"We must remember what we have forgotton- for example, the old joke about the man who is being shown the wonderful new Moscow subway, and after a while asks, "But where are the trains?" The Russian answers, "But what about lynching in the South?" It's no joke any longer."
-Nathan Glazer
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
"The universe is very, very big. It also loves a paradox. For example, it has some extremely strict rules. Rule number one: Nothing lasts forever. Not you or your family or your house or your planet or the sun. It is an absolute rule. Therefore when someone says that their love will never die, it means that their love is not real, for everything that is real dies.
Rule number two: Everything lasts forever. For example, George was made up of billions of atoms, some of which had, at various times, been parts of, among other things, a Tyrannosaurus Rex, a red felt hat, and some porridge. In a staggering coincidence, Claudette had a few atoms of that same bowl of porridge in her system. It had been served to Alexander the Great during his campaign in Afghanistan. He loved porridge.
Perhaps that was the key to the attraction between George and Claudette- their shared porridge molecules. It makes as much sense as anything else that goes on between men and women."
-Craig Ferguson, pg 108 "Between the Bridge and the River"
Rule number two: Everything lasts forever. For example, George was made up of billions of atoms, some of which had, at various times, been parts of, among other things, a Tyrannosaurus Rex, a red felt hat, and some porridge. In a staggering coincidence, Claudette had a few atoms of that same bowl of porridge in her system. It had been served to Alexander the Great during his campaign in Afghanistan. He loved porridge.
Perhaps that was the key to the attraction between George and Claudette- their shared porridge molecules. It makes as much sense as anything else that goes on between men and women."
-Craig Ferguson, pg 108 "Between the Bridge and the River"
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Spring Things
After finishing out a rather stressful period, I again return to my favourite form of retail therapy- renting out half the damn library. Cheap, literate, and fulfilling. I haven't even finished the last load of books. We have:
White- The Making of the President, 1964
McGinnis- The selling of the president, 1968
Flanagan- Waiting for the wave
Schlesinger- The cycles of american history
Schlesinger- The politics of hope
Clarkson- the big red machine
Davey- the rainmaker
Machiavelli- the prince
Camp- an eclectic eel
I was considering renting Black's Duplessis, but goddamn, that is one massive tome.
White- The Making of the President, 1964
McGinnis- The selling of the president, 1968
Flanagan- Waiting for the wave
Schlesinger- The cycles of american history
Schlesinger- The politics of hope
Clarkson- the big red machine
Davey- the rainmaker
Machiavelli- the prince
Camp- an eclectic eel
I was considering renting Black's Duplessis, but goddamn, that is one massive tome.
Uninhibited Scholasticism
Two more essays from school, about al Qaeda and then the UN.
The Rationality of Irrationality:
Analyzing al Qaeda’s Campaign of Suicide Terrorism and its Effectiveness
The terror, fear, and destruction unleashed upon the world by Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda have shaken the Western nations to their core. The Islamic group has unleashed a campaign of suicide terrorism, led by their rich and charismatic leader , aimed at Western nations and their Middle Eastern supporters. Their campaign rests on the hypothesis, best summarized by Robert A. Pape in his paper “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” that suicide terrorism is driven by a quest for territorial or political concessions from a larger nation to a smaller group, and that it is utterly rational in its effectiveness . Pape organizes suicide actions from 1980-2001 into sixteen separate campaigns . Eleven of these have concluded, with six of them ending up with territorial gains or political concessions from the stronger group to the weaker, a fifty-five percent ‘success’ rate . This is compared to ‘normal’ international actions towards coercion, through military or economic means, that succeed less than one-third of the time . Citing such campaigns as Hamas or Hezbollah versus Israel, Pape displays that a persistent campaign of suicide terrorism can force moderate concessions . Al Qaeda’s campaign has included attacks escalating in scale, from earlier bombings of American embassies and military bases, to a nightclub in Bali, to the 2005 London and 2004 Madrid subway bombings, all culminating in the horrors of 9/11 . Their usual style of large and very visible attacks, often resulting in hundreds dead and thousands injured, is unusual when compared to Pape’s other recognized campaigns, where groups such as the Tamil Tigers or Hezbollah launched numerous smaller attacks. These latter tactics were proven more effective than normal means of coercion and, logically, al Qaeda’s attacks, with their increasing scope, would then bring increased action towards their goals. However, the suicide terrorist campaign of al Qaeda doesn’t help them achieve their goals because of the sheer self-defeating scope of these goals, and the increasing resolve that al Qaeda inspires in its enemies.
Speaking in his 1996 “Declaration of Jihad Against Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques,” Osama Bin Laden outlines his grievances, and the goals of his burgeoning suicide terrorism campaign that would eventually lead to the devastation of 9/11. He speaks of his desire for a Pan-Arabic Nation stretching across the Middle East, ruled by Sharia law and autonomous of Western influences, a goal harkening back to the days of the Ottoman caliphate . These concepts of Islamic nationalism and protectionism are concurrent in his declaration; however, Bin Laden usually comes down to one main theme:
“The latest and the greatest of these aggressions experienced by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places, the foundation of the House of Islam, the place of the revelation, the sources of the message and the place of the noble Kabah, the Qiblah of all Muslims. ”
American forces established bases in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War, to protect American energy interests in the region against the aggression of Saddam Hussein. The “Land of the Two Holy Mosques,” Saudi Arabia, is the holiest site in Islam, as it contains the holy cities of Mecca and Medina . The House of Saud’s complacency with the American government, and with Western energy corporations, allows Bin Laden to tie Islamic fundamentalism into Arab nationalism, making them an intertwined cause. These territorial grievances fit Pape’s theory of suicide terrorism campaigns existing for the sake of forcing geographical and political concessions. Bin Laden’s major motivation is shown to be freeing the Arabian peninsula, with its extreme religious relevance and its more earthly oil reserves, of American military and economic influence over the ruling House of Saud . The difference, though, between Hamas using suicide terrorism to force Israel from the Palestinian territories, and al Qaeda flying planes into buildings in their crusade against America, is the scope of the expected concession. An integral idea in Pape’s work is that:
“Suicide terrorism can coerce states to abandon limited or modest goals, such as withdrawal from territory of low strategic importance or, as in Israel’s case in 1994 and 1995, a temporary and partial withdrawal from a more important one. However, suicide terrorism is unlikely to cause targets to abandon goals central to their wealth or security. ”
Pape and Bin Laden both use as an example the American withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983 after a deadly suicide attack on an American embassy. Bin Laden trumpets it as an example of how the Americans are a “paper tiger,” of how once al Qaeda spills American blood, the Westerners will lose their resolve and leave . Though the Americans did withdraw in 1983, Pape displays that is was a humanitarian mission and success was not critical to their national security . Thus, the more important of a concession that a group are trying to achieve, the less likely it’ll occur. The goals of al Qaeda are ambitions indeed, as they want to end the reign of the House of Saud, end Western energy interests in Arabia, create a Pan-Arabic Islamic state, and force an American military withdrawal from both Arabia and Iraq. Unfortunately for Bin Laden, the House of Saud has endlessly deep pockets to support themselves, the West lives in a culture driven by petroleum where natural energy is central to living a comfortable life, the Middle East seems more interested in Shia-Sunni sectarian violence than unity, and American forces aren’t relenting from their support of Israel, and other friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Turkey. Al Qaeda’s goals are a far cry from the simple self-determination of a small area that both Hamas and Hezbollah campaign for. Al Qaeda has recognized the scope of their goals, and then increased the scope of their attacks to a visibility and deadliness not yet seen in the history of suicide terrorism, all in the name of forcing these massive concessions, and yet they’re no closer to achieving them than they were in 1996.
