2016 Election – Page 95 – The Wrongologist

Netanyahu: Gimme the Golan Heights

The carve-up of Syria has started. When Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Barak Obama on Monday, he asked for three things:

• That the US raise its aid to Israel from $2 billion US to $5 billion annually to be used against the “new” Iranian threat
• Israel intends to formally annex the Syrian Golan Heights, and Netanyahu wants our recognition of that annexation
• That the US submit the terms of any future deal involving Syria to Israel for their approval in advance of US approval

During the meeting, Netanyahu also clarified Israel’s purported “red lines” with regards to Syria.

We won’t tolerate attacks from Syrian territory, we won’t allow Iran to open a front [against us] on the Golan Heights, and we will disrupt the transfer of deadly weaponry from Syria to Lebanon…

That explains the money part of the requests. Well, we will do #1, we won’t do #3, and that leaves #2, recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan.

Some history: Israel occupied Syria’s Golan Heights after the Six-Day War in 1967, and annexed the Golan in 1981. In the intervening 48 years, neither the UN, nor any country has recognized the Golan annexation. The US could not unilaterally recognize the Golan annexation without upsetting our EU allies. In addition, Russia would not recognize the annexation, and they have an air force in Syria. And Iran could make life difficult for Israel by increasing Iranian aid and weapons to Hezbollah.

Why does Israel want to complicate Obama’s task in the Middle East? Well, he asked for recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, just as new oil reserves were discovered there.

Wait, they found oil in the Golan? Apparently, yes. And it’s potentially billions of barrels. The tangled web of the oil business is at work here: Genie Oil & Gas, a US company, is doing the exploratory drilling in Golan through its subsidiary, Afek Israel Oil and Gas, which holds an exclusive 3 year petroleum exploration license issued by the government of Israel. Genie’s founder and CEO is Howard Jonas, who has been a big financial backer of Netanyahu’s political campaigns. And, look at the advisory board of Genie Oil & Gas:

• Michael Steinberg, Board Chair
• Rupert Murdoch
• Jacob Rothschild, the chairman of the J Rothschild group of companies
• ex-CIA director James Woolsey
• Dick Cheney
• Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard
• Bill Richardson, former secretary of energy under Bill Clinton
• Mary Landrieu, former Louisiana Democratic Senator

With “Advisors” like these, it would be foolish to bet against the US recognizing the Israeli annexation of an oil-rich Golan Heights at some point. From Mint Press News:

Israel hopes to quintuple the size of its settlements over the next five years by adding an additional 100,000 settlers to the region.

So, new settlers and new oil.

Perhaps Bibi’s request is really part of a longer game directed at the 2016 US presidential candidates, in which he is laying out his demands: “In return for my political support” go the unspoken, but implied words of Bibi, “I would like you to agree to fill my shopping bag,” including the Golan.

It turns out that Haaretz is now reporting that Mr. Obama has rebuffed Bibi’s bid to have the US recognize Israel’s annexing Golan:

Washington rejects Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suggestion to US President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday to discuss the possibility of US recognition of Israeli rule over the Golan Heights, a senior White House official said.

We should have predicted this move by Israel: the Golan occupied, and Syria in fragments due to uprisings and attacks by ISIS creates a vacuum for Israel to fill. But if you buy that the request was really directed at the next president and the next Congress, and not the lame duck Obama, Bibi apparently is betting that his sycophants in the Congress are going to give him what he wants in 2017.

It would be a challenge for America’s politicians to explain to voters in 2016 why we should increase funding of Israel by $3 billion, instead of helping students pay off their college loans, or instead of building better roads.

We need to make sure that this additional reach into our pockets by Israel is a national campaign issue in 2016. Until a few politicians lose an election because they are too hawkish on Israel, we will continue to lavish money on them.

And our politicians will continue to support Israel’s Middle East policies at the expense of our own.

Shouldn’t Democrats Be Doing Better?

Wrongo watched the first half hour of the Republican Debate. If you feel you must, a transcript of the whole debate is here. The focus was supposedly on the economy. Perhaps the funniest thing was that the media password for WiFi was “stophillary”.

