Par-tea'd Out

In my last post I celebrated the recent budget agreement...kind of...well I mentioned that we had one, but I was more excited by its existence than its content. Though inconsequential in substance, I hoped that just the agreement itself could push Congress to do something real. I mentioned, specifically, that perhaps the deal represented the Republican party breaking up with the tea party.

Perhaps my inclination was correct. I'm not overly optimistic, but I am encouraged, because in the aftermath of the deal even normally ridiculous people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are condemning the tea party denouncers of the deal. In fairness to the tea party, the deal is garbage. All Americans should be annoyed that after three years of nothing, the best our elected officials can do is agree to minor changes that should have been the starting point - not ending point - for any negotiation. Of course the problem with any deal the tea party would have supported is that it would have been way worse than that which we have. Not only would it have harmed the country even more, it would have further dampened the Republicans political prospects. After all, the policies espoused by the group so far have many Republicans fearing their party is going the way of the dinosaurs. More policies that would cause even further harm to the American people probably don't sit well with those seeking to preserve the GOP.

So there has been a split. After years of being the lap dogs for the tea party, it seems that Boehner and McConnell have had enough. Both of them have been lambasting the more foolish members of their party for, well, being foolish. Although this represents nothing new for the rest of the country, it is refreshing to hear Republican leadership telling the tea party to shut up. They've spent four years dragging the country backwards supported by no one except the members of their safely gerrymandered districts and a spineless "leadership" incapable of leading and fearful of their own electoral prospects.

Perhaps Republicans are finally tea partied out. While there are still legislative battles ahead, and the tea party will inevitably continue to fight as long as it can, I sincerely hope that the remnants of the sane Republican party have seen the light, and that in the largely insufficient budget we won a much bigger prize: the beginning of the end of the tea party.

It's Alive!

A budget lives! Well, sort of, but it will live! It was passed by the cantankerous old House, which means it's a near certainty to get through the much more docile - if still overly silly - Senate.

Something as mundane as a budget, which used to be an annual certainty, took us three years, a shutdown, and a near default, but we got one.

So for all the agony, unnecessarily self-inflicted pain, and trying political battles what did we get? A pretty modest compromise. The deal isn't good, but neither is it bad. It just is. For all the fighting we ended with what Democrats and Republicans could have gotten years back if they'd have just agreed to meet each other half way.

The real accomplishment here isn't what is in the budget, it is the budget itself. That this is true reflects a sad reality, but it's still true. The House and Senate agreed on a budget, the House passed it, the Senate awaits. A Christmas miracle!

What I'm most hopeful this means is a step in the direction of sanity in Washington. Despite the shenanigans in the Senate, it does seem we will have a budget. Has the cloud of extreme partisanship lifted? Has the Republican party broken up with the tea party? Does anyone think Congress might pass some legislation proactively? What are the odds of that happening?

While I feel encouraged by this moment of compromise - and the negotiations leading up to it - I'm longing for meaningful legislation and not just 50/50 split budget compromises that don't really address any of the financial or economic issues we face. Let's view this as a springboard for something bigger and better. There is reason to be excited by this budget deal, but only if we use the momentum to do something more substantial.

The New Home of Terrorism...

...Is the country we have neglected for three years while a massacre unfolded before us on high-definition television: Syria. While the presence of jihadists has nothing to do with American inaction, the circumstance and turmoil caused by our moral abdication of dealing with the situation in Syria has made that country fertile ground for a renewed threat against the West by Islamic fundamentalists.

If this surprises you then clearly you haven't been paying attention. The situation in Syria has been deteriorating for years, and the entire world has cowered in the face of pressure from Russia not to intervene. Instead of working to proactively right a moral injustice, we sat on our hands and now the chaos has consumed the entire country and the Islamist elements of the opposition have gained more power at the expense of the more democratically-inclined rebels. With no stability, no law, and a sense of abandonment brought on by the fact that the outside world has done nothing to stop their plight, it ought not surprise us that Syria is becoming ground-zero for terrorists with Al Qaeda's leader referring to it as a promising staging ground.

As I have said on multiple occasions, the United States and other nations that have the means have a moral obligation to stop atrocities such as this one. It isn't our job to be the world's policeman, it is everyone's job, but not everyone has the means. Those nations that do should feel obliged to use those means to prevent large scale murder.

But perhaps you don't subscribe to that argument. Live and let live, you say, or in this case, live and let die. As this very foreseen story unfolds and Islamic extremists settle into Syria, our national security is threatened. When we do not stand up for human rights we sow dissent and anti-American sentiment not to mention failing to stabilize a lawless environment from which terrorists can safely plot and launch attacks.

This has been obvious for quite some time, and while there was never an easy solution, inaction was always the worst, albeit the easiest course. So we did nothing, and now we wonder if we will be reading about drone strikes against Al Qaeda in Syria in two years. Apparently, this threat of terrorism is so scary that we are now considering talking to the Assad regime. It's hard to imagine how we could have managed this situation more poorly.

While I hope it isn't the case, I fear that our lack of action has only empowered the wrong people in Syria, and made it possible that Syria becomes the new home of terrorism. It is in our national interest to do the right thing, even when it is difficult. That's a lesson we should have learned already, but seeing as how we have not, perhaps the spiraling chaos in Syria will serve as a wake up call.

But What if Iran...?

In the aftermath of the temporary accord to limit Iran's nuclear program, pundits everywhere have been grumbling about seeming soft and selling out our allies - as though Saudi Arabi, home of the world's most militant brand of Sunni Islam and country of origin of many of the 9/11 attackers is more than nominally our ally, more like our favorite petro-monarchy. This makes it more likely that Iran will get a bomb, critics scream! We should be tightening sanctions! Growl, grumble, etc.