A central tenant to Bernard Lewis’ ideas about al Qaeda is that Bin Laden views his struggle as one of the underdog. Lewis theorizes that Bin Laden believes his Mujahedeen’s defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan directly led to its collapse of the Soviet regime. Viewing the Soviet Union as the stronger, both militarily and politically, of the two Cold War superpowers, Bin Laden then believes that he’s knocked off the harder of the two, so the United States wouldn’t stand a chance . However, instead of collapsing like a “paper tiger” after the horrors of 9/11, 7/7, and a myriad of other bombings, the Western world’s resolve has strengthened. The Taliban, al Qaeda’s primary supporting regime, was ousted in a shocking display of American military might. Though the Taliban still exists as a political force in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it has taken grievous losses in leadership, manpower, and influence since 9/11, and its degradation has been reflected in the ruin of al Qaeda. Still acting as an international force and influence, with many attacks carried out in Iraq, and the 7/7 and Madrid bombings claimed to their name, the organization has become more of a figurehead of religious Pan-Arab nationalism. The latter attacks, examples of the increased scope that al Qaeda works with, were carried out by semi-autonomous groups that then claimed to be part of al Qaeda. In that sense, since the logistical hammering it took in Afghanistan, al Qaeda has become more of a ‘brand name’ than a tight terrorist organization. As well, both the United States and the United Kingdom have ramped up domestic security, which Pape theorizes is the best way to combat suicide terrorism .
The effect of this is seen in the absence of domestic terrorism in these countries, since 9/11 and then 7/7, though not due to lack of effort by al Qaeda and other affiliated groups. Since increasing the scale of its suicide activities, al Qaeda has lost its primary home and training grounds in Afghanistan, and has been driven to dwelling in caves in the rugged mountainous frontiers of Pakistan.
Pape displays that suicide terrorism is a rational and often effective means of gaining territorial concessions. Al Qaeda’s goals are vast in scope and ambition, as they work towards achieving Pan-Arabic dominance in the Middle East, and autonomy for their holy Arabian Peninsula. However, their campaign of suicide terrorism hasn’t followed the usual path of such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah, as they have carried out one with more visible and devastating attacks. The reaction to these tactics haven’t been collapse, as Bin Laden believes with his ‘paper tiger’ theory, but have been the strengthening of Western resolve, of domestic security, and of foreign actions against these Islamic aggressors. The unique suicide terrorism campaign of al Qaeda has failed at achieving their ambitious goals, thanks to the very nature and scope of these goals, and the reactionary effects that their enhanced attacks have caused.
Something Rotten in the State of Denmark:
The Crucial Failings of the United Nations
The UN and its Security Council exist as an attempt to hold nation-states accountable to a multilateral, supranational legalistic system. After death and destruction choked the 20th Century world a second time, the UN was produced in 1945 as an attempt to create collective security. Unfortunately, the organization has become dangerously archaic and impotent. In Glennon’s “Why the Security Council Failed,” he writes of how the 2003 Iraq War spelled the doom of the UN, as the unilateral US ignored the Security Council, and thus made a mockery of the idea of firm international law . He argues that the idea of a multilateral council to keep the world secure has been unsuccessful in the face of reality and the power-hungry, self-serving nation-states that multilateralism empowers . The ‘hyperstate’ that is the US could ignore the Security Council and end the attempts at multilateralism that China, Russia, and France were trying to establish through the Council . Glennon’s main theory that the 2003 Iraq situation heralded the death of the Security Council’s usefulness is perhaps rather late, as it could be argued that the UN lost all legitimacy when eight-hundred thousand Rwandans died under UN watch. Tharoor, on the other hand, argues that the UN is still very relevant, and that Glennon didn’t look at the larger scale of things . He states that the 2003 Iraqi situation is only one isolated incident, and that the UN makes an easy scapegoat for the world’s ills . Tharoor emphasis that it does much good in terms of world heath and wellbeing that goes unnoticed, and that the US participates and benefits from inclusion . The core of Tharoor’s argument is that multilateralism is “a means, not an end, ” and that the inclusiveness of the UN gives its decisions and resolutions extra legitimacy. Tharoor, a UN Undersecretary-General, gives an obviously unbiased account of his employer’s uses, and his squealing about positive multilateralism only looks all the more feckless when compared to the killing fields of Kigali, Srebrenica, and Darfur. Given the Security Council’s core mandate of maintaining international peace and security, this essay will argue that the UN loses its legitimacy because of its blind inclusiveness and the failures in international security that ensue. These failures are all the more blatant because hundreds of thousands of people, hypothetically protected by the UN, usually end up in misery or dying as a result.
A business that succeeds at many small things, such as keeping its employers well stocked with staplers and fun HR games, but fails at balancing its budget and making a profit, will go down in infamy as a doomed venture. Keeping roads well-maintained and schools open are all positive things for a government to work on. However, if the government then proceeds to ruin the economy, harm millions of citizens fiscally in the process, and thus fail at its main mandate, then the government won’t be kept in office. Why should the UN be treated any differently? Glennon argues that the 2003 Iraqi situation spells the death knell of the Security Council’s usefulness; however, using just recent examples, Iraq is seen as just one in a long list of spectacular, and often bloody, failures of international security. The crucial faults are obvious to any idiot with five minutes to spare watching the news. The failings of the UN to provide security aren’t really the fault of hard-working diplomats, but exist within the very structure of the Council’s mandate. A Security Council exists where countries have permanent vetoes on issues that they themselves are perpetuating. A slow genocide exists in Darfur, yet another in what appears a wearying storm of dying central Africans (how dare that they keep dying and taking TV time away from American Idol); however, because the UN values state sovereignty above all, the Council needs the consent of either the Sudanese government to peace keep in Sudan, or of the permanent Council members so as to halt the genocide with the stricter measures enabled by Chapter XII of the Charter. The problem then is that the Sudanese government is the main backer of the genocidal militias in Darfur, and that because China has extensive interests in Darfur’s natural energy sector, they’ll support the Sudanese government. Tharoor’s glorification of inclusive multilateralism that supposedly gives Security Council resolutions legitimacy is fine until that very multilateralism starts to work against the people of the nations it represents. If a member of the Security Council is the backer or perpetrator of a gross violation of human security, then Tharoor’s multilateralism legitimizes genocidal thugs. This is the fundamental problem of credibility that the UN faces- if they can’t stop the worst human rights violations, what justifies their existence? Tharoor states that we shouldn’t radically reform the international security structure because “One would not close down the Senate (or even the Texas legislature) because its members failed to agree on one bill .” The essential difference that Tharoor misses is that eight-hundred thousand Tutsis aren’t butchered in the streets of Houston when the Texas legislature fails to pass a bill. He also states that “When the UN Security Council passes a resolution, it is seen as speaking for (and in the interests of) humanity as a whole .” That is fine and all, but the resolutions that really matter aren’t the ones passed, but the ones not being passed because of the selfish interests of individual states. These missed resolutions are the ones that result in a copious amount of human beings dead and a massive blemish on the face of the Security Council. Tharoor manages to make a number of good points in favour of the UN, though; of the humanitarian works done through such organizations as the WHO, and of how there is a long streak of peacekeeping successes . However, with multilateral programs concerning food and disease, there’s not much use vaccinating and feeding a Rwandan if he’s then going to be hacked to death with a machete a few years later. No person or organization is perfect, but when you’re dealing with the lives of millions, you’d better be damn close to perfection. The very inclusiveness that Tharoor trumpets is the major factor in the collapse of the UN in its ability to act as an effective security force in the world.