You will be inundated with expert opinion about what was said and who the “winners” were, but none of that is important. All you need are the Wrongologist’s observations: First, the moderators couldn’t be trusted to offer a reality-based picture of the world, any more than the candidates. Maria Bartiromo asked Jeb about unemployment, saying that almost 40% of Americans are without a job and are not even looking. Really? Media Matters checked, and her number included children, retirees, college students, and stay-at-home parents.

Yep, Republican policies will get those kids and retirees into the workforce.

Regarding the candidates:

• There was oratory, little of which sounded informed
• Most denied basic facts about economic and jobs growth
• Most candidates agreed that nobody needs a minimum wage, much less a higher minimum wage
• They agreed we need a small government, but one that still can dominate the world

When a Republican says “small government,” they really mean making the government’s legal and regulatory arm ineffective enough to allow businesses to do whatever the Hades they want until something bad happens. Then Congress can say: “who could have imagined” like the morons they are, and ask the taxpayers to clean up the mess.

You would think that the debate performance by Republicans, and their relative lack of political experience, opens up a window for Democrats in 2016. It should, but Democrats may not be in a position to take advantage. Since the Reagan era, they have deserted the world view and policies that gave them an upper hand politically. They have left the New Deal and Great Society behind, and failed to replace them with anything that anyone thinks is worth getting excited about.

They have morphed into “Republican Lite.” Republicans don’t like Democrats because they won’t agree to the GOP’s fringe ideas on guns, climate change and gutting the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts.

Most of the rest of the country just doesn’t care about these new Dems. Some detest their support of abortion and gay and transgender rights. Democrats aren’t doing better because it is obvious that they have become what we used to call moderate Republicans, and why should right-of-center voters settle for the imitation flavor?

A pundit said last week that Barack Obama is only slightly to the left of Richard Nixon. Judge for yourself: Nixon instituted national price controls, ended convertibility of the dollar into gold, signed legislation that started the EPA, and endorsed the failed Equal Rights Amendment. Would Obama we know today have done all of those things?

Since 2008, Democrats have lost the electoral argument in the states. Republicans now control both houses in 31 state legislatures, and have gained 900 seats in those state legislatures on Obama’s watch.

That doesn’t sound like Democrats are following a winning strategy.

Bernie Sanders is attempting to help the Democratic Party rediscover who they once were. However, that re-discovery is not widespread, and may be occurring too late to be of service in this election cycle. If the re-awakening does not occur in this cycle, there is reason to believe that the oligarchs will have all the votes they need both in Congress and on the Supreme Court to ensure a semi-permanent reign.

So Democrats, the choice is yours: You can endorse centrist, middle-of-the-road issues, or you can represent the issues that the American people actually care about. If you go middle of the road, know that you’re putting the millennial vote in play, since they are a generation that, for the most part, remains politically independent.

This strategy may lead to Hillary taking the White House, but it will make taking back the Senate harder, and it will not reduce the Republican majority in the H0use.

Democrats need to do better.

They Call It “Class Warfare” For a Reason

Many pundits have commented on research by Angus Deaton and Anne Case of Princeton (h/t: Naked Capitalism for an ungated copy of the report) showing that mortality rates for middle-aged white Americans have risen since 1999, in contrast to the patterns for every other racial group and for residents of virtually every other affluent country. Here is a comparison of mortality rates among developed countries, with the US middle-aged white population:

“USW” above stands for US non-Hispanic Whites, while “USH” is US Hispanics, both are census descriptions. Deaton and Case found that rising substance abuse, including alcohol-related disease and painkiller overdose, was the main cause of the disturbing trend:

“Poisonings” refers to drugs and opioids. White Americans are killing themselves directly or indirectly, in increasing numbers. Suicide is up, and so are deaths from drug poisoning and the chronic liver disease that excessive drinking causes. This has happened before, in Russia after the fall of Communism. But it’s a shock to see it in America.