Sure, it is possible that Iran won't live up to its side of the bargain. Israeli war-mongerer - excuse me, Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu likes to call Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a wolf in sheep's clothing, and maybe he is right. But couldn't Rouhani actually be a sheep? Are we really going to let our foreign policy be dictated by the stereotype that all Iranians are cut in the mold of our old nemesis Khomeini, that these people are born with an innate hatred of America? I certainly hope not...

As I pointed out in my last post, the point of sanctions was to force Iran to the bargaining table, so now that Iran is willing to bargain, haven't the sanctions proven to be successful? If Iran reneges on its end of said bargain, we can always reinstate the sanctions, and - here's the kicker - we haven't taken the ultimate option off the table. Let's say Iran totally screws us over - unlikely in my opinion - and races towards a bomb. Do we really think America and Israeli intelligence agencies are going to stop paying attention and not notice? Do we really think if it comes to that we can bomb those nuclear facilities into oblivion?

There are reasons to doubt Iran's resolve, but I see very few reasons to be critical of the use of diplomacy here - in contrast to that, I am still in favor of some type of intervention to stop the bloodshed in Syria. We should always seek to avoid conflict, and negotiating with Iran is easily the right decision. It's worth bearing in mind that allies and enemies are not forever. Remember when Soviet and American soldiers shook hands in Germany in 1945? Remember when the US armed Iraqis to fight Iranians and Afghans to fight those previously friendly Soviets (tangental point of irony: the original release of Rambo III was dedicated to the "brave Mujahideen fighters" also known as the Taliban). The point here is that we don't need to base on our interactions with today's Iranian government on the specter of Khomeini and the 1979 embassy takeover.

The question but what if Iran doesn't comply needs to be asked with a critical eye, but we must also ask ourselves a number of other important questions such as: what is our end goal; what were the point of sanctions; and do we really want to have to bomb Iran? I posit that the answers, in order, are: to bring Iran into the global community; to force Iran to bargain away its ability to build nuclear missiles; and simply, no. The good news is that if it comes to it, we still maintain the ability to blast away at nuclear sites. I'd like to keep that as plan C or D or H or whatever plan it is and give diplomacy a chance to work out.

This accord may not bring the peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear standoff that we hope for, but it also MAY bring the peaceful resolution for which we hope. The US and Israel are not going to let Iran get nukes. Right now, I think this is the best bet for achieving that end, and I think it also does far more to reintegrate Iran into the global community ensuring peace and stability rather than confrontation and standoff.

To Nuke or Not to Nuke

This weekend's deal between Iran and the six nations (including, obviously, the US) to limit Iran's nuclear program for six month in return for an easing of economic sanctions is a good one.

Obviously it has its critics, and plenty of them, and some of the criticisms are legitimate. The deal is a good one, but Iran does have to prove it is trustworthy, and a healthy dose of skepticism to whether or not they can live up to their end of the bargain is understandable and validated. But let's talk about the good, and why it's good.

For starters, we must ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve. The short answer is preventing Iran from building a nuke, but so far we have only been moderately successful on that end, slowing their march towards joining the "end-the-world" club, without making it unavoidable and antagonizing an already-prone-to-be-antagonized nation. In short, while sanctions were working, they weren't going to prevent Iran from getting a nuke, and were only increasing that nation's propensity for violent outbursts. Furthermore, the sanctions were designed to drive Iran to the bargaining table. Is that not what was achieved? If Iran is willing to rollback its program, have the sanctions not been effective?

The long-term goal isn't simply to prevent Iran from going nuclear, it's to bring Iran into the global community as a functioning and peaceful nation. We are only ever going to achieve that end through diplomacy and trust, and realistically we are only going to achieve that end if Iran is allowed to participate in the global economy. If sanctions were designed to make Iran bargain, then a complete dismantling of their nuclear armaments program should allow them access to the global marketplace. Only by taking this route will we truly be able to bring Iran into the global community as a peaceful and stable member. Short term deals to roll back parts of the nuclear program in exchange for an easing of some sanctions is a great way to test Iran's resolve and trustworthiness while negotiators work to develop a more comprehensive deal that formally and permanently ends Iran's nuclear quest.

We can go on forever punishing Iran, and ultimately ensure through force that they do not acquire a bomb, but does anyone really want that? As much as I have - and still do - advocate for intervention in Syria, that is a far different situation. Force in Syria would be warranted, whereas diplomacy and sanctions in Iran seem to have been successful so far. Sure, Iran must prove it can be trusted, but we won't know if we don't try. While there is reason to doubt and work to be done, this accord is a great starting point to the peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue, and hopefully the footing upon which a more trusting relationship can be built between Iran and the global community, a relationship that will ultimately mean Iran's reintegration into that community. Creating the conditions for Iran's re-entry into this community could go a long way towards making the Middle East a more peaceful region.

Overall, I applaud team Obama (or team Kerry, or for that matter perhaps even team Rouhani) for making this deal possible. Moving forward with both a healthy dose of optimism and a healthy dose of skepticism will be necessary to ensure that this framework becomes permanent, and that long term goals are met, but if you are looking for an example of diplomatic success, look no further. Now let's see if we can make the good deal a better one.

It Came to This

So today the Senate voted to limit filibusters for most presidential nominees for cabinet positions and judicial openings. This move is unprecedented, unfortunate, and entirely necessary.

In theory, I hate the idea of taking power from the minority party, but in theory, the minority party lends a hand in governing and proposes alternative ideas to counter the majority party with the end result being policy crafted out of compromise.

In reality, limiting Republicans' ability to be an obstacle to governance is a good thing, as they have abdicated all responsibility for helping govern our country.

I have no doubt that American democracy will rebound from the debacles of the past few years. As the world changes and our country with it, we will naturally undergo periods of extreme and intense debate about important issues. This is the democratic process at its ugliest best: the competition of ideas in the public discourse.