The failure of the Security Council to fulfill its mandate then leaves a vacuum for security, one that is now filled by ‘hyperstates’ in a unilateral system. The Westphalian system of clearly defined nation-state sovereignty, and multilateral internationalism that was further modeled at the Congress of Vienna, is an obsolete system. Glennon speaks of how each singular nation will use its own available options to further its goals . The US will use unilateral force to further theirs, and because France doesn’t have anywhere near as much hard power as the US, it’ll use the available methods- it’s archaic spot as a permanent member on the Security Council. France’s opposition of the US had nothing to do with ideology or ‘right and wrong,’ and everything to do with exerting long-lost influence, and propping up a fascist Iraqi regime that helpfully gobbled up French arms and weaponry. Another view on Glennon is the historical one. Europe, of all continents, has faced the horrors that unabashed nation-statism has created, of balances of power, arms races, and eventually world wars. Logically, Europe would’ve then learned from these experiences and then moved on to the view that a supranational organization such as the European Union is the best way forward for European peace. So far, it looks like they’re correct, as France and Germany seem far more interested in bashing Americans than squabbling over Alsace-Lorraine. However, these examples of supranational continental organizations aren’t rare, as we see the success stories of NATO, NAFTA, the EU, the burgeoning AU, and others. The problem that Glennon and this essay then face is how to create a successful supranational organization dedicated to true global security? When the UN Human Rights Council contains such benevolent purveyors of human rights as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, then it isn’t hard to see the main issue with a truly inclusive organization . Perhaps dangling a large carrot on a stick in front of nations, the carrot being inclusion to the UN, bringing all the smaller benefits that Tharoor trumpets, in exchange for acceptable human right levels, might create positive change. If being ostracized from the UN, and the international community, is what is necessary to force China to stop its harvesting of Falun Gong member’s organs, Russia’s regime to stop murdering journalists, Iran to stop stoning women to death for being raped, and Saudi Arabia to recognize that women deserve a better societal status than camels, then ostracizing is what is called for. There are many benefits to being included in the UN, as Tharoor helpfully points out, and those benefits are the best way to force change in regimes. There’s no point in inclusiveness for the sake of security if those included are the ones shattering the security. China is supporting genocidal regimes in the Sudan and Zimbabwe (hey, highest inflation and lowest life-expectancy in the world), with economic and political measures, and yet China has a voice on the Security Council equal or greater to many other nations that manage to have a basic inkling towards the inherent right’s of mankind. This kind of multilateralism, pandering to feckless thugs, brutal theocrats, and incoherent communists, and allowing them an equal voice to nations that give a fig for human rights, is contradictory to everything the UN mandate sets out to achieve. Tharoor’s idea of inclusiveness breeding legitimacy is ultimately self-defeating, as history has proven again and again, upon some dry Central African plain, or in the midst of an Asian jungle, as preventable conflicts turn into burning orgies of human despair, while the organization that tasks itself with stopping these horrors is sustained by bowing to purveyors of the same terror and fear.
Glennon’s article is a sounding for reform in the bureaucratic nightmare of the UN. Unfortunately, this call is a bit too late for a number of Africans and Europeans who have already been butchered in the name of racism, abject nationalism, and plain old rage, while the UN stands idly by. As stated before, the Security Council didn’t become outdated when a blithe US skipped by and invaded Iraq in 2003, it lost all meaning when eight-hundred thousand Rwandans were hacked to bits while Americans (paging Madeleine Albright) spent their time “ducking and pressuring others to duck, as the death toll leapt from thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. ” No nation in this world is innocent of harming international security to some extent; however, this malaise of cultural relativism has led the UN and the international community to believe that an entirely corrupt and depraved regime in China is the better of numerous Western nations that have spent their political capital desperately furthering the cause of human rights. Entrance to a supranational organization that brings benefits and true legitimacy to its members must be accountable, so that Americans ignoring the Geneva Convention in secret CIA prisons, and Chinese harvesting the organs of political minorities, are both held to a universal standard of human rights and belonging. Only through offering a large enough stick to shake, in terms of soft power and humanitarian benefit, can the UN become truly legitimate. Otherwise, more time will continue to be spent sitting back and watching the latest African crisis on CNN.
The Rationality of Irrationality:
Analyzing al Qaeda’s Campaign of Suicide Terrorism and its Effectiveness
The terror, fear, and destruction unleashed upon the world by Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda have shaken the Western nations to their core. The Islamic group has unleashed a campaign of suicide terrorism, led by their rich and charismatic leader , aimed at Western nations and their Middle Eastern supporters. Their campaign rests on the hypothesis, best summarized by Robert A. Pape in his paper “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” that suicide terrorism is driven by a quest for territorial or political concessions from a larger nation to a smaller group, and that it is utterly rational in its effectiveness . Pape organizes suicide actions from 1980-2001 into sixteen separate campaigns . Eleven of these have concluded, with six of them ending up with territorial gains or political concessions from the stronger group to the weaker, a fifty-five percent ‘success’ rate . This is compared to ‘normal’ international actions towards coercion, through military or economic means, that succeed less than one-third of the time . Citing such campaigns as Hamas or Hezbollah versus Israel, Pape displays that a persistent campaign of suicide terrorism can force moderate concessions . Al Qaeda’s campaign has included attacks escalating in scale, from earlier bombings of American embassies and military bases, to a nightclub in Bali, to the 2005 London and 2004 Madrid subway bombings, all culminating in the horrors of 9/11 . Their usual style of large and very visible attacks, often resulting in hundreds dead and thousands injured, is unusual when compared to Pape’s other recognized campaigns, where groups such as the Tamil Tigers or Hezbollah launched numerous smaller attacks. These latter tactics were proven more effective than normal means of coercion and, logically, al Qaeda’s attacks, with their increasing scope, would then bring increased action towards their goals. However, the suicide terrorist campaign of al Qaeda doesn’t help them achieve their goals because of the sheer self-defeating scope of these goals, and the increasing resolve that al Qaeda inspires in its enemies.