Why this has happened with few noticing until now, is a great question. There have been warning signs of distress, such as the fact that US life expectancy has stopped rising, and that death rates among white women had risen (and over the same time period examined in the Deaton-Case study). USA Today reported in 2008 that the problem highlighted by Deaton and Case already was already flowering in the Deep South and Appalachia. Citing a study by the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Washington, they found that:

4% of the male population and 19% of the female population experienced either declines or stagnation in their life expectancy in the ’80s and ’90s.

Krugman in Monday’s NYT called it “Despair, American Style“, but like others, did not offer a complte explanation of the phenomena. Deeper analysis is necessary. It would be helpful to see the data mapped. An educated guess is that it is correlated with states that made up the old Confederacy and the American rust belt, as the 2008 Harvard study found.

For example, a 2013 report by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) identified West Virginia as leading the nation in drug overdose deaths, with a rate of 28.9 per 100,000 residents. The state’s fatal overdose rate increased by 605% between 1999 and 2010, and has jumped 1,056% since 1979. The majority of these deaths are attributable to the abuse of addictive prescription painkillers.

Assuming that Krugman is correct and it is related to despair, maybe we should look at whether this cohort possesses the things necessary to make life worthwhile, including food security, and a decent place to live, a way to be a part of a larger community, a sense of self-worth. If you’ve lived long enough to see people break, and then try to figure out why they did, while others did not, a lot of it is whether they were part of a supportive community, or an indifferent/cruel environment.

Job and income insecurity causes stress, and stress is a killer. Over an extended period of time, the physical effects of stress can result in long term adverse effects to health, including contributing to chronic pain and depression. Some manage to find relief by opting to buy weed online, but others struggle to get a hold of these products due to local legislation and turn to their doctors for other methods. Some may even find themselves using cambodian mushrooms to help manage their anxiety and stress before turning to any doctor’s orders.

But our physicians are also at fault. Here is a CDC article that says that the amount of pain Americans report has not increased, while the prescribing of pain meds has quadrupled since 1999. Deaton and Case also point out that opioids are prescribed far more often here to treat maladies that include pain than in other countries.

This didn’t happen yesterday, and it won’t be cured by exhortations to “eat healthy,” or “do yoga,” or to follow the great American mantra: “study hard”. To end despair in the working class, we need a better program:

(a) Supportive communities that end stigmatizing of low income earners
(b) Universal health care
(c) A jobs guarantee, with a living minimum wage, so people have better options than the Dollar Store or fast food
(d) Free college, so parents believe that their kids have a shot at a better life

Job and income insecurity are insidious. When you spend a few years out of work, despair creeps in. Despair will push you to the fringes of society, and then, society will blame you for being there.

A redesign of our capitalism is the answer.

Does any presidential candidate support this?

Monday Wake Up Call – November 9, 2015

Welcome to Monday. In doing research for a post on GDP, I stumbled on this speech at the University of Kansas by Robert F. Kennedy in March, 1968 while he was running for president. There is a surprising parallel between events then and now. Consider his joke about the polarization in the Senate:

I think of the warmth that exists in the Senate of the United States – I don’t know why you’re laughing – I was sick last year and I received a message from the Senate of the United States which said: ‘We hope you recover,’ and the vote was 42 to 40.

Or, his thoughts about the (then) current state of the nation that mirrors today: (edits and brackets by the Wrongologist)

There is much more to this critical election year than the war in Vietnam…at…the root of all of it, [is] the national soul of the United States. The President calls it “restlessness.” Our cabinet officers…and others tell us that America is deep in a malaise of spirit: discouraging initiative, paralyzing will and action, and dividing Americans from one another, by their age, their views and by the color of their skin and I don’t think we have to accept that here in the United States of America.

Or, his thoughts about income inequality that are still relevant today:

I have seen children in Mississippi…with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation, and we haven’t developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live…so that their lives are not destroyed, I don’t think that’s acceptable in the United States of America and I think we need a change.

Or, his thoughts about race in America:

I have seen the people of the black ghetto, listening to ever greater promises of equality and of justice, as they sit in the same decaying schools and huddled in the same filthy rooms…warding off the cold and warding off the rats. If we believe that we, as Americans, are bound together by a common concern for each other, then an urgent national priority is upon us. We must begin to end the disgrace of this other America.