If that is what were happening now, I'd embrace it, but alas, while both sides are long on talk and short on ideas, the Republican party is more of a car stalled on the railroad of progress than anything else. As I've pointed out before, their mantra of "repeal and replace" Obamacare long ago became simply repeal because they have no ideas for what to replace it with. False equivalence has been given time and time again to their views on this topic and others: the administration won't negotiate on Obamacare...well no, they won't, that's because it is a law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. When Obama solicited Republicans for ideas on healthcare reform back in early 2010 they came to the table with the idea of limiting malpractice and that was it. Now they are waging a fierce battle to undo a law that may very well be productive without any ideas about how to address the problem that law was designed to solve.

Meanwhile, there are three empty seats on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - three empty seats, not one! - and every time Obama has nominated a judge to fill one of those vacancies, Republicans have filibustered the candidate, stating publicly that they will not allow the president to fill any seats in that court. So cases are backlogged because Republicans - they who worship at the alter of the Constitution - are denying the president his constitutional power to appoint judges.

The minority party is important because we must be a country of competing ideas if we are to better ourselves and our world, and we must respect the opinions of those who truly seek to better our nation even when they do not represent the majority point of view. But the minority party has ceased to offer competing ideas and serves only as a group of people wreaking havoc on the country by saying no to everything, shutting down the government, and bringing the nation to the brink of defaulting on our debt. This isn't mature, this isn't governance; we could pluck chimpanzees from the nation's zoos and get better results.

I fear, of course, that in the future this change will hurt Democrats, but in the future is bleak enough as it is due to Republicans failure to be responsible partners in governance. That the court is backed up because Republicans are denying the president the power to appoint judges is of course ironic and hypocritical given their professed love for a document they clearly haven't bothered to read, but more importantly it's bad for America.

And so it has come to this. A decision that sucks, but is probably necessary for the good of the country. Yes, the political pendulum swings, and it's not impossible that this comes back to haunt Democrats, but it's also possible it doesn't given that the Republican party is so fractured and can't appeal to anyone except older, white Americans. Either way the country needs to function, and if the immature and vacuous Republicans don't want to participate in governing then it's best for them to be removed as obstacles.

I wish it hadn't happened, I more so wish that it hand't been necessary, and I most of all wish that the Republican party will wake up and return to respectability by finding a way to make America better. But those are wishes, and it doesn't seem as if they will be granted anytime soon. Three unfilled vacancies on the nation's highest appeals court isn't the way to run a country or score political points. You get those by leading. Republicans ought to give that a shot.

It's Not Actually a Secret

An article in today's New York Times supposedly reveals the "dirty secret" that is holding up a grand bargain on the budget. What secret you ask? Well it's not actually a secret, it's just politics as usual. According to the article - as if anyone needed to see reporting on this to know that it is the case - Democrats are actually unwilling to vote for higher taxes on the wealthy especially in an election year when much of their war chest will be supplied by rich backers. Meanwhile Republicans are actually unwilling to vote for entitlement reform because almost the entirety of their base is composed of old people. So in other words, the "secret" of why our politicians won't do anything good for our country is because they are politicians who are beholden more to their electoral prospects and the money supporting their campaigns than they are to the good of the country.

This, alas, is really at the root of what is wrong with our political system. Yes, for the past few years the Republican party has been hijacked by a group of buffoons, but the real paralysis within American politics is caused by an addiction to the money of special interest groups, and exacerbated by the lack of a third (or fourth or fifth) political party to offer good ideas when both Democrats and Republicans walk in lockstep to support party and agenda over the American people.

Does it really surprise anyone that for all their rhetoric about raising taxes on the wealthy Democrats are scared to do this because - let's be real - so much of their funding comes from the rich? Does it really surprise anyone that despite their stated hatred of government spending Republicans are opposed to cutting the main drivers of spending because pretty much every Republican voter in the country qualifies as a member of the AARP? This isn't a secret, this is the gridlock inherent in a system that places special interest - including the interests of the party - and the money that comes along with those interests ahead of the American people. Any rational long-term budgetary plan would come up with ways to cut spending on both Social Security and Medicare while also being flexible enough to realize that there are times when taxes should rise and times when taxes should fall. We wouldn't lock ourselves out of addressing the primary drivers of our deficit, nor would we lock ourselves into the inability not to raise additional revenue when needed. It's almost asinine to consider otherwise, but both parties put on a facade of rigid ideology and then can't muster the fortitude to vote for their own ideas because they are scared of the political consequences. This is a recipe for national decline.

It's not a secret that our government is broken. And while there are lots of temporary reasons that this is the case, the underlying structural issue of a government addicted to special interest money and unwilling to speak candidly with the American people about our problems and propose solutions (as opposed to fear-mongering and proposing things NOT to do) are not going away anytime soon. We need campaign finance reform laws and an end to the addiction and influx of monied interests, and we need legislators whose priority is making America better, not getting reelected. Until we shift the rules and the discourse we are going to be moving in the wrong direction.

Happy Veteran's Day

There are a lot of amazing men and women out there who risk their lives to keep ours safe. On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month when World War I ceased, we remember and thank those who are willing to put their lives in harm's way to keep us safe.

To America's veterans, thank you.

The Results Are In

What does it all mean!? Though yesterday's elections have already been taken apart piece by piece by well-dressed and self-important men and women on television, if you are reading this, you must want my opinion as well, so allow me to provide!

There weren't many elections yesterday, but the ones that took place were - I think and hope - indicative of the direction in which the nation is moving. With a few exceptions - including the defeat of Republican Joe Lhota in NYC's mayoral race! - I am pleased with the outcomes. My analyses below.