Speaking in his 1996 “Declaration of Jihad Against Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques,” Osama Bin Laden outlines his grievances, and the goals of his burgeoning suicide terrorism campaign that would eventually lead to the devastation of 9/11. He speaks of his desire for a Pan-Arabic Nation stretching across the Middle East, ruled by Sharia law and autonomous of Western influences, a goal harkening back to the days of the Ottoman caliphate . These concepts of Islamic nationalism and protectionism are concurrent in his declaration; however, Bin Laden usually comes down to one main theme:
“The latest and the greatest of these aggressions experienced by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places, the foundation of the House of Islam, the place of the revelation, the sources of the message and the place of the noble Kabah, the Qiblah of all Muslims. ”
American forces established bases in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War, to protect American energy interests in the region against the aggression of Saddam Hussein. The “Land of the Two Holy Mosques,” Saudi Arabia, is the holiest site in Islam, as it contains the holy cities of Mecca and Medina . The House of Saud’s complacency with the American government, and with Western energy corporations, allows Bin Laden to tie Islamic fundamentalism into Arab nationalism, making them an intertwined cause. These territorial grievances fit Pape’s theory of suicide terrorism campaigns existing for the sake of forcing geographical and political concessions. Bin Laden’s major motivation is shown to be freeing the Arabian peninsula, with its extreme religious relevance and its more earthly oil reserves, of American military and economic influence over the ruling House of Saud . The difference, though, between Hamas using suicide terrorism to force Israel from the Palestinian territories, and al Qaeda flying planes into buildings in their crusade against America, is the scope of the expected concession. An integral idea in Pape’s work is that:
“Suicide terrorism can coerce states to abandon limited or modest goals, such as withdrawal from territory of low strategic importance or, as in Israel’s case in 1994 and 1995, a temporary and partial withdrawal from a more important one. However, suicide terrorism is unlikely to cause targets to abandon goals central to their wealth or security. ”
Pape and Bin Laden both use as an example the American withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983 after a deadly suicide attack on an American embassy. Bin Laden trumpets it as an example of how the Americans are a “paper tiger,” of how once al Qaeda spills American blood, the Westerners will lose their resolve and leave . Though the Americans did withdraw in 1983, Pape displays that is was a humanitarian mission and success was not critical to their national security . Thus, the more important of a concession that a group are trying to achieve, the less likely it’ll occur. The goals of al Qaeda are ambitions indeed, as they want to end the reign of the House of Saud, end Western energy interests in Arabia, create a Pan-Arabic Islamic state, and force an American military withdrawal from both Arabia and Iraq. Unfortunately for Bin Laden, the House of Saud has endlessly deep pockets to support themselves, the West lives in a culture driven by petroleum where natural energy is central to living a comfortable life, the Middle East seems more interested in Shia-Sunni sectarian violence than unity, and American forces aren’t relenting from their support of Israel, and other friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Turkey. Al Qaeda’s goals are a far cry from the simple self-determination of a small area that both Hamas and Hezbollah campaign for. Al Qaeda has recognized the scope of their goals, and then increased the scope of their attacks to a visibility and deadliness not yet seen in the history of suicide terrorism, all in the name of forcing these massive concessions, and yet they’re no closer to achieving them than they were in 1996.
A central tenant to Bernard Lewis’ ideas about al Qaeda is that Bin Laden views his struggle as one of the underdog. Lewis theorizes that Bin Laden believes his Mujahedeen’s defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan directly led to its collapse of the Soviet regime. Viewing the Soviet Union as the stronger, both militarily and politically, of the two Cold War superpowers, Bin Laden then believes that he’s knocked off the harder of the two, so the United States wouldn’t stand a chance . However, instead of collapsing like a “paper tiger” after the horrors of 9/11, 7/7, and a myriad of other bombings, the Western world’s resolve has strengthened. The Taliban, al Qaeda’s primary supporting regime, was ousted in a shocking display of American military might. Though the Taliban still exists as a political force in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it has taken grievous losses in leadership, manpower, and influence since 9/11, and its degradation has been reflected in the ruin of al Qaeda. Still acting as an international force and influence, with many attacks carried out in Iraq, and the 7/7 and Madrid bombings claimed to their name, the organization has become more of a figurehead of religious Pan-Arab nationalism. The latter attacks, examples of the increased scope that al Qaeda works with, were carried out by semi-autonomous groups that then claimed to be part of al Qaeda. In that sense, since the logistical hammering it took in Afghanistan, al Qaeda has become more of a ‘brand name’ than a tight terrorist organization. As well, both the United States and the United Kingdom have ramped up domestic security, which Pape theorizes is the best way to combat suicide terrorism .
The effect of this is seen in the absence of domestic terrorism in these countries, since 9/11 and then 7/7, though not due to lack of effort by al Qaeda and other affiliated groups. Since increasing the scale of its suicide activities, al Qaeda has lost its primary home and training grounds in Afghanistan, and has been driven to dwelling in caves in the rugged mountainous frontiers of Pakistan.
Pape displays that suicide terrorism is a rational and often effective means of gaining territorial concessions. Al Qaeda’s goals are vast in scope and ambition, as they work towards achieving Pan-Arabic dominance in the Middle East, and autonomy for their holy Arabian Peninsula. However, their campaign of suicide terrorism hasn’t followed the usual path of such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah, as they have carried out one with more visible and devastating attacks. The reaction to these tactics haven’t been collapse, as Bin Laden believes with his ‘paper tiger’ theory, but have been the strengthening of Western resolve, of domestic security, and of foreign actions against these Islamic aggressors. The unique suicide terrorism campaign of al Qaeda has failed at achieving their ambitious goals, thanks to the very nature and scope of these goals, and the reactionary effects that their enhanced attacks have caused.