We tend to remember RFK as the anti-Vietnam candidate in 1968. But he was very concerned about political polarization, income inequality and the great stain of racism in America. His comments on those issues could be made today. The oligarchs are still at work, attempting to politically isolate the progressive candidates. Income inequality has gotten substantially worse, and race relations have not improved, as the “Black Lives Matter” movement shows.

RFK’s passion to end the Vietnam War led him to say:

It was said, a number of years ago that this is ‘their war’…’this is the war of the South Vietnamese’ that ‘we can help them, but we can’t win it for them’ but over the period of the last three years we have made the war and the struggle in South Vietnam our war, and I think that’s unacceptable.

Does that sound like the Middle East today? He goes on to say:

I think it’s a question of the people of South Vietnam feeling it’s worth their efforts – that they’re going to make the sacrifice – that they feel that their country and their government is worth fighting for and…the last several years have shown…that the people of South Vietnam feel no association and no affiliation for the government of Saigon and I don’t think it’s up to us here in the United States…

Bobby closed with:

So I come here to Kansas to ask for your help…If you believe that the United States can do better. If you believe that we should change our course of action. If you believe that the United States stands for something here internally as well as elsewhere around the globe, I ask for your help and your assistance and your hand over the period of the next five months.

We really need an RFK in our politics today. Let’s hope that his plain-speaking idealism is not lost forever. For your wake-up, listen to his comments on GDP in the KU speech:

He is challenging the basic way we measure economic progress and well-being. RFK said the Gross Domestic Product counts “everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

For those who read the Wrongologist in email, you can listen to the video here.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – November 8, 2015

Another interesting week. Here at the Mansion of Wrong, most leaves are on the ground, except for the Oak trees. Squirrels are very busy with this year’s bumper crop of acorns. In politics, Jeb and Ben looked, but couldn’t find any acorns. Mr. Obama said “Yes” to troops in Syria and “No” to the Keystone pipeline.

Not a great week for Republican candidates. Jeb can’t escape the family legacy:

Dr. Carson fumbled science, including why we have Pyramids:

Tuesday’s elections followed a tried and true script:

Mr. Obama pushed the pram into Syria:

But, we have no “boots on the ground”:

A study revealed that middle-aged whites are dying more quickly in the US:

The Republican “Free Stuff” Meme

At the last Republican presidential debate, Chris Christie (R-NJ) characterized the Democratic candidates’ debate as:

A parade of, ‘I’ll give you this for free; I’ll give you that for free’.

Senator Marco Rubio said: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

It [the first Democratic debate] was basically a…debate about who was going to give away the most free stuff: Free college education, free college education for people illegally in this country, free health care, free everything.

Jeb Bush says that black voters should back him, since his:

…message is one of hope and aspiration, not one of division and get in line and we’ll take care of you with free stuff…

For the record, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and unemployment have dedicated tax revenue streams. If we back out those funded benefits, all other elements of the so-called social safety net “free stuff” adds up to ~$405 billion, a fraction of the $1.2 trillion in “unfunded” Federal entitlements, and most of the rest goes to top income earners.

So, what do Republicans mean when they say “Free Stuff”? From Jared Bernstein:

There are at least three definitions of “free stuff.” The broadest would simply include all government benefits. A narrower version might apply only when people receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. A third might refer to any net gain relative to the status quo.

Under any of these definitions, the Republican claims are misleading: they attack help for people who need it, while implicitly condoning tax subsidies for the wealthy. What the Republicans want us to focus on are public education, Medicaid, and direct cash assistance to the poor, but the government provides other subsidies, some of which the GOP seems perfectly happy to keep in place.

For example, Rubio and Bush want to cut capital gains taxes below the current level (Rubio would completely abolish them). But today’s reduced cap gains rate already provides a significant benefit to people who invest in assets (i.e., the wealthy). Then there are things like regressive housing tax breaks, about 70% of which go to those in the top 20%. In addition, 68% of the tax benefits for retirement savings and 64% of subsidies for individual retirement accounts (IRAs) accrue to the top 20%.

Can it be that government benefits for poor people are “free stuff”, while benefits for the wealthy are not?