The Wins

1) A Democrat is elected governor of Virginia. This is good mostly because the Republican Ken Cuccinelli, is, for lack of a better term, a clown. He ran with full tea party support, and just about anyone with whom I am familiar who is supported by the tea party is long on patriotic buzzwords and short on intellect. I don't know as much as Cuccinelli as I do about, say Ted Cruz (public enemy #1), but I know his social views were appropriately abhorrent to receive tea party support, and that's really enough for me. His opponent, and now governor-elect of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, has previously been plagued by political scandals, but we all know that many scandals are half-baked, and my research didn't indicate anything in McAuliffe's past that would make him unelectable (clearly the voters in Virginia agreed). I find two things encouraging about McAuliffe's victory: it was a loss for the tea party which is almost by definition a win for America, and he won by making the case that Cuccinelli's backwards social views would be bad for Virginia's economy by discouraging investment in the state. He's right about that, and I'm glad the Virginia voters heeded his call. 

2) Chris Christie is reelected governor of New Jersey. Surprised? Yes, I'm happy Christie won. I didn't know much about his Democratic opponent, and while I'm sure I would have agreed with her more often than I do with Christie, the Republican party is desperately in need of some sane moderates, and Christie is one of the few I can identify. The New York Times last night declared that his victory vaults him to the front of the Republican field for 2016, and I find that news to be simply extraordinary. Christie's style may not win him a general election - I'm not sure I want him to win a general election - but he's about as good a standard-bearer as exists among Republicans right now, and if his win last night and his likely 2016 run for president help move the Republican party back into the realm of sanity and away from the tea party then he's damn-near an American hero. Congrats, Chris.

3) Dean Young loses in Alabama. Don't know Dean Young? Neither did I until recently. Neither did I know the man who defeated him, Brynes, until about a few weeks ago when the news of their duel in the Republican primary in a special election became national. Brynes will now go on to defeat whoever it is the Democrats have found to run against him, but his victory over Young is important. Brynes was the "establishment" (read: moderate; sane; normal) candidate. Dean was the tea party-backed prophet of the apocalypse - no really - forecasting the end of our "Western Christian Empire," and railing against homosexuality. That Brynes managed to beat Dean in a state as red as Alabama is encouraging. Perhaps even the staunchest Republicans are awakening to the lunacy of the tea party. I don't know much about Brynes, but all I need to know is that he was the anti-tea party candidate. I hope that small local primary is a sign of things to come on the national stage.

4) It happened a few weeks back, but Corey Booker is now a Senator. This can be summed up in one word: Awesome.

The Losses 

1) Bill De Blasio elected mayor of New York City. I don't hate De Blasio. In fact, I'm onboard with a lot of his progressive ideas, but I don't really think he has a blueprint for achieving many of them, and his ideas for reforming education are regressive rather than progressive. If you really want to be progressive and attack inequality as De Blasio does - and I genuinely believe that - you have to start with education, and De Blasio's Republican opponent, Joe Lhota, had way better ideas for how to reform and fix New York City's schools. I'm optimistic that De Blasio won't be able to inflict serious damage on the charter school movement in New York, but his stance on education does little to help public education. If he can indeed increase taxes on the wealthy to fund universal prekindergarten I'll be happy, and I do think his heart is in the right place, but he has a lot to prove to me, and right now, I'm wishing Lhota had pulled off the upset.

2) Colorado voters reject tax increase that would have funded public education. Poor public education, and poor children. They can't vote so they don't have a voice, but they are the future of our country, and educating them is the only way we can remain a successful country. Education is the very bedrock of America, but it gets swept under the rug. Colorado has pioneered some really encouraging school reforms, but yesterday voters negated some of the good that would have been done in a referendum on tax increases that would have funded many of the initiatives. Higher taxes aren't really politically appealing, and the opposition made the case that they would be bad for the economy. This may be true, but what will be worse for Colorado's economy is all of the uneducated children being pumped out of failing schools. Good investments are usually long-term, but Colorado's voters went to the polls with their wallets, not their state's future on the forefront of their mind. It's hard to blame them I suppose, but I'm still disappointed. Education is the ultimate investment, and it is always discouraging to see our country take steps backward when it comes to education reform because it's a political issue without constituents. 

The Verdict

Overall, I find myself pleased with yesterday's outcomes. Surprising as it may seem I am encouraged by the victory of one Republican, and discouraged by another's loss, but I remain optimistic that De Blasio will be able to do limited damage, and may actually realize that his ideas about public education are regressive and come around on the issue. What I'm most disappointed about is the outcome in Colorado, but the same politicians who passed this bill are still in office, and I believe they will try to craft a new and better bill that can win public support for reforming schools. 

Perhaps most importantly, yesterday was a severe reprimand for the tea party, a group that one can only hope is losing its appeal as it becomes even more obvious (it was obvious almost from the beginning) that they are devoid of positive ideas for improving America, and that their social views are more aligned with the ayatollahs in Iran than with 21st century America. 

Yesterday gives me some hope for America's near future. Let's hope we can keep up the momentum. 

Illegitimacy on Display

There has been enough going on at home and in Syria for me to have neglected the situation in Egypt, but the beginning of former President Morsi's trial is reason enough to comment on the turbulence there, and how deplorable the inaction of the United States and our allies has been.

Mohammed Morsi, lest we forget, was the democratically elected President of Egypt who was voted into office following the toppling of Hosni Mubarek. The head of the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi's brief tenure as president was largely ineffective, and arguably divisive. But more importantly, his election was legitimate. Democracies elect divisive and ineffective politicians all the time - some would argue our current President is one of them, and most who would argue otherwise would probably say that his predecessor was one of them - but we have methods other than coups for addressing their inadequacies.

The deplorable failure to condemn the coup of President Morsi - he won a legitimate election! - was a mistake on the part of the United States. I'm not in love with the Muslim Brotherhood, and there are many who are probably more out of love with the Brotherhood than I am, but democracy means the people elect who they elect and then the military stays out of the way. Now President Morsi is on trial for "inciting murder," and has rightly declared that trial to be illegitimate. It would be nice if the United States would at least say something to the effect of "coups are bad even when they depose someone we don't like."