Something Rotten in the State of Denmark:
The Crucial Failings of the United Nations
The UN and its Security Council exist as an attempt to hold nation-states accountable to a multilateral, supranational legalistic system. After death and destruction choked the 20th Century world a second time, the UN was produced in 1945 as an attempt to create collective security. Unfortunately, the organization has become dangerously archaic and impotent. In Glennon’s “Why the Security Council Failed,” he writes of how the 2003 Iraq War spelled the doom of the UN, as the unilateral US ignored the Security Council, and thus made a mockery of the idea of firm international law . He argues that the idea of a multilateral council to keep the world secure has been unsuccessful in the face of reality and the power-hungry, self-serving nation-states that multilateralism empowers . The ‘hyperstate’ that is the US could ignore the Security Council and end the attempts at multilateralism that China, Russia, and France were trying to establish through the Council . Glennon’s main theory that the 2003 Iraq situation heralded the death of the Security Council’s usefulness is perhaps rather late, as it could be argued that the UN lost all legitimacy when eight-hundred thousand Rwandans died under UN watch. Tharoor, on the other hand, argues that the UN is still very relevant, and that Glennon didn’t look at the larger scale of things . He states that the 2003 Iraqi situation is only one isolated incident, and that the UN makes an easy scapegoat for the world’s ills . Tharoor emphasis that it does much good in terms of world heath and wellbeing that goes unnoticed, and that the US participates and benefits from inclusion . The core of Tharoor’s argument is that multilateralism is “a means, not an end, ” and that the inclusiveness of the UN gives its decisions and resolutions extra legitimacy. Tharoor, a UN Undersecretary-General, gives an obviously unbiased account of his employer’s uses, and his squealing about positive multilateralism only looks all the more feckless when compared to the killing fields of Kigali, Srebrenica, and Darfur. Given the Security Council’s core mandate of maintaining international peace and security, this essay will argue that the UN loses its legitimacy because of its blind inclusiveness and the failures in international security that ensue. These failures are all the more blatant because hundreds of thousands of people, hypothetically protected by the UN, usually end up in misery or dying as a result.
A business that succeeds at many small things, such as keeping its employers well stocked with staplers and fun HR games, but fails at balancing its budget and making a profit, will go down in infamy as a doomed venture. Keeping roads well-maintained and schools open are all positive things for a government to work on. However, if the government then proceeds to ruin the economy, harm millions of citizens fiscally in the process, and thus fail at its main mandate, then the government won’t be kept in office. Why should the UN be treated any differently? Glennon argues that the 2003 Iraqi situation spells the death knell of the Security Council’s usefulness; however, using just recent examples, Iraq is seen as just one in a long list of spectacular, and often bloody, failures of international security. The crucial faults are obvious to any idiot with five minutes to spare watching the news. The failings of the UN to provide security aren’t really the fault of hard-working diplomats, but exist within the very structure of the Council’s mandate. A Security Council exists where countries have permanent vetoes on issues that they themselves are perpetuating. A slow genocide exists in Darfur, yet another in what appears a wearying storm of dying central Africans (how dare that they keep dying and taking TV time away from American Idol); however, because the UN values state sovereignty above all, the Council needs the consent of either the Sudanese government to peace keep in Sudan, or of the permanent Council members so as to halt the genocide with the stricter measures enabled by Chapter XII of the Charter. The problem then is that the Sudanese government is the main backer of the genocidal militias in Darfur, and that because China has extensive interests in Darfur’s natural energy sector, they’ll support the Sudanese government. Tharoor’s glorification of inclusive multilateralism that supposedly gives Security Council resolutions legitimacy is fine until that very multilateralism starts to work against the people of the nations it represents. If a member of the Security Council is the backer or perpetrator of a gross violation of human security, then Tharoor’s multilateralism legitimizes genocidal thugs. This is the fundamental problem of credibility that the UN faces- if they can’t stop the worst human rights violations, what justifies their existence? Tharoor states that we shouldn’t radically reform the international security structure because “One would not close down the Senate (or even the Texas legislature) because its members failed to agree on one bill .” The essential difference that Tharoor misses is that eight-hundred thousand Tutsis aren’t butchered in the streets of Houston when the Texas legislature fails to pass a bill. He also states that “When the UN Security Council passes a resolution, it is seen as speaking for (and in the interests of) humanity as a whole .” That is fine and all, but the resolutions that really matter aren’t the ones passed, but the ones not being passed because of the selfish interests of individual states. These missed resolutions are the ones that result in a copious amount of human beings dead and a massive blemish on the face of the Security Council. Tharoor manages to make a number of good points in favour of the UN, though; of the humanitarian works done through such organizations as the WHO, and of how there is a long streak of peacekeeping successes . However, with multilateral programs concerning food and disease, there’s not much use vaccinating and feeding a Rwandan if he’s then going to be hacked to death with a machete a few years later. No person or organization is perfect, but when you’re dealing with the lives of millions, you’d better be damn close to perfection. The very inclusiveness that Tharoor trumpets is the major factor in the collapse of the UN in its ability to act as an effective security force in the world.
The failure of the Security Council to fulfill its mandate then leaves a vacuum for security, one that is now filled by ‘hyperstates’ in a unilateral system. The Westphalian system of clearly defined nation-state sovereignty, and multilateral internationalism that was further modeled at the Congress of Vienna, is an obsolete system. Glennon speaks of how each singular nation will use its own available options to further its goals . The US will use unilateral force to further theirs, and because France doesn’t have anywhere near as much hard power as the US, it’ll use the available methods- it’s archaic spot as a permanent member on the Security Council. France’s opposition of the US had nothing to do with ideology or ‘right and wrong,’ and everything to do with exerting long-lost influence, and propping up a fascist Iraqi regime that helpfully gobbled up French arms and weaponry. Another view on Glennon is the historical one. Europe, of all continents, has faced the horrors that unabashed nation-statism has created, of balances of power, arms races, and eventually world wars. Logically, Europe would’ve then learned from these experiences and then moved on to the view that a supranational organization such as the European Union is the best way forward for European peace. So far, it looks like they’re correct, as France and Germany seem far more interested in bashing Americans than squabbling over Alsace-Lorraine. However, these examples of supranational continental organizations aren’t rare, as we see the success stories of NATO, NAFTA, the EU, the burgeoning AU, and others. The problem that Glennon and this essay then face is how to create a successful supranational organization dedicated to true global security? When the UN Human Rights Council contains such benevolent purveyors of human rights as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, then it isn’t hard to see the main issue with a truly inclusive organization . Perhaps dangling a large carrot on a stick in front of nations, the carrot being inclusion to the UN, bringing all the smaller benefits that Tharoor trumpets, in exchange for acceptable human right levels, might create positive change. If being ostracized from the UN, and the international community, is what is necessary to force China to stop its harvesting of Falun Gong member’s organs, Russia’s regime to stop murdering journalists, Iran to stop stoning women to death for being raped, and Saudi Arabia to recognize that women deserve a better societal status than camels, then ostracizing is what is called for. There are many benefits to being included in the UN, as Tharoor helpfully points out, and those benefits are the best way to force change in regimes. There’s no point in inclusiveness for the sake of security if those included are the ones shattering the security. China is supporting genocidal regimes in the Sudan and Zimbabwe (hey, highest inflation and lowest life-expectancy in the world), with economic and political measures, and yet China has a voice on the Security Council equal or greater to many other nations that manage to have a basic inkling towards the inherent right’s of mankind. This kind of multilateralism, pandering to feckless thugs, brutal theocrats, and incoherent communists, and allowing them an equal voice to nations that give a fig for human rights, is contradictory to everything the UN mandate sets out to achieve. Tharoor’s idea of inclusiveness breeding legitimacy is ultimately self-defeating, as history has proven again and again, upon some dry Central African plain, or in the midst of an Asian jungle, as preventable conflicts turn into burning orgies of human despair, while the organization that tasks itself with stopping these horrors is sustained by bowing to purveyors of the same terror and fear.