Maybe Christie, Rubio, and Bush subscribe to the second definition described above: It’s “free stuff” if you receive more in benefits than you pay in taxes, but not if you pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits.

The third way to think about “free stuff” mirrors the most accepted concept of “free”. Bernstein asks:

Suppose, for example, that you opened your email today to find an unexpected $100 Amazon gift card. No matter how much money you had spent or planned to spend at Amazon, you would call this “free” money. Or imagine that you go out to dinner at a restaurant and a waiter decides to “comp” your dessert. Regardless of the overall price of your meal, you would likely consider that dessert item to be “free.”

Under this definition, “free stuff” from the government would be new benefits or reduced taxes relative to one’s current situation. Since the Christie, Rubio, and Bush tax plans all contain massive tax cuts, they would give away huge amounts of foregone tax revenue as “free stuff,” and unlike the “free stuff” proposed by the Democratic candidates – the GOP “free stuff” would go to their very wealthy patrons.

From the carried interest loophole, to drug patent law, to defense industry markups, to sweetheart deals for the oil industry, the total “free stuff” for the 1% dwarfs that available to the rest of us. Yet, the nattering nabobs of trickledown continue to target removing the scraps doled out to the 99%.

Social stability is the reason the rich should not begrudge the support given to those that are less fortunate in our society. The rich have the most to lose should the vast majority decide they have suffered enough, and we see an “off with their heads” moment.

Extra money in the hands of the 1% or the .01% just creates bidding wars for penthouse apartments that the 2% can no longer afford.

Waiting for the Great Trumpkin

Today, we focus on this from the WaPo’s Marc Fisher who profiles the kind of people who support Donald Trump and finds they are mostly older white men and women:

The way Joe McCoy sees it, the last time America was great was when Ronald Reagan was president, when people played by the rules. No, it was in the ’70s, Holly Martin says, when you could depend on Americans to work hard. No, to find true American greatness, Steve Trivett contends, you need to go back to before the Vietnam War, ‘when you could still own a home and have a good job even if you didn’t have a college education.’

Fisher says this demographic resonates with the Donald’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again”. And even if they don’t agree on exactly why, they do accept Trump’s contention that the US has become “an economic wasteland” and that it is “committing cultural suicide.”

The premise behind “Make America Great Again” is that while the country is no longer great, it can be great again, and Trump is the can-do billionaire who can make that happen.

This can be difficult to watch, like a slowly-developing accident on the freeway. People seem so easily misled, and they say such unsophisticated things about immigration, about Putin and Syria, about our economy, about the threat from Muslims who live in America.

But do we have good Party establishment choices in the 2016 election? No, voters don’t have good, clear choices, despite the unprecedented number of candidates.

Republicans made their voters a bunch of promises over the past 10 years, some of which they had no hope of keeping, and others which they had no intention of actually delivering. It’s also clear that the Republican “Establishment” is frustrated with the Republican candidates, and their supporters who actually expected the Party to be more effective. That’s why so many Republican voters have no interest in Jeb Bush or Scott Walker, and it’s clear that the GOP Establishment misunderstands their own base.

So, Donald Trump appeals to many Republicans as someone who’s pretty effective at holding the media’s attention and driving the national conversation. Someone who looks to be a better bet to actually shake things up and make possible a few things that currently look impossible.

It might be a GOP Hail Mary pass, but what’s the alternative?

For Democrats, Hillary Clinton looks like the candidate who’s “turn” has finally come. She is a product of their “establishment” as much as Jeb Bush is of the GOP’s.

And is it really all that different that the progressive left looks to Bernie Sanders to create a “revolution” in the political climate, making a progressive America possible? Sanders may be more of a Hail Mary pass than Trump.

Since both parties suck and won’t work together, many on both sides are looking for an anti-establishment Messiah to lead them to the political Promised Land. What makes this risk seem worth it is that, while folks understand they’re inviting chaos, they feel our politics are already chaotic. So, people think “What’s the difference?”

And it’s hard to argue with them. American politics feels like a metaphor of Easter Island: Some of us spend our lives trying to get new trees to grow, while the majority are happy to keep chopping down the old ones as fast as they can.