It's exactly this kind of short-sighted foreign policy that has made America the target for the ire of much of the world, and that ire has become increasingly violent, especially when emanating from the Muslim world. If we are going to stand up for democracy, we need to stand up for democracy, even when the democratically elected leaders of a particular country aren't the ones we would have chosen. That's kind of the point, right, self-determination? Morsi wasn't doing a good job anyhow, he wasn't going to be re-elected, he may even have been removed from office through means other than a coup, but the United Sates looks like the hypocrites we are in this case when we refuse to even condemn the coup of a democratically elected leader while pretending to espouse democracy.

What's the next would-be jihadi to think next time he hears us preaching about democratic values? I'm willing to be he remembers Mohamed Morsi's forcible removal from office and subsequent illegitimate trial...

I've been advocating for intervention in Syria for months based on the reasoning that it is in the best interest of the United States to consistently stand up for human and civil rights even when the best course of action is a difficult or not entirely clear. In the short run, it's easy to watch the bloodshed in Syria and do nothing, or to sit back idly and tacitly support a military dictatorship in Egypt that seems more aligned with US interests than a president representing the Muslim Brotherhood. But in the long-term both of those stances are wrong and counterproductive to our well-being, stability, and national defense, not to mention they're morally indefensible in the short-term even if they niftily seem to be politically easy solutions.

When President Obama was first running for office one of my biggest concerns about a potential President Obama was that he would be too soft on foreign policy. Over the first few years of his presidency those fears seem to have been misplaced; Obama deftly handled the situation in Libya - if not its aftermath, and finally got bin Laden while winding down our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if Obama was at first tough and spot on, he has now been timid and afraid to stand up for American values. There are plenty of Americans who don't like Obama, but only a few crazy ones talk about secession. So what gives us the right to condone a coup when we don't like the elected head of state from another country? If Obama's rationale for intervention in Libya was to stop a slaughter - which he did - what then is his reason for not stopping a slaughter in Syria that has been going on for three years?

American foreign policy must be rooted in the morals and values that sustain our country if we are to eliminate threats to our national security by promoting a peaceful and stable world. Short-term and politically-convenient bandaid solutions or non-actions do little to help us today and actually hurt us tomorrow. If you often find yourself asking "why are we allied with a feudal monarchy in Saudi Arabia, a country which produced many of the 9/11 hijackers," I think you're asking the right type of questions. Our short-sightedenss has already hurt us in a profound way. We'd be wise not to make the same mistake again. Alas, the trial of Mohamed Morsi continues, and our illegitimacy is on full display.

A Nation of Not Doing

The problem with American politics, it seems to me, is that we have become a nation of not doing rather than a nation of doing. In this blog I often harken back to the ideas and words of JFK: we do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard. I'm only 27, but is it true that we were once a nation of staring down problems and solving them rather than whining about why we can't do hard things?

I ask this question today, because the "debate" in our nation's capitol for the past few years has been about not doing things, particularly, not fixing the nation's broken healthcare system by giving Obamacare a chance to play out. It is true that there have been and still are reasons to doubt that Obamacare will be effective, and the disastrous rollout of the online federal healthcare exchanges have added to the anxiety. But to every tea party politician predicting doomsday and the impending arrival of socialist America, my question is, what is your solution?

As I have said repeatedly, I'm not here to claim that Obamacare is the be all, end all solution to our healthcare woes. I am here to say that Obamacare is an attempt to fix the issue, and in that sense it is already vastly superior to anything the tea party led Republican party has offered, because their only solution to anything lately has been the undoing of Obamacare and thus a return to the unsustainable and ethically indefensible status quo. I remember when the Republican crusade against Obamacare began, and the Republican line of attack was "repeal and replace." The replace part of that mantra was quickly dropped when it became evident that Republicans had no ideas for replacing Obamacare. So they stuck with the "end of freedom as we know it," line of attack, shut down the government, and continue to stew over non-issues rather than offering solutions. This watering-down of the political discourse has contributed to our becoming a nation of do not.

As often as I find myself lambasting Republicans and the tea party in particular - and rightly so as they are deserving of our national ire - I must take time in this post to throw some scorn in the direction of Democrats as well, although at the local level, and in the state - or rather city - of New York in particular.

Like healthcare, or nation's public education system is in an extreme state of disrepair. The consequences of our woefully bad public education for our nation's future will be disastrous. In the debate about how to fix education, it is more often Democrats who are fresh out of ideas, and nowhere is this more evident than in New York City's mayoral election in which the Democrat who will coast to victory on Tuesday, Bill De Blasio, has threatened to charge charter schools rent to use public space. Without getting into the specifics of this issue here, suffice it to say that charters - which are public schools! - are an attempt to help fix the woeful state of public education. While there are some bad charter schools, there are also some great ones. The good ones are far superior alternatives to the hapless traditional public schools that are often just next door, or in New York, within the same building as traditional public schools! But rather than embracing charter schools and trying to improve the bad ones by holding them more accountable, De Blasio has taken the same approach used by the tea party in the national debate on healthcare and threatened to charge rent to public charter schools. If successful, this would amount to a near death blow to the movement, deprive tens of thousands of New York City's children of good schools, and be just another example of America's descent into a nation of do not. Why bother taking a politically tough approach to a huge problem in an effort to solve it, when I can simply sit back and embrace a disastrous status quo?

So Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of driving our nation in the wrong direction, a direction of helplessness in the face of daunting issues. A direction that would make JFK and his challenge to the nation sick. Why aren't we a nation of doing this because it is hard? What will it take to make us that nation again? I can't say I know, but I can say that if we don't figure it out quickly we will become the first nation to end up on the ash-heap of history because we willfully chose the easy route to our own descent rather than the difficult choice of remaking ourselves in a better fashion. America's future has always been and will always be down the path of solving problems by doing what is difficult. If we lose the political will to do that, we lose our future, we lose our identity, and ultimately we may very well lose ourselves. It's time for a recommitment to making tough choices, and solving tough problems. That is the American way.