Glennon’s article is a sounding for reform in the bureaucratic nightmare of the UN. Unfortunately, this call is a bit too late for a number of Africans and Europeans who have already been butchered in the name of racism, abject nationalism, and plain old rage, while the UN stands idly by. As stated before, the Security Council didn’t become outdated when a blithe US skipped by and invaded Iraq in 2003, it lost all meaning when eight-hundred thousand Rwandans were hacked to bits while Americans (paging Madeleine Albright) spent their time “ducking and pressuring others to duck, as the death toll leapt from thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. ” No nation in this world is innocent of harming international security to some extent; however, this malaise of cultural relativism has led the UN and the international community to believe that an entirely corrupt and depraved regime in China is the better of numerous Western nations that have spent their political capital desperately furthering the cause of human rights. Entrance to a supranational organization that brings benefits and true legitimacy to its members must be accountable, so that Americans ignoring the Geneva Convention in secret CIA prisons, and Chinese harvesting the organs of political minorities, are both held to a universal standard of human rights and belonging. Only through offering a large enough stick to shake, in terms of soft power and humanitarian benefit, can the UN become truly legitimate. Otherwise, more time will continue to be spent sitting back and watching the latest African crisis on CNN.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
And, the Budget
The budget was, as any reasonable person was expecting, a solid one to stave off or be carried into an election. Very smart political budget with specific targetting of the "Tim Horton's/Canadian Tire" crowd, with all eyes on rural Quebec and suburban Ontario. Terrible economic budget, of course, but it's a minority parliament, what were ideologues expecting? It wasn't a budget of ideology, but politics, the PM was allowed to get away with an ideological budget in 2006 because it was immediately after an election. Just because this wasn't as fiscally conservative as the first doesn't mean it's the new fiscal direction of this government. It's pure politics, nothing more, trying to make the CPC seem more "compassionate," and trying to get Canada used to the idea of a CPC majority. Do I like all the spending? Of course not, but any idiot could see the political uses of this budget, and how it could be relevant towards building a sustainable Conservative coalition. Think long-term.
I wasn't expecting an election from the budget, as I correctly assumed that at least one of the opposition leaders would put their political career ahead of partisan opposition to a Conservative budget that was intentionally made so hard to oppose. No parties wanted an election, and Duceppe gave the other two opposition parties a great rhetorical advantage by giving them this chance to oppose the CPC with no serious repercussions. As an aside, I'm assuming that the PMO was saving universal Income Splitting for a possible campaign, as a prime platform pillar, as it's a slam-dunk one.
The most interesting repercussions here are for Quebec, and its elections. They are, of course, going to be pivotal to the political health of federal Canada. If Boisclair wins, then Dion insantly gains 10x more credibility, and it will be seen as a repudiation of the PM's soft federalism. If the best possible solution, a Charest minority with Dumont opposition, comes about, this reverberates back to Ottawa as well. It's a huge blow to the morale of the PQ/BQ campaign machine, and a sign that there are federal seats to be had for the CPC in ADQ country. Things are only going to get more interesting.
I wasn't expecting an election from the budget, as I correctly assumed that at least one of the opposition leaders would put their political career ahead of partisan opposition to a Conservative budget that was intentionally made so hard to oppose. No parties wanted an election, and Duceppe gave the other two opposition parties a great rhetorical advantage by giving them this chance to oppose the CPC with no serious repercussions. As an aside, I'm assuming that the PMO was saving universal Income Splitting for a possible campaign, as a prime platform pillar, as it's a slam-dunk one.
The most interesting repercussions here are for Quebec, and its elections. They are, of course, going to be pivotal to the political health of federal Canada. If Boisclair wins, then Dion insantly gains 10x more credibility, and it will be seen as a repudiation of the PM's soft federalism. If the best possible solution, a Charest minority with Dumont opposition, comes about, this reverberates back to Ottawa as well. It's a huge blow to the morale of the PQ/BQ campaign machine, and a sign that there are federal seats to be had for the CPC in ADQ country. Things are only going to get more interesting.
Monday, March 19, 2007
On Israel
The defining moment that drew me to the Conservative Party was last summer, in the midst of the Israel/Hezbollah war. The PM's firm support of Israel was brilliant, gutsy, and a politically wise move. One in a series of moves devoted to splitting the LPC caucus and driving them further to the left, thus exacerbating the fatal divide in the left. One of a series of moves that, though perhaps only 40% (a somewhat random number, mind you, but pertinent) of Canadians support it, it's that 40% that'll elect you a majority in a FPTP system. More importantly, it was the morally correct move. Israel is seven million surrounded by hundreds of millions that are pledged and devoted to driving those seven million into the sea, not just an independant Palestine, but pure annihilation of both a Jewish state and the Jewish race, and the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy stretching across all the Middle East.
Israel is a bulwark of democratic rights in the name of this theocratic plague. Is it perfect? Of course not, Israel has its human rights problems and should be held accountable for them, but is Israel a helluva lot better than the alternative? Of course. The PM firmly standing for Israel was absolutely the correct move.
Especially at the micro-level of the Israel/Hezbollah war. Compare these two sides:
One which was founded on the mandate of ending an Israeli occupation, succeeded at this task, but still existing with a sub-state independant military force which commits terrorist actions. One that started the conflict by invading Israeli sovereignty and attacking their army, one that ignores UN resolutions, and one that fires missiles indiscriminantly into Israeli urban areas, hitting schools or houses, either is fine because Jews aren't people, right? Finally, one side that is primarily funded by one of the worst and most abusive theocratic regimes in the world.
On the other side, though nowhere near shining and perfect, you have a side that was retaliating to initial attacks. One that left Lebanon and listened to UN mandates. One who mainly struck infrastructure targets and structures where prior missiles had been launched from into Israel. One who left goddamn pamphlets laying around saying "Next up, we're invading this region. It's most likely in your best interest to leave the area." It was the most humane military campaign fought in years, due to media attention, which partially contributed to how ineffective it was. Did they commit atrocities and human rights violations? Of course, and those actions are reprehensible, but find me a conflict, throughout history, that has NEVER had violations of basic human rights. It's a sad fact about the nature of war, but it's the reality you face with human conflict. So it comes down to a matter of which side is more morally correct in the conflict and tries to be more humane? Which side supports basic Enlightment ideals? Which side listens to intergovernmental organizations? The answer is, of course, Israel.
Best move you've made yet, PM Harper.
