I don't really have the energy to go into this right now, but I just need to say that the farm bill passed by Congress, vetoed by the President, and then overrode by Congress, is a disgrace. It rewards the undeserving and doesn't help those in need. Agribusiness does not need government welfare, but developing countries need us to end our subsidies.
It is frightening that so many people in Congress can get something so wrong. I must therefore recognize one person who got it right - John McCain. I feel I might not get the chance to say many nice things about McCain in the upcoming election. Here though, the made the right choice. Furthermore, President Bush also made the right decision to veto the bill.
The NY Times Editorial on the bill sums up my feelings pretty well.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
League of Democracies
I heard that McCain has been supporting this idea of creating a League of Democracies. The support for this institution, which would replace the United Nations, rests on the assumption that the UN in ineffective because the non-democratic countries interfere with our ability to do good. The problem is that this assumption just doesn't ring true.
At a reading for her latest book, Samantha Power made a profound but obvious statement. She said the UN will only be as effective as its strongest member - the US - wants it to be. The fact is that many times, we have used the UN to avoid doing the right thing and has rarely stood in our way of acting when we truly wanted to. In Rwanda, we manipulated the UN to prevent us from acting (by preventing the UN from acting). And of course in Iraq we acted without UN approval.
Granted, on the margins, there are times when our desires are frustrated. Our ability to bring sanctions against countries like Iran and Sudan has been hampered. In the case of Iran, other democracies were standing in our way. And with Sudan, there are much more effective efforts we could undertake without the UN if we really wanted to.
On the other side though, a League of Democracies is unlikely to be more favorable towards Israel than the UN is, considering that although Israel is a democracy, the situation with the occupied territories doesn't exactly live up to democratic standards.
What conservatives like McCain actually want is a new institution that is better at doing what we want it to. We want an institution that will levy sanctions when we say to, let us invade when we want to, help avoid military efforts when we want to, and pretend that the situation in Israel is fine as it is and deserves no rebuke. A world body like this is a pipe dream. Our only hope is to actually live up to our standards, not our self interest. Maybe then other countries would be more willing to follow suit.
At a reading for her latest book, Samantha Power made a profound but obvious statement. She said the UN will only be as effective as its strongest member - the US - wants it to be. The fact is that many times, we have used the UN to avoid doing the right thing and has rarely stood in our way of acting when we truly wanted to. In Rwanda, we manipulated the UN to prevent us from acting (by preventing the UN from acting). And of course in Iraq we acted without UN approval.
Granted, on the margins, there are times when our desires are frustrated. Our ability to bring sanctions against countries like Iran and Sudan has been hampered. In the case of Iran, other democracies were standing in our way. And with Sudan, there are much more effective efforts we could undertake without the UN if we really wanted to.
On the other side though, a League of Democracies is unlikely to be more favorable towards Israel than the UN is, considering that although Israel is a democracy, the situation with the occupied territories doesn't exactly live up to democratic standards.
What conservatives like McCain actually want is a new institution that is better at doing what we want it to. We want an institution that will levy sanctions when we say to, let us invade when we want to, help avoid military efforts when we want to, and pretend that the situation in Israel is fine as it is and deserves no rebuke. A world body like this is a pipe dream. Our only hope is to actually live up to our standards, not our self interest. Maybe then other countries would be more willing to follow suit.
Race in the Primaries
Hillary has recently been describing how Obama lacks support among working class white voters. Without that support, he might not win the nomination, or so the argument goes. I admit that this argument does scare me a bit. What is even more troubling are the polls that say that 25 percent of the voters in West Virginia said race was a factor - and 75 percent of those supported Hillary. Apparently Kentucky was much the same.
While Hillary along with many commentators have been suggesting that sexism has been worse than racism on the campaign trail (considering the comments that have been yelled at Hillary), there seem to be many voters actually making their decision based on racism.
