonky. Clinton had plans upon plans upon plans. And while many of them didn't go as far as Sanders' plans, they had the advantage of being realistic. Sanders wanted to send everyone to college for free, which is actually kind of a crappy idea. Clinton wanted to reduce current college debt and make college more affordable. That is a good idea, and possibly achievable in a world without a GOP controlled Congress.
Clinton didn't lack for PLANS. Her problem was that Trump managed to set the terms under which the campaign was fought. With Trump's high negatives, you HAD to hit that. How many things did Trump do that were disqualifying for any previous presidential candidate? How do you NOT address that?
Since Clinton lost, the assumption has been that simply running against Trump in 2018 and 2020 won't be enough to win back the Congress and the White House.
I think that's largely wrong. Ruy Teixeira has always been the most optimistic of liberal thinkers - he co-authored The Emerging Democratic Majority - which still seems to hold, even if we have to account for Trump's win. Trump voters are much older than non-Trump voters and there will simply be fewer of them with each election. Meanwhile the young embrace actual socialism in numbers we haven't seen before.
Anyway, Teixeira says that Trump is basically the best thing to happen to liberal ideas. He has a TON of data to back it up, so go take a gander. The key to understanding how something like Trump happens is two things, one of which Teixeira addresses: Americans are "symbolically conservative" and "operationally liberal."
Americans define themselves philosophically as conservative, but tend to embrace liberal policy positions. This has been true for decades, and it drives me insane. On just about every single issue in 2000, more people preferred Al Gore's position to George Bush's. Same goes for 2004 and 2016 with Kerry and Clinton. However, their symbolic conservatism makes them susceptible to conservative messaging. Add in the poor geographic distribution of Democratic voters, and you have the electoral results that we have seen time and again. Democrats get more votes and Republicans get more power.
That leads me to the point that Teixeira doesn't specifically address: the small-c conservatism of Americans doesn't mean Movement Conservatism. Americans don't really want the apple cart overturned. Obamacare was change and that freaked people out. What's more, the party that holds the White House is held responsible for, well, everything. If things are good, the party in power benefits; if things are bad, the party in power suffers.
This is a powerful argument in favor of continued protests. I'm not a huge fan of political theater, but the left needs to have as many big protests as possible, to drive home the idea that things simply aren't OK.
What Teixeira really demonstrates though is that the message already exists. Democrats don't need a "new message." They need to talk about expanding Obamacare via a public option with a general move towards universal single payer. They need to talk about taxing the rich to pay for infrastructure and education, especially college debt. They need to talk about ethics in government.
That's it. And that is largely what Clinton ran on, when she wasn't trying to respond to the latest outrage against civility and decency from Cheetoh, Benito.
Trump is a dumpster fire. We are barely four months into his administration and people are seriously using the term impeachment. The main message the Democrats should be harping on is Trump and Paul Ryan's policies: less health care, more tax cuts for the rich. Less spending on, well, everything. More corruption, well, everywhere.
The problem is NOT the message. The problem is that Democrats need a great messenger. They had one in Bill Clinton, not Hillary. They had one in Barack Obama, not Al Gore or John Kerry. They need someone who jumps through the screen and grabs the viewer's imagination.
And when they do get that person in the White House, they need a Democratic Congress to actually accomplish what they said they would do. Obama ran into the McConnell stratagem of universal obstruction and therefore had to water down every proposal to appease Joe Fucking Lieberman. And then they lost the House and control over redistricting in 2010.
The Democrats have their message. It is the same message they always have had and it's a winning message. Trump alone makes that message more appealing. Now they just need to find someone who can deliver it.
Morons. We Are Working With Morons.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross gushes over the fact there were no protests in Saudi Arabia. Given that Trump basically gave a speech that could've been written by the Saudi royal family and, oh, the fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, it's actually not a surprise.
You want to know why so much of the GOP admires Putin? It's because so many of them crave the sort of political control he has.
You want to know why so much of the GOP admires Putin? It's because so many of them crave the sort of political control he has.
What We Are Talking About, When We Talk About Russia
Josh Marshall has been all over one aspect of the Trump story, which is Trump's longtime financial dependency on Russian money. As he summarizes here, the special counsel has pretty free rein to investigate any tangents from the original probe of Russian interference in the election. If they are looking at Trump's crimes beyond the idea that he colluded with the Russians over Wikileaks and other acts, then Trump is likely in trouble.
The problem, of course, is that we are likely to see the following outcomes:
1) A bunch of Trump's campaign people go to jail for working with the Russians.
2) Trump gets exposed as a money launderer with extensive ties to organized crime.
3) No one cares, because there's no blow job involved.
The problem, of course, is that we are likely to see the following outcomes:
1) A bunch of Trump's campaign people go to jail for working with the Russians.