Israel is a bulwark of democratic rights in the name of this theocratic plague. Is it perfect? Of course not, Israel has its human rights problems and should be held accountable for them, but is Israel a helluva lot better than the alternative? Of course. The PM firmly standing for Israel was absolutely the correct move.
Especially at the micro-level of the Israel/Hezbollah war. Compare these two sides:
One which was founded on the mandate of ending an Israeli occupation, succeeded at this task, but still existing with a sub-state independant military force which commits terrorist actions. One that started the conflict by invading Israeli sovereignty and attacking their army, one that ignores UN resolutions, and one that fires missiles indiscriminantly into Israeli urban areas, hitting schools or houses, either is fine because Jews aren't people, right? Finally, one side that is primarily funded by one of the worst and most abusive theocratic regimes in the world.
On the other side, though nowhere near shining and perfect, you have a side that was retaliating to initial attacks. One that left Lebanon and listened to UN mandates. One who mainly struck infrastructure targets and structures where prior missiles had been launched from into Israel. One who left goddamn pamphlets laying around saying "Next up, we're invading this region. It's most likely in your best interest to leave the area." It was the most humane military campaign fought in years, due to media attention, which partially contributed to how ineffective it was. Did they commit atrocities and human rights violations? Of course, and those actions are reprehensible, but find me a conflict, throughout history, that has NEVER had violations of basic human rights. It's a sad fact about the nature of war, but it's the reality you face with human conflict. So it comes down to a matter of which side is more morally correct in the conflict and tries to be more humane? Which side supports basic Enlightment ideals? Which side listens to intergovernmental organizations? The answer is, of course, Israel.
Best move you've made yet, PM Harper.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
American Stylings
Now we have Elizabeth May running in Central Nova- Mackay country. To quote myself:
"This is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. The Greens don't need more publicity, the environment is the flavour of the month, by far. The Greens need to prove that their support isn't a paper-tiger- that they can get 10% if the popular vote, win a seat, and prove they're a legitimate party- instead of being a "protest" vote for people to stick their polling numbers in, where all that support will melt away to real parties in an election. May choosing this ridiculous strategy does nothing to move the Green party forward.
This isn't good for the CPC either. A strong Green party splits the left, steals votes from the LPC and NDP, and could help the CPC slip in and win a few close ridings. The PMO needs to do everything possible to empower the Greens, while May is just shooting herself in the foot here."
Now, to American politics! It's roughly a year and three-quarters to the election, and the better part of a year before primaries are starting, so predictions seem to be fairly useless. It'll be interesting to watch, though, assuming we don't all get sick of the drama. Now, my intelligent picks right now are Gore/Obama vs Romney/Guiliani, not because I like them the best, but because I think it's more likely to end up like that. Ask me a few months ago for the GOP ticket and I'd have said McCain/Huckabee, but I've changed my mind. Let's go over a few things and then to the seperate parties:
-I've always supported Governors for President. Being El Presidente is an administrative job, not a legislative one, and you can have all the positions in the world and be an amazing Senate leader, but that doesn't guarentee you'll run an effective government. Governors (and generals) have the prior administrative experience to do this. History proves this all, as well, as Governors historically beat the hell out of Senators both in terms of winning elections, and in effectively governing, especially towards foreign policy. There's abberations to this, of course, but it's a good general rule of thumb to go with.
-This is the weakest GOP crop in years. If Jeb Bush's last name wasn't Bush, he'd be a slam-dunk candidate, but that's not the case, so it's a moot point. The primaries are going to be very interesting in terms of the Republican soul. It's going to be a brutal and dirty fight between the social conservative wing and the old-style Goldwater Republicans, and the former are going to win out, because they have the clout and the machinery to succeed. That's why the big three (Romney, Guiliani, and McCain) are going to be desperately pandering to the social conservatives, the old flip-flop, and it's going to be sickening. The winner in the primaries will be the one that's the most convincing at pandering to the religious right, however, more on that later.
The Democrats:
-Clinton doesn't have a chance in hell. She inherited all of her husbands's fame, money, and political machinery, which guarentees her the old college try, and she wouldn't make a bad president, either, she's smart and rather competent. However, there's a lot of smart and competent people within the Beltway and that doesn't make them good presidential candidates. She has no charisma, everything she says is entirely focus-grouped, she rubs people the wrong way, and when it gets down and dirty versus charismatic Obama and Edwards, she'll be exposed. That, and another Clinton or Bush in the White House would make me puke. The Clinton political machine won't win this one.
-Obama's a perfect VP candidate. He has the charisma of JFK, and he'll make waves. However, he's a senator, which is a major strike against him, and he has no experience. My main problem with him is that, in the Illinois legislature, he abstained on every major issue. This is smart politics, as it allows him to define himself on his own choosing when the time comes, but it's dirty and rather manipulative. Personally, he's just not a man I want running the West Wing, because he has no foreign policy experience, and there's no guarentees he'll run a well-oiled White House like a Governor can. Give him VP and let him spend four years charming people's pants off and gaining executive experience. As well, he could be key in winning the Industrial Northeast and its electoral college dominance.
-Edwards is charismatic, but that won't get him far with Obama in the running, and he didn't carry the South as his VP nomination was intended to do. He has no use if he can't bring in Democratic votes in the South, and I just don't see him getting very far against the big names.
-Richardson is my favourite candidate from both sides. The man has cabinet experience (in Energy, a relevant position for sure), UN experience, tonnes of foreign policy experience, and the administrative experience from being a Governor. He'd make the best president out of all of them, and is the perfect darkhorse. I can only see his support build as more attention is placed on finding a competent president and less on personal charisma (a reactionary movement after eight years of folksy bumbling) . He'd carry the Hispanic vote, too.
-Gore is my pick for the candidacy. He'll let Clinton and Obama beat the hell out of each other for a few months, wasting money and political capital, and he'll swoop in as the avenging environmentalist angel. There'll be a hot, dry summer, the environmental hysteria will get worse and worse, the cult will build, and Gore will take it. He has the experience that Obama doesn't, both in terms of winning presidential elections and in being part of the executive wing, he has the charisma that Clinton doesn't, and he has hordes of environmentalists that'd fight to the death for him. Put money on it.
-I like Vilsack and Dodd because they spend time on the Daily Show. Vilsack/Obama in '12!
The Republicans:
-Romney will take it. It comes down to which of the big names can pander most effectively to the socon base, and he'll do it. If the Mormonism comes up, he can do what JFK did in West Virginia with Catholicism, make it an issue of bigotry. Paint people who vote against him as bigots, voting against his personal religious beliefs, and demonize them. That, and he's still on his first wife...He was a good governor, and has the charisma and presidential "aura."
-Awww, I still feel bad for McCain. He won my love in 2000 and still hasn't lost most of it. But he just looks tired, he's lost the drive and appeal that carried him in 2000, and his pandering just isn't convincing. He's running on name right now and it won't last. The support of the Iraq war will cost him, and I just don't think he has the energy to beat out a driven Romney. I'm sure he'll be savaged in the primaries by the socon attack machine, as well, history simply repeating itself.