For My Next Trick I'll Need...

Hopefully not another debt crisis or government shutdown. For my next trick I'll actually need a functioning government, and the next trick really shouldn't be a trick at all, but a budget, you know, like the ones that Congress is supposed to produce.

In the aftermath of the government shutdown, the question on my mind - and I hope on everyone's mind - is what does our government do now that it has officially decided to do something? Given the inability of our elected officials to accomplish anything since the great tea party coup of 2010, I'd say any action would be positive action, but then again some people consider the Cruzian crusade to be action, so perhaps we need to define a bit more clearly what it is we expect from Congress.

1) A budget, please...? I know it's a lot to ask for two sides with completely contradictory economic views to find common ground, but given that the common ground is the sensible ground - we raise and lower taxes as dictated by necessity, never letting them get so high as to stifle investment but neither cutting them so drastically as to starve revenue - one would think it would be possible for the two sides to set ideology aside and be practical about the need for smart spending cuts and reasonable revenue increases in order to make America sustainable.

2) Immigration reform. This one is a no-brainer (aren't most of them?). Our country's immigration system is broken in so many ways and places that I don't know where to start. Build a fence, offer a pathway to citizenship, reform the manner in which visas are given to educated immigrants, etc, etc, and more etc. There is a Senate bill sitting in the House of Donothingness that provides a good template and would be a much better alternative than the current, broken system.

3) A renewed interest and investment in infrastructure, primarily in education. This is where our future will be won or lost, and educationally we are lagging woefully behind our economic peer group. American public education is largely in shambles. There are still things we do well, but our failure to proactively invest in education leaves us retroactively spending money far less efficiently to support people who could, should, and would be supporting themselves if we had enabled them. Not only are we wasting money, but we are failing to provide the means for our citizens to provide for themselves and thus creating a semi-permanent underclass. Only by investing in education can we sustain the kind of innovation and maintain the freedoms that are the hallmarks of the society we value.

I hope that the debacle of the shutdown was the slap in the face reality-check that the far right needed, and that we can actually have real and vigorous debate around how to address these issues which are just the ones I deem most important among the myriad of things that need to be done. Immigration is a good place to start since there is already a strong bipartisan consensus. Perhaps Congress can find a way to do something useful and pass that bill and then use it as a springboard to address the budget and education reform.

Let's go here, Washington. Do a trick for us. Show us you can perform. Craft and pass some legislation and get to work making America better.

Welcome back Uncle Sam

Sixteen days later and Uncle Sam has been resuscitated on the eve of his default. After more than two weeks of needless and harmful absence, the government has returned. Let's see if will come back any more worthwhile than when it left.

In return for the damage they inflicted upon the American economy and their own image and electoral prospects, Republicans got nothing in return. Nothing. Almost literally. I believe I linked to this video clip in a previous post, but it's worth watching again. As Jon Stewart and Willy Wonka both state eloquently in this post, the tea party's loss was a severe blow. They proved themselves vapid, immature, incapable, and generally worthless, and those are just the nice descriptors. The tea party's ultimate gift to the American people in this debacle might very well be the bleak electoral prospects they have created for Republicans in next year's midterm elections.

In the end the "agreement" that we got was one that could have, should have, and would have been passed months ago had it not been for the anti-Obamacare crusade that was doomed from the start. To say that Republican placed ideology over practicality and their misguided political agenda over the needs of the country is a whale of an understatement. In fact, the bill that President Obama ultimately signed wasn't an agreement at all; it was a Republican acceptance of the president's non-negotiables that were must-dos for the country anyhow. As Stewart points out in the clip linked above, if President Obama can negotiate with most intransigent and totalitarian mullahs on the planet, but not Republicans, maybe he's not the problem. What Stewart doesn't point out is that the reason President Obama can negotiate with said mullahs is because they have something over which to negotiate: a nuclear program. Republicans had nothing. It's not that the president refused to negotiate, it's that negotiation only happens when both sides have something to bring to the table. This political battle could have ended in only one of two ways: a default or a Republican collapse, and truthfully a default would have precipitated a worse Republican collapse than the one they got by admitting defeat last night.

Now that the latest round of lunacy has ended, let's see if Congress can use the next few months to actually put together a budget and agree to future plans on taxing and spending. This is, after all, what we elect and pay them to do. Optimistic I am not, but perhaps the debacle that has made them the political spectacle worldwide will have taught the true fools on the far right what not to do next time around. Welcome back Uncle Sam. When last I saw you, you were sickly. But now you have a 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, or 17th) chance at doing your job. Do us all a favor and actually try this time.

Uncharted Stupidity

Forget the government shutdown, if nothing is done to raise the debt limit in two days - or perhaps two weeks - our nation will default on our debt, an unprecedented embarrassment and supposed economic catastrophe brought on by nothing but the sheer lunacy and complete failure of leadership from one fraction of one political party.

Analysis of this debacle has already been done, and one would think there is nothing new to say, but just when you think the tea party has reached the furthest fringe of insanity, they say or do something even worse than before. Consider today's quote by one Tim Huelskamp of Congress, an elected official who I hope I'll never have the displeasure of hearing speak publicly again: “Anybody who would vote for that in the House as Republican would virtually guarantee a primary challenger," Tim said of the bipartisan plan put together by the Senate. 

So even when the debate gets this sour and one side brings no ideas to the table but a compromise is still reached, it's not enough for this Huelskamp character. Voting for a bipartisan plan in which one party has made concessions that it has no business making but is doing so for the good of the country is still not enough to get ole Tim to vote for said plan. After all, doing what is in the best interest of the American people "would virtually guarantee a primary challenger." So much for government for the people. 