Trump is saying if we vote for him, he’ll make it all better. And if you read Senator Sander’s stump speech, you’d know he is saying he can’t do it alone, that people have to get together and organize to effect change.

That is “a substantive difference” between these two “insurgents”.

That’s why Bernie Sanders’ use of the Democratic Socialist label is disorienting. It shakes people out of their normal process enough to wonder how he thinks he could possibly win. He can’t.

And the mainstream media and both party establishments say: “things really aren’t as bad as they’re made out to be.” They hope that in the end, most voters will agree with their sentiment, and vote for their establishment candidates.

But voters have spent decades lowering their expectations (in Wrongo’s case, except for a short-lived upswing in 2008). Screw that. People need to raise their expectations. Because lower expectations and the “what did you expect” attitude is essentially giving permission for poor results.

We need to expect MORE, demand more.

Because it’s better to have high expectations with the risk of disappointment, than it is to have low expectations that guarantee more of the same old stuff.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – November 1, 2015

A Republican debate, a new Speaker of the House, boots on the ground in Syria, the World Series, not to mention Halloween. Quite the week. Did you set your clocks back?

This tweet pretty much sums up the Republican debate poutrage:

Rubio had a good debate. Suddenly, people see him as taller:

GOP Halloween:

Now that Paul Ryan is Speaker, it will be a wild ride:

Ryan will try to be first with the leash:

Uncle Sam whistles past America’s foreign policy graveyard:

NY Mets World Series tix are pricey:

What’s The Strategy Mr. Obama?

From The Atlantic:

Defense Secretary Ash Carter says the US will step up its operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, including through ‘direct action on the ground.’

Carter captured the strategic incoherence that is the essence of our current Middle East policy.

And isn’t sending our uniformed military into Syria to support forces in open rebellion against the Syrian government an act of war? What will we say when a non-NATO country invokes this same precedent, say, in the Baltic States, or on Philippine territory?

We seem to be relying on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF is our legal excuse to justify any plan for more intervention in the ME. It is a catch-all, because it allows the US to go after whoever we dislike. The relevant passage from the AUMF says that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Our new ME policy backs ISIS in Syria, but fights it in Iraq. This is a flawed strategic position. It puts US soldiers at risk of direct confrontation with Russian forces, instead of by proxy, which would be bad enough. From Sic Semper Tyrannis: (Brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)

In Syria, the [Def Sec]Carter/[General]Dunford/WH “team” proposes to insert US Green Berets into YPG Kurdish controlled areas northeast of Aleppo as instructors, coordinators, advisers and air controllers. The Turkish Air Force has been busy bombing these same Kurds the last few days to prevent them moving west along the border to seal it against IS transit of the border from Turkey…Question – what will happen when Turkey kills some US soldiers?

We are doing this because we have been outplayed by Russia in Syria. The US (and Obama’s) dilemma has nothing to do with the alleged Obama fecklessness. It has everything to do with the US having to cope with the second order effects of the destruction of Iraq.

Iraq is America’s cardinal sin, and we will suffer its consequences for a very long time.

The US cannot have a coherent ME strategy as long as it remains loyal to its traditional ME allies/clients Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. Successive administrations have maneuvered the US into a position where we can’t extricate ourselves from the policy goals of these “client states”, even when we know their goals are detrimental to US interests.

These alliances have placed the US in a foreign policy straitjacket. Obama wants to wriggle free. He wants to accept the changes in the regional balance of power that have emerged as a result of the destruction of Iraq, but our allies/clients both resent, and oppose them.

The simple fact is that the US is dependent on the consent of these allies/clients for the use of their overseas bases. The Turks have leveraged that need with the denial of use of Incirlik Air Base until their demands were met. We should expect the Saudis and Qataris play the same card.

The Obama administration understands that the US is losing its grip on the region and its politics. We try to operate against that, despite having allies/clients that have different objectives than we have, allies who have diametrically opposing narratives of recent events and very different policy goals.

That means the “allies” resist our plans, while we compromise with them, and work to meet their preconditions. This is precisely because the US has configured our Empire in a way that means these allies aren’t “client states” at all: They are “customers” for our military suppliers, and everyone knows that The Customer Is Always Right.