-Speaking of being savaged in the primaries....You can bet good money that Guiliani will never recover from South Carolina. The videos of him saying abortions should be subsidized, of him in drag being kissed by Donald Trump...he's not going to be able to "trump" this all with his tough on crime/security message. GOP politics are just too dirty for an urban New Yorker with a socially liberal past to get through, no matter how hard on terror or crime he may be. Which is a pity, he'd have great influence in carrying parts of the Industrial Northeast.
-Gingrich will be making a run for it. Won't get anywhere, but why the hell else would he randomly tell everyone about his infidelities? So that it doesn't become a possible election issue...
I'd personally like to see Richardson/Obama vs McCain/Guiliani. But it won't happen, and Al Gore is going to be the next president of the United States.
"This is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. The Greens don't need more publicity, the environment is the flavour of the month, by far. The Greens need to prove that their support isn't a paper-tiger- that they can get 10% if the popular vote, win a seat, and prove they're a legitimate party- instead of being a "protest" vote for people to stick their polling numbers in, where all that support will melt away to real parties in an election. May choosing this ridiculous strategy does nothing to move the Green party forward.
This isn't good for the CPC either. A strong Green party splits the left, steals votes from the LPC and NDP, and could help the CPC slip in and win a few close ridings. The PMO needs to do everything possible to empower the Greens, while May is just shooting herself in the foot here."
Now, to American politics! It's roughly a year and three-quarters to the election, and the better part of a year before primaries are starting, so predictions seem to be fairly useless. It'll be interesting to watch, though, assuming we don't all get sick of the drama. Now, my intelligent picks right now are Gore/Obama vs Romney/Guiliani, not because I like them the best, but because I think it's more likely to end up like that. Ask me a few months ago for the GOP ticket and I'd have said McCain/Huckabee, but I've changed my mind. Let's go over a few things and then to the seperate parties:
-I've always supported Governors for President. Being El Presidente is an administrative job, not a legislative one, and you can have all the positions in the world and be an amazing Senate leader, but that doesn't guarentee you'll run an effective government. Governors (and generals) have the prior administrative experience to do this. History proves this all, as well, as Governors historically beat the hell out of Senators both in terms of winning elections, and in effectively governing, especially towards foreign policy. There's abberations to this, of course, but it's a good general rule of thumb to go with.
-This is the weakest GOP crop in years. If Jeb Bush's last name wasn't Bush, he'd be a slam-dunk candidate, but that's not the case, so it's a moot point. The primaries are going to be very interesting in terms of the Republican soul. It's going to be a brutal and dirty fight between the social conservative wing and the old-style Goldwater Republicans, and the former are going to win out, because they have the clout and the machinery to succeed. That's why the big three (Romney, Guiliani, and McCain) are going to be desperately pandering to the social conservatives, the old flip-flop, and it's going to be sickening. The winner in the primaries will be the one that's the most convincing at pandering to the religious right, however, more on that later.
The Democrats:
-Clinton doesn't have a chance in hell. She inherited all of her husbands's fame, money, and political machinery, which guarentees her the old college try, and she wouldn't make a bad president, either, she's smart and rather competent. However, there's a lot of smart and competent people within the Beltway and that doesn't make them good presidential candidates. She has no charisma, everything she says is entirely focus-grouped, she rubs people the wrong way, and when it gets down and dirty versus charismatic Obama and Edwards, she'll be exposed. That, and another Clinton or Bush in the White House would make me puke. The Clinton political machine won't win this one.
-Obama's a perfect VP candidate. He has the charisma of JFK, and he'll make waves. However, he's a senator, which is a major strike against him, and he has no experience. My main problem with him is that, in the Illinois legislature, he abstained on every major issue. This is smart politics, as it allows him to define himself on his own choosing when the time comes, but it's dirty and rather manipulative. Personally, he's just not a man I want running the West Wing, because he has no foreign policy experience, and there's no guarentees he'll run a well-oiled White House like a Governor can. Give him VP and let him spend four years charming people's pants off and gaining executive experience. As well, he could be key in winning the Industrial Northeast and its electoral college dominance.
-Edwards is charismatic, but that won't get him far with Obama in the running, and he didn't carry the South as his VP nomination was intended to do. He has no use if he can't bring in Democratic votes in the South, and I just don't see him getting very far against the big names.
-Richardson is my favourite candidate from both sides. The man has cabinet experience (in Energy, a relevant position for sure), UN experience, tonnes of foreign policy experience, and the administrative experience from being a Governor. He'd make the best president out of all of them, and is the perfect darkhorse. I can only see his support build as more attention is placed on finding a competent president and less on personal charisma (a reactionary movement after eight years of folksy bumbling) . He'd carry the Hispanic vote, too.
-Gore is my pick for the candidacy. He'll let Clinton and Obama beat the hell out of each other for a few months, wasting money and political capital, and he'll swoop in as the avenging environmentalist angel. There'll be a hot, dry summer, the environmental hysteria will get worse and worse, the cult will build, and Gore will take it. He has the experience that Obama doesn't, both in terms of winning presidential elections and in being part of the executive wing, he has the charisma that Clinton doesn't, and he has hordes of environmentalists that'd fight to the death for him. Put money on it.
-I like Vilsack and Dodd because they spend time on the Daily Show. Vilsack/Obama in '12!
The Republicans:
-Romney will take it. It comes down to which of the big names can pander most effectively to the socon base, and he'll do it. If the Mormonism comes up, he can do what JFK did in West Virginia with Catholicism, make it an issue of bigotry. Paint people who vote against him as bigots, voting against his personal religious beliefs, and demonize them. That, and he's still on his first wife...He was a good governor, and has the charisma and presidential "aura."
-Awww, I still feel bad for McCain. He won my love in 2000 and still hasn't lost most of it. But he just looks tired, he's lost the drive and appeal that carried him in 2000, and his pandering just isn't convincing. He's running on name right now and it won't last. The support of the Iraq war will cost him, and I just don't think he has the energy to beat out a driven Romney. I'm sure he'll be savaged in the primaries by the socon attack machine, as well, history simply repeating itself.
-Speaking of being savaged in the primaries....You can bet good money that Guiliani will never recover from South Carolina. The videos of him saying abortions should be subsidized, of him in drag being kissed by Donald Trump...he's not going to be able to "trump" this all with his tough on crime/security message. GOP politics are just too dirty for an urban New Yorker with a socially liberal past to get through, no matter how hard on terror or crime he may be. Which is a pity, he'd have great influence in carrying parts of the Industrial Northeast.
-Gingrich will be making a run for it. Won't get anywhere, but why the hell else would he randomly tell everyone about his infidelities? So that it doesn't become a possible election issue...
I'd personally like to see Richardson/Obama vs McCain/Guiliani. But it won't happen, and Al Gore is going to be the next president of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)