Two weeks into the government shutdown, and while the world hasn't ended, the economy also has not improved, and unnecessary furloughs are costing us money we shouldn't be losing. Perhaps the default won't be the economic catastrophe it is predicted to be, but then again pretty much every government, business, and non-partisan economist on the planet is looking to Thursday's deadline with a sense of gloom, so it seems silly to test this theory. 

And yet that is the path on which we find ourselves, towards being unwilling - not unable - to pay our debts. The hostage crisis in Washington has not abated, and thus we have essentially told anyone who has put their faith in our nation that they aren't worth our promises because a small minority of lunatics think that it is okay to force economic ruin on their own country and the world if they don't get their way.

This is uncharted stupidity, and we are about 36 hours from crashing into it head on. While I hope for a resolution in that time, I would be lying if I said I were optimistic. I don't know if the dire economic predictions of everyone will come true if we default on our debt, but I certainly don't want to find out, especially not when the only reason this might happen is because a few fools who profess ultimate loyalty to our Constitution are now threatening extortion to undo a law that was enacted through the same process they purport to hold sacrosanct. Uncharted stupidity indeed. 

Losing Their (S)way

A New York Times article yesterday highlighted something that shouldn't come as a surprise: Business groups that traditionally (and still) donate large sums of money to the Republican party have found that they are losing their sway over the current manifestation of said group. Despite the support they receive from pro-business groups, many Republicans are refusing to advocate, vote for, or put forward ideas and policies that are seen as good for business.

There is an important but distinct conversation to be had about how effective the ideas of some of those pro-business groups actually are, and how the good ones should be balanced with the good ideas of of pro-labor or pro-regulatory groups, but I don't want to delve into that here. Instead I'd like to reflect on the "well, of course" reaction I had when I read this piece.

Business groups are losing their sway because the Republican Party has lost its way. Once seen as the party of business, the current tea party led group is so intellectually incompetent that their current escapades - let's not pretend that anything done by this group is substantive enough not to be an escapade - have terrified business leaders who are losing money because of the government shutdown and who are - rightfully - terrified of a default. For years, Republicans were the party of business because they advocated policies that were anti-labor, anti-regulation, and pro-free market. There is validity around much of these ideas (perhaps not at the extremes proposed by some Republicans), and a substantial and thorough conversation between moderate pro-business Republicans and moderate pro-labor, pro-regulation Democrats could lead us to a happy, sustainable, and prosperous middle ground. It made complete sense that pro-business groups would support anti-labor, anti-regulation Republican lawmakers.

Many of the current ilk probably share those anti-labor, anti-regulation views, but their fanatical obsession with Obamacare and their preposterous apocalyptic vision of his presidency has pulled them over the cliff of lunacy. Their anti-Obama crusade has created such instability in government that it is not only hurting their party nationally, but is strangling businesses. Obamacare may not be the most pro-business policy in the world, but it's nowhere near as harmful as the tea party-induced government shutdown or the threat of a default.

So when you read that business groups are losing their sway over the Republican party, the natural reaction is "duh." After all, stability is good for business, and the extremist fringe of the party is so hellbent on getting its way that its members are willing to resort to anything - including blackmail, extortion, and temper tantrums - to see their will be done, no matter how insipid or harmful that will is. The resulting instability is worse than any policy prescription for business, and thus ends the story about how the Republican party has lost its way and the business groups supporting it have lost their sway.

One Week In

Well, the world still hasn't ended, but neither have we made any progress. The government remains inactive (partially), the tea party remains a group of insane extortionists, the country remains fed up. Nothing has really changed since before the shutdown since the part of government doing the legislating was inactive prior to officially shutting itself down. However they remain around to collect their salaries from our tax dollars. Figures. Only the tea party would be so anti-governmentally insipid that they shut it down and yet continue to spend tax dollars on their own salaries.

It doesn't seem as though progress is on the horizon. Doing what they do best, the tea party is refusing to do anything remotely helpful for the country. Despite having no strategy, no plan, no fresh ideas, no anything really, they are still waiting for Obama to "negotiate" as though there were something over which to negotiate. There isn't. This is the ultimate example of ignorant arrogance run amok. The tea party zealots don't have a plan to get what they want, and even if they did, they wouldn't have any ideas for how to fix America's broken healthcare system. So not only is a hostage taking farce, it's one without any alternative to that would help fix the problem.

The theatrics have gone on long enough. The charade is over. Each passing day the embarrassment that is the national Republican party backs itself further into a hole. There is no endgame, there is no plan, and until the people who want nothing more than to have their way get their way there is no government either. There has been no shortage of amusing analogies to the Republican hostage taking, so I will not here try to come up with another, but it is far past time we called a spade a spade and acknowledge that there is no failure to "negotiate." There is, in fact, nothing over which to negotiate. Negotiation requires that each party engaging in said negotiations has a credible plan it brings to the table at which point differences are argued over and ultimately a compromise is reached. If you think that is what is happening here, you haven't been paying attention.

I tried to go as long as possible with bashing the Republican party, but at this point what is left to say? Our government is an international embarrassment because about 30 people with the IQ of rocks are showing the maturity of four year olds and won't quit crying until they get their way. That is the depth to which we have sunk.

One week in and how much longer will we go? I suppose it depends on the leaderless mob of radical morons raising hell in the House of Representatives. I only hope that the suffering they are ultimately able to inflict is minimal.

The Fight Over Inaction

It's not quite live blogging or live tweeting the shutdown, but as long as this tragicomic charade goes on I might as well write about it. After all, this blog is dedicated to politics (or rather, I'd like to think, to policy), but since policy is on a standstill while political posturing is on full display, I have little choice but to blog about the shutdown or just sit on my hands.