What really bothers me about all this though is that Hillary doesn't seem at all concerned that there might be people supporting her out of racism. Actually, she is concerned that Obama might not be able to win, but not concerned that there is racism. For a while I was thinking that the classy thing for her to do would be to stand up and say, "Any voters supporting me because you won't vote for a black man, stay home. I mean it, if there is any racism in your heart, I don't want your vote."
The truth is, I feel even more strongly about this now. I don't see it as the classy thing to do (which I wouldn't expect from Hillary), but as the moral thing to do. Both she and McCain need to say that they don't want the votes of racists. Period. Instead, Hillary is doing the opposite. She is using the working class white - possibly racist - voters in Appalachia (because apparently this is a regional problem instead of that affects all whites of a certain income level) to further her argument that she is the better nominee.
Before I wrap up, I should take a moment to discuss the two different ways one can vote based on race (or gender). In one case, the voter's decision would be an affirmative vote, casting a ballot for someone because of their race. In the other case, you are voting against someone because of their race. To me, the difference is that in the former, the decision is one of identity and in the latter the decision is based on hate. And to me, that makes all the difference.
To conclude though, I keep coming back to this one feeling about Hillary (and Bill, too). She (they) care only about achieving their goals of ambition and power. While this isn't an uncommon trait among politicians, it feels like the magnitude is far greater in them. And so in the end, their drive and ambition obscures what might otherwise be their impulse to sacrifice (ie forgo power) in the course of doing what is right. Maybe McCain will be willing to do such a thing.
While Hillary along with many commentators have been suggesting that sexism has been worse than racism on the campaign trail (considering the comments that have been yelled at Hillary), there seem to be many voters actually making their decision based on racism.
What really bothers me about all this though is that Hillary doesn't seem at all concerned that there might be people supporting her out of racism. Actually, she is concerned that Obama might not be able to win, but not concerned that there is racism. For a while I was thinking that the classy thing for her to do would be to stand up and say, "Any voters supporting me because you won't vote for a black man, stay home. I mean it, if there is any racism in your heart, I don't want your vote."
The truth is, I feel even more strongly about this now. I don't see it as the classy thing to do (which I wouldn't expect from Hillary), but as the moral thing to do. Both she and McCain need to say that they don't want the votes of racists. Period. Instead, Hillary is doing the opposite. She is using the working class white - possibly racist - voters in Appalachia (because apparently this is a regional problem instead of that affects all whites of a certain income level) to further her argument that she is the better nominee.
Before I wrap up, I should take a moment to discuss the two different ways one can vote based on race (or gender). In one case, the voter's decision would be an affirmative vote, casting a ballot for someone because of their race. In the other case, you are voting against someone because of their race. To me, the difference is that in the former, the decision is one of identity and in the latter the decision is based on hate. And to me, that makes all the difference.
To conclude though, I keep coming back to this one feeling about Hillary (and Bill, too). She (they) care only about achieving their goals of ambition and power. While this isn't an uncommon trait among politicians, it feels like the magnitude is far greater in them. And so in the end, their drive and ambition obscures what might otherwise be their impulse to sacrifice (ie forgo power) in the course of doing what is right. Maybe McCain will be willing to do such a thing.
When to Talk
As Obama starts to turn his attention to McCain, there has been a lot of talk about whether or not we should, well, talk to our enemies. Bush chimed in from the Knesset in Israel, showing that in his speeches he is only capable of arguments that are black and white, and incapable of nuance and distinction. This will end up being one of Bush's legacies - his speeches that attempt to leave no room for debate by casting the choice as either or and leaving his opponents trying to defend indefensible positions. Appeasement, when compared to Hitler, is of course indefensible.
McCain seems to be falling into the same trap. His comments on talking to our enemies leave no room for nuance and understanding (something I used to associate with him). It is only a little consolation that both McCain and Bush understand nuance to some degree, even if they don't admit it publicly. Bush's administration has in fact negotiated with North Korea, Iran and Libya.
