So Few Leaders

The NY Times has a good piece on the situation in Albany:

Albany, as the spectacle of the deadlocked Senate has shown vividly over the last month, is afflicted with many problems: lawbreaking leaders, feuding factions and powerful special interests.

But for those wondering how Albany could have sunk to the level it has, with the State Senate unable to function, one good answer is the extraordinary comfort among the state’s legislators that comes with knowing that they will almost never be voted out of office.

Many people inside and outside state government agree that such a comfort level has bred a kind of arrogance among the legislators about the costs of even profound embarrassments.

This whole time I had thought there would eventually be a revolt by a group of rank and file Democrats and Republicans, forming a coalition and tossing out their leaders. After all, there has to be at least 32 senators that are tired of this nonsense and realize how bad they are looking. And there have to be 32 senators between the Republicans and Democrats that want nothing to do with Espada, that do not want Dean Skelos to be their leader because he has tied the Republicans to Espada, and that do not want Smith to be the leader because of how badly he led before and how desperately he is clinging to power now. There have to be 32 senators that want to dump these leaders and get some business done.

But there are not, as the article shows, for two reasons. First, the leaders wield too much power, so rank and file are unwilling to cross them lest their plan fails. And second, no matter how embarrassed they are, they know they will be re-elected.

I have decided to vote against my Senator no matter who is running against him in the next election. (And I am going write him a letter telling him this.) While I hope many more people do the same thing, I know that the elections are over a year off, by which time people will have forgotten. And I know most people probably do not blame their own senator.

Albany needs a change (although some of the ideas have been stupid - Lazio - and show that the person does not actually understand the problem), but it is unlikely to get it.

Some Ideas from the Atlantic

This month's Atlantic Monthly had some interesting stuff in it. They called it the ideas issue, and the first three of the "Quick Fixes" were actually pretty good (the rest, not so much): Allow foreclosed owners to stay in their homes as renters, allow the UN to pay private soldiers to act as peacekeepers, and a more flexible attitude about installing democracy in Afghanistan.

I think only the last of the three, no democracy in Afghanistan, is likely to happen. Some big lenders may allow foreclosed owners to stay on, by I think few will and there is no will to impose that.

And although I do not think it would happen, the private UN peacekeepers is an interesting idea, although not a terrible new one. In fact I think my brother might have mentioned it one time. And it is possible that I dismissed it. But now that I consider it more, I do think it makes sense. It seems to me that the private troops could be more accountable, through contract renewal, than some of the country-sent troops, which have been accused of crimes and abuses themselves. And this way, only funding would stand in the way of peacekeeper deployment, and not the lack of willingness to send troops, which is more common.

Policy Towards Iran

As the election situation in Iran continues, it is important I think to take a step back and think about how Iran fits into the Middle East. There was an interesting, although overly simplistic, article in the Atlantic this month about the interplay between Iran, Sunni Arab nations, Shiite nations, Palestine and Israel. The author of the article suggests that we can use the threat of a nuclear Iran to unite Arabs and Israelis and achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.

The author correctly describes the triangle in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shiites, and Israel. Each group hates the others, but depending on power dynamics may be willing to work with one to team up against the other. Right now, Sunni Arab nations are concerned about the growing influence of Shiite Iran and now a Shiite-lead Iraq. And they are especially concerned about a nuclear Iran.

Now, while I agree that this situation exists and can be exploited, I doubt that it is as likely a possibility as the author thinks it is. I think Israel is entrenched in their position as are the Palestinians.

But more importantly, I think it is dangerous to operate this way. By supporting and uniting Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shiites, we would be taking a side in a centuries-long struggle between Shiites and Sunnis against the Shiites. During this struggle, Shiites have long been oppressed, and remain so in majority Sunni countries (although some are finding their voice in some degree in Afghanistan).

The beginning of Vali Nasr's book The Shia Revival shows us how in the past we were united against Shiites (supporting Iraq's Sunni dictator against Iran in a brutal decade long war), and how we ultimately regretted that after 9/11. So while I agree that Iran has long been belligerent towards the US, which is partly but definitely not entirely our fault, we should not push us into once again aligning with Sunni autocratic states. It is short term pseudo-solutions like this that prevent long term lasting solutions.

NYS Senate - ANGER!