In the end, even assuming a rational strategy and stellar execution, the regional balance of power in the ME has fundamentally changed, and the US must adjust.

This new move by the Obama administration means that America is on a track to just continue wandering around in the ME. That will continue until we are again bloodied on the ground, and fade away…or stumble into WWIII.

We let the genie is out of the bottle. Now it is time to deal with it.

See you on Sunday.

You Say You Want a Revolution

The Nation describes Bernie Sanders’s “Political Revolution”: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

When Sanders speaks of that political revolution, he is asking Americans—especially younger Americans like the crowds of Iowans in their teens and twenties who packed the Sanders bleachers in Des Moines’ Hy-Vee Hall for the Jefferson-Jackson dinner—to believe that electoral politics might actually change something. Sanders knows that won’t happen unless people who are frustrated and disengaged and disenchanted see him as a candidate who is distinctly different from the rest.

For Sanders, “Political Revolution” means a protracted, grassroots effort to fix a broken political, economic and social system. He says it will take millions of people to get involved and then stay mobilized after the election to bring about a political revolution.

That’s what Bernie Sanders’s campaign is all about.

So, if you agree that our politics is broken, shouldn’t we actually be working to fix the underlying problems? Without something that looks like a “political revolution”, fixing these problems is difficult if not highly unlikely. Consider the following:

• Capitalism as an economic engine has created unheard of levels of wealth, but since the 1980s, that wealth only accrued to those at the very top.
• Democracy is in trouble, because Capitalism needs a plutocratic system of government to operate.
• Democracy gets in Capitalism’s way because the interests of the people are not congruent with the interests of the corporations. They are often in direct competition.
• In order for corporations to keep their preferred position in this conflict of ideas, the voice of the people must be weaker than the voice of the corporations. Hence, Shelby County vs. Holder, Citizens United and the soon-to-be decided Evenwel v. Abbott.

Democrats say “vote for us because we’re not as crazy as the Republicans” (even though they actually support the same corporate interests). The Dems will also offer you a few social policy crumbs that you should enjoy on your way to becoming the big losers in our latest Gilded Age. And those crumbs will expire when Republicans control all three branches of government.

The last political revolution began when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. That revolution has continued through two Democratic and two Republican administrations, for more than 35 years.

• It resulted in higher taxes for the middle classes which paid for lower taxes on the wealthy.
• It reversed progress toward voting rights, racial equality and equal rights for women, progress that was made in the 1960s and 1970s
• It has prevented universal health insurance.
• It led to increased terrorism and endless war.

So, it’s been a wild success! And it’s still going strong under its second Democratic president.

Bernie’s “political revolution” is to attempt to turn Democrats back to being the party of the people, to give Capitalism a conscience. The theory goes, if Democrats embraced Bernie’s point of view, people will vote in large numbers. If they vote in large numbers, change will come.

This is the fight Bernie is leading.

But Bernie has no real chance at the nomination, and if he got it, there is a high probability he’d lose the general election in a blow-out. And since he’s not doing the things he needs to build a constituency in Congress, or it other down-ticket races, his populism is unlikely to translate into a movement. America has to hit rock bottom for that to happen, and we’re not there yet.

OTOH, Hillary doesn’t seem to have a plan to win the House or Senate in 2016 either.

But the fact that it is unlikely that he can win doesn’t mean that Bernie and his supporters shouldn’t fight for his policies. He has already forced Hillary to recant a few illiberal positions. And his pursuit of right-leaning white working class voters could help forge a new populist coalition down the road. Poor white folks have been clinging to the GOP for the past forty-odd years, and they are still poor, and getting poorer.

They might be willing to embrace his populist economic message even while they hold their noses when they hear his social justice views.

So, when you hear about Sanders’ political revolution, it doesn’t sound so much like a revolution as a return to policies that had been in place for much of the 20th century, those policies that began during the FDR era.

What Sanders describes is a political restoration, not a revolution.

Little that he proposes is radical from the point of view of where the country was in the 1970s.

Back before the Regan revolution began.

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Category: 2016 Election