My hope is that the public is tired of the thoughtless bravado of Republican leaders. Maybe people have finally realized that there is more to the debate about Iraq than either being a defeatist or a patriot. Maybe there are more options to be considered in regards to Iran than sanctions and tough talk with the eventuality of a missile strike.
What is funny in retrospect is that as Bush was in the Knesset bashing talks with enemies, the Israeli government was talking with Syria. Does that mean that Israel is like Chamberlain? This isn't to say we definitely need direct talks with our enemies (I hate using "enemies" over and over again, but I am tired). There is a good opinion piece about reasons to be cautious with negotiations. If you think you might come off as bad as Kennedy apparently did, it might not be a good idea to have direct talks.
It seems like in every situation, Bush and McCain are wrong about foreign policy. Bush wants to make some sort of peace deal between Israel and Palestine, but wants to do it without Hamas. As much as we hate Hamas for its violence, it has a lot of popular support. A peace deal that only includes Abbas, as much as we support him, isn't really a peace deal. And in Iran, our tough talk only strengthens the hard-liners in the country.
The bottom line is, we need a huge shift in our foreign policy. McCain at times seems to be saying that he would bring something different, but I have yet to see how. And this recent debate shows how McCain is more like Bush than unlike him.
McCain seems to be falling into the same trap. His comments on talking to our enemies leave no room for nuance and understanding (something I used to associate with him). It is only a little consolation that both McCain and Bush understand nuance to some degree, even if they don't admit it publicly. Bush's administration has in fact negotiated with North Korea, Iran and Libya.
My hope is that the public is tired of the thoughtless bravado of Republican leaders. Maybe people have finally realized that there is more to the debate about Iraq than either being a defeatist or a patriot. Maybe there are more options to be considered in regards to Iran than sanctions and tough talk with the eventuality of a missile strike.
What is funny in retrospect is that as Bush was in the Knesset bashing talks with enemies, the Israeli government was talking with Syria. Does that mean that Israel is like Chamberlain? This isn't to say we definitely need direct talks with our enemies (I hate using "enemies" over and over again, but I am tired). There is a good opinion piece about reasons to be cautious with negotiations. If you think you might come off as bad as Kennedy apparently did, it might not be a good idea to have direct talks.
It seems like in every situation, Bush and McCain are wrong about foreign policy. Bush wants to make some sort of peace deal between Israel and Palestine, but wants to do it without Hamas. As much as we hate Hamas for its violence, it has a lot of popular support. A peace deal that only includes Abbas, as much as we support him, isn't really a peace deal. And in Iran, our tough talk only strengthens the hard-liners in the country.
The bottom line is, we need a huge shift in our foreign policy. McCain at times seems to be saying that he would bring something different, but I have yet to see how. And this recent debate shows how McCain is more like Bush than unlike him.
In a Word, Sophistry
As the primaries start to wind down to a conclusion (or so I hope), I have been trying to summarize Hillary's campaign in my head. One word that comes to mind of course is negative, and that was certainly part of her campaign. She definitely seemed to have no problem "going negative". In fact for a while it seemed like she thought McCain would make a better president than Obama.
But what has stood out even more than that, especially recently, has been her sophistry. She has been so good about trotting out clever arguments that are either false or disingenuous of why she should be crowned the nominee by the super-delegates.
Recently, she has been trying to tell the country that Florida and Michigan's votes should count. Granted, most of what she is saying here is true. It could hurt the Democrats if Florida and Michigan are not seated at the convention. And yes, in a democratic society, every vote should count. But she didn't seem to have a problem with the party punishing these two states before they voted. She made no comments about how unfair this is and she didn't campaign in either state. So of course her sudden concern for democratic principles comes off disingenuous.
We were also treated to arguments about how her voters are more important. Since working class whites were supporting her and not Obama, and since we need working class whites to win the election, then she should be the nominee regardless of how the pledged delegate count turns out. This argument is of course clever, but Obama could make the same case for the type of voters that have been supporting him.