2) Trump gets exposed as a money launderer with extensive ties to organized crime.
3) No one cares, because there's no blow job involved.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
The King's Speech
Trumpelthinskin was pumped full of Thorazine and rolled out in front of the TelePrompTer to give a speech that will probably be touted by the same desperate journalists who said his SOTU address was "the pivot." There are some who are dying for Trump to "pivot" into a normal president. Certainly, when he gets in front of a prepared text, he can do a poor impression of a normal person. In listening to his address this morning, he sounded drugged and defeated. Unable to let his freak flag fly, he was reduced to making anodyne statements about good and evil.
He also - gasp! - did not use the magical phrase "Radical Islam" to call forth the demons of the Islamic world that they might be destroyed by the very words "Radical Islam," which Obama never uttered because he hates America. And puppies.
The problem I had with the speech was that might as well have been written by King Salman of Saudi Arabia. It did not address the complex socio-economic factors and disenfranchisement that drives most of the young recruits into the arms of ISIS. It therefore absolved regimes like that of Saudi Arabia that use corruption and oil wealth to enrich themselves while their younger subjects search in vain for a meaningful, fulfilling future.
An additional bit of text that sounded like it was written by the Saudis was the usual denunciation of Iran. This is painfully ironic, in that Iran just had a very successful election that returned President Rouhani to power - a man dedicated to bringing Iran into greater concert with the rest of the world. We had a similar opportunity under President Khatami in the late '90s and early '00s, but the Axis of Evil Speech undercut all efforts by Khatami to open to the West and led to the rise of Ahmadinejad.
This speech took a bland, cartoonish interpretation of the violence of the Middle East - it's all Iran's fault for supporting Assad, leaving aside Russia's role and absolving Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States for empowering ISIS - and throws the door shut in Rouhani's face, just as he can plausibly claim a mandate to bring Iran back into the community of nations.
An Iran that is powerful and integrated into global norms is a real threat to Saudi Arabia. More so, arguably, than a nuclear armed Iran. Iran has elections, however flawed. Iran has some rights for women, however circumscribed. Iran has the potential to help stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, however little.
The constant thrall of DC to Saudi antipathy towards Iran is based somewhat on our own fraught history with the Islamic Republic, but it is also bought and paid for by Saudi billions. And it's a damned shame.
But Trump didn't step on his own dick, so...pivot!
He also - gasp! - did not use the magical phrase "Radical Islam" to call forth the demons of the Islamic world that they might be destroyed by the very words "Radical Islam," which Obama never uttered because he hates America. And puppies.
The problem I had with the speech was that might as well have been written by King Salman of Saudi Arabia. It did not address the complex socio-economic factors and disenfranchisement that drives most of the young recruits into the arms of ISIS. It therefore absolved regimes like that of Saudi Arabia that use corruption and oil wealth to enrich themselves while their younger subjects search in vain for a meaningful, fulfilling future.
An additional bit of text that sounded like it was written by the Saudis was the usual denunciation of Iran. This is painfully ironic, in that Iran just had a very successful election that returned President Rouhani to power - a man dedicated to bringing Iran into greater concert with the rest of the world. We had a similar opportunity under President Khatami in the late '90s and early '00s, but the Axis of Evil Speech undercut all efforts by Khatami to open to the West and led to the rise of Ahmadinejad.
This speech took a bland, cartoonish interpretation of the violence of the Middle East - it's all Iran's fault for supporting Assad, leaving aside Russia's role and absolving Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States for empowering ISIS - and throws the door shut in Rouhani's face, just as he can plausibly claim a mandate to bring Iran back into the community of nations.
An Iran that is powerful and integrated into global norms is a real threat to Saudi Arabia. More so, arguably, than a nuclear armed Iran. Iran has elections, however flawed. Iran has some rights for women, however circumscribed. Iran has the potential to help stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, however little.
The constant thrall of DC to Saudi antipathy towards Iran is based somewhat on our own fraught history with the Islamic Republic, but it is also bought and paid for by Saudi billions. And it's a damned shame.
But Trump didn't step on his own dick, so...pivot!
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Here's Some Good News
Iran President Hassan Rouhani has been overwhelmingly re-elected in the face of a hardline challenger. While we should never overstate the degree of democracy in Iran, at this point, we can at least applaud the decision the Iranian people made from the choices they were allowed.
Rouhani will hopefully be allowed to continue his process of re-integrating Iran with the rest of the world. That is unless Trumpelthinskin decides to destroy the whole thing.
Rouhani will hopefully be allowed to continue his process of re-integrating Iran with the rest of the world. That is unless Trumpelthinskin decides to destroy the whole thing.
Friday, May 19, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)