Each day the situation in the NYS Senate hits a new low. I will not drag you down with me by giving you a blow-by-blow. Suffice it to say, the best thing you can do for your sanity is to tune it out until they finally come to an agreement. But do not allow your ability to ignore the situation to dispel your anger. We should be furious that the situation has devolved as far as it has - that each person participating in the drama manages to recognize how absurd it is but find ridiculous ways to blame it on somebody else. (While I have not been a fan of Paterson lately, I think he is doing a decent job of shaming the Senate - which is why they are so angry at him. Granted a more deft leader might have been able to accomplish more, but I think he has been performing fine.)

The bottom line is that each side is content to play chicken with the other - to refuse to make a deal and get to work until they are recognized as the leaders. And each side is betting that the other side looks worse (or they assume that voter apathy is enough to prevent real repercussions). To be fair, they are probably also wise to the fact that voters have a habit of giving low approval ratings to the legislature (be it US Congress or the states) while high approval ratings for their own legislator. So most if not all of these clowns will be re-elected.

What angers me the most though is the recognition that if they finally do reach an agreement, they will only deal with the real necessities and then leave for vacation. And all the serious bills that deserved consideration will be left until next term. If there ever is a next term.

Iran Elections

I am sure everyone is aware of the situation in Iran - the country has seen protests, and then violence against the protesters, following unbelievable presidential election results. There is a lot of reason for suspecting fraud, including the really short time it took the government to announce the results, the huge margin of victory for Ahmadinejad despite polling data (and previous election results) that would predict a closer election, and the fact that some districts had more votes than registered voters (not unexplainable, but definitely suspicious).

There are lots of smart analyses out there, including an article that looks at random number generation as compared to human's ability to generate random numbers. Much of the mainstream media is covering it, and the blog Informed Comment has had some really great coverage (written by the author of the new book Engaging the Muslim World).

What is interesting is seeing the way Obama has tried a new approach in responding. Unlike much of the people talking (including McCain), Obama realizes that too much (or any) US rhetoric can brand the protesters as stooges of the US. So he tried to stay out of it, although eventually caved in to pressure and commented. (There is probably no winning - you do not want to let the Iranian government - or the people themselves - think no one is watching, but you do not want protesters to look like Western agents.)

While I think most people lay their hopes on the ability of the protests to result in change, there is one other interesting possibility, mentioned on the the Times Lead blog:

A source familiar with the thinking of decision-makers in state agencies that have strong ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said there is a sense among hardliners that a shoe is about to drop. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — Iran’s savviest political operator and an arch-enemy of Ayatollah Khamenei’s — has kept out of the public spotlight since the rigged June 12 presidential election triggered the political crisis. The widespread belief is that Rafsanjani has been in the holy city of Qom, working to assemble a religious and political coalition to topple the supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Before we get carried away - either by the prospects of a new election won by Mousavi or Rafsanjani as Supreme Leader (the prospects of a complete change away from the religious democracy / theocracy are absurdly slim) - let's realize that either will still leave challenges for foreign policy. A new leader in either place will not necessarily move Iran away from seeking nuclear weapons or animosity towards Israel (in other words, we need to learn more about these two before rooting too hard for them or expecting too much).

Finally, I do want to comment on Iran in general. Before the election, I had mixed feelings about the country's form of government. While I certainly opposed the oppression that it often exerts, I was having trouble finding the same level of animosity for the government as others do (especially conservatives). First, I found it mostly hypocritical, since Iran has a more democratic system than countries like Saudi Arabia, which we rarely denounce.

But more so, I was having moments of relativism. Although western democracy calls for separation of church and state (which is sometimes even debated in the US), I wondered if there was room to tolerate a government that does ban some candidates, and ultimate control and decisions rest with unelected theocrats, but does allow for some meaningful participation.

The main question even then was how meaningful the participation was. It was unclear how much leeway the elected president had, although the previous reformer president managed to do very little. And in looking at a case of obvious voter fraud, it seems even more clear that Iranians have little power to choose their government.

But that question is still out there. The US government sets bounds for what changes will be accepted (via a constitution). An Islamic Republic in theory could do the same thing, if the bounds for change are left open so that voters can have an impact on how their government is involved in their lives. This clearly was not the case in Iran. The question is will it ever be - or are the only two options oppressive theocracy or western democracy.