Before that her campaign was saying the states she won were more important. Since she was winning states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida (swing states) and New York and California (big states), she deserved the nomination regardless of pledged delegate counts. This argument again sounds nice, but doesn't actually fly. Unless Obama is fundamentally unelectable, these states will go Democrat in the fall.
These two arguments when used together are even more clever. The voters in these important states are likely to not vote for Obama. Therefore, we need Hillary if we want the White House to be occupied by a Democrat. There is a certain part of me that is scared by this argument. In the end though it is made only to advance her goals, and not genuine and objective concerns. In fact, the super-delegates don't seem to have bought this argument.
Finally, she has argued that the popular vote is more important than pledged delegates - reminding everyone of the 2000 election. In her count, she is using Michigan and Florida and ignoring states with caucuses. The argument sounds good - that direct democracy is the best, but if she actually believed this, she should have said this before.
In her arguments, what matters is not objective reason and consistency. What matters is how she can lay claim to the nomination. Arguments only have to sound good and possibly convince people to be used.
As her sophistry continues, it strikes me how willing she is to take down anything in her ambitious path. She had no problem telling the country that McCain was more prepared than Obama to be president. She sees nothing wrong with weakening the power of the party to set a nomination schedule according to its choice and prevent states from running loose. And on top of that, she is willing to subvert the whole nomination process if it means she might win (for someone who has been one-half of the democratic party leadership since 1992, she seems awfully surprised at how broken the nomination process is).
All along, I have defended Hillary against attacks like this from Republicans. Maybe they were right after all.
But what has stood out even more than that, especially recently, has been her sophistry. She has been so good about trotting out clever arguments that are either false or disingenuous of why she should be crowned the nominee by the super-delegates.
Recently, she has been trying to tell the country that Florida and Michigan's votes should count. Granted, most of what she is saying here is true. It could hurt the Democrats if Florida and Michigan are not seated at the convention. And yes, in a democratic society, every vote should count. But she didn't seem to have a problem with the party punishing these two states before they voted. She made no comments about how unfair this is and she didn't campaign in either state. So of course her sudden concern for democratic principles comes off disingenuous.
We were also treated to arguments about how her voters are more important. Since working class whites were supporting her and not Obama, and since we need working class whites to win the election, then she should be the nominee regardless of how the pledged delegate count turns out. This argument is of course clever, but Obama could make the same case for the type of voters that have been supporting him.
Before that her campaign was saying the states she won were more important. Since she was winning states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida (swing states) and New York and California (big states), she deserved the nomination regardless of pledged delegate counts. This argument again sounds nice, but doesn't actually fly. Unless Obama is fundamentally unelectable, these states will go Democrat in the fall.
These two arguments when used together are even more clever. The voters in these important states are likely to not vote for Obama. Therefore, we need Hillary if we want the White House to be occupied by a Democrat. There is a certain part of me that is scared by this argument. In the end though it is made only to advance her goals, and not genuine and objective concerns. In fact, the super-delegates don't seem to have bought this argument.
Finally, she has argued that the popular vote is more important than pledged delegates - reminding everyone of the 2000 election. In her count, she is using Michigan and Florida and ignoring states with caucuses. The argument sounds good - that direct democracy is the best, but if she actually believed this, she should have said this before.
In her arguments, what matters is not objective reason and consistency. What matters is how she can lay claim to the nomination. Arguments only have to sound good and possibly convince people to be used.
As her sophistry continues, it strikes me how willing she is to take down anything in her ambitious path. She had no problem telling the country that McCain was more prepared than Obama to be president. She sees nothing wrong with weakening the power of the party to set a nomination schedule according to its choice and prevent states from running loose. And on top of that, she is willing to subvert the whole nomination process if it means she might win (for someone who has been one-half of the democratic party leadership since 1992, she seems awfully surprised at how broken the nomination process is).
All along, I have defended Hillary against attacks like this from Republicans. Maybe they were right after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)