I wish there were something exciting to say, but a shutdown is inaction by definition, and there is only so much to say about inaction. Today is day four of the government shutdown. The sun still came up today, so I suppose it can't be that bad. I do wonder how long it will continue and how bad it could get. Despite assurances from John Boehner that he won't let the tea party force a default in two weeks, I'm still a bit pessimistic about the prospects of this ending soon. All the power is in the hands of Boehner; if he allows a vote in the House on a clean bill we get a government again. If not they'll be another blog on day seven or day nine or whenever I choose to next write about the nothingness going on in Washington. Of course I'm nervous about the power being in the hands of the ambitious yet timid and vapid John Boehner, but I think he'll ultimately realize he's committing political suicide no matter he does at this point and just fold. When? I guess we'll see.

The saddest part about all of this to me is that we are fighting about NOT doing something. What happened to we do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard? Though I support Obamacare, I'm still tepid about it. I'm not here to proclaim that it will solve all of our nation's healthcare and healthcare cost issues, but it's an attempt, and not a bad one at that. And instead of fighting to make it better or propose something new and different, the tea party is just anti-it. They are anti-everything-Obama. There are no fresh ideas. There is no action. Our government has shutdown not because our politicians are squabbling about how we should improve our country, but because they're fighting over undoing attempts to improve our country.

Republican leaders at every level recognize this, and make a very valid point: the fanatical and suicidal obsession of the tea party with Obamacare and Obama-everything has completely overshadowed or derailed anything good Republicans have done at other levels of government. Republican governors in particular are annoyed feeling as though some of the good work they've done hasn't gotten any attention and could help change the national discourse about Republicans. The tea party has held the economy hostage, yes, but they've also hijacked the national debate to the detriment of nearly everyone, including Republicans.

It's certainly true that I don't know much about the reforms that Republicans are attempting in some states, and while I assume I would disagree with some, I know for a fact that others are good. Louisiana and Tennessee, both piloted by Republican governors are remaking the face of public education in their states, I believe for the better, but even if you disagree with my analysis, the comparison with Obamacare is undeniable - it is an attempt to fix a broken system that is in desperate need of fresh ideas.

What America needs is leadership - at all levels - that paints a real vision of a better future and explains, in candid terms, the hard work that will be needed to get there and how we can and should get there together. America's strength, our size and diversity, can be our weakness when we become fragmented. Squabbling over not doing thing fragments us into a society incapable of moving forward - we need not look much further than RIGHT NOW to see that is the case. But if we fought over different ideas for improving the country - a prerequisite for which is having ideas to improve the country - we would at least be starting from the common ground of wanting to make a better future together. That has not been the foundation for public discourse in some time, no matter what our politicians claim. The fight over inaction has led us to just that, painful inaction. It's time to restart the machine of government with the goal of taking action to make things better and debating our competing ideas to achieve that end rather than waging fanatical and ill-fated wars to prevent anyone from taking steps to improve America.

And Here We Go

Today the government ended its three year streak of feigning action by just calling it quits and ending the ruse; the government has formally shut down meaning essential services will be delayed or disrupted, and potentially imperiling our already fragile and tepid economic recovery.

How did we get here, we must be asking ourselves. The last time such an event happened I was nine years old so it is hard for me to put it in historical context, but I'm certainly not at a loss to explain last night's debacle. In fact, it can be summed up succinctly in only three words: tea party Republicans.

There isn't really anything new here for me to say that hasn't been pointed out by any astute commentator and by many Republicans themselves. The tea party crusaders are not responsible legislators. They're not really legislators at all, and extrapolating on their behavior in Congress they probably aren't responsible in other realms either.

I'd like to try to lampoon the tea party, but I find all this discouraging, and besides John Stewart is funnier than I am. What is more interesting is to try to understand the dynamic of the tea party and why the ideological extremes that always exist within politics have managed to entirely co-opt one of our two major parties.

The issue here is that the tea party crusaders are just that, crusaders. Trapped within the right-wing echo chamber these people have shown a fanatical commitment to their ideas that is immune to reason or fact. Their ideological "live free or die" battle against Obamacare doesn't address any of the real issues with the laws, nor does it acknowledge any of the good ideas within the law. It paints a picture of this fight being an end-of-days type battle for the very existence of America, and the tea party is so convinced that Obamacare will ruin us - without any valid argument to back that claim - that they view actual harmful actions like a government shutdown or a default as being hiccups along our route to the ultimate destruction that awaits in the form of the Affordable Care Act.

This severe lack of critical thinking and unwillingness or incapability to be objective has led the tea party to believe that they are 100% right about the disaster of Obamacare and that America supports this ideological crusade. Both of these beliefs are fantasies. Obamacare might not be as great as many of us hope, but it certainly is not akin to Doomsday, and any and every reliable poll shows that the American public blames Republicans for denying us essential services to fight a battle lost four years ago. They don't see that while the American public is skeptical of Obamacare - and rightfully so - that we don't believe it has or will derailed the country. In fact, we are far more inclined to believe it is the tea party who is derailing the country. The facts around the law and the polling are public, but the tea party denies them nonetheless to the detriment of the country and to the chagrin of the moderates within their party. Rather than examination, thinking, analysis, and new ideas, Republicans cling to their shield of faith that Obamacare will kill us all. They are right in their own minds and nothing can change that.

Ultimately this must and will change. The party has already ceased to be a nationally viable alternative to Democrats, and while the political tides ebb and flow, the tea party will have to implode before people consider Republicans on a national level again. Their thin majority in the House would already have fractured if Boehner had allowed a vote on the Senate's spending bill, but Boehner is big on ego and low on leadership, so he followed his ambition to be Speaker of the House and let his radicals walk him into a suicide stand rather than allowing a vote that would have funded the government but marred him in the eyes of the tea party. Scattered and gerrymandered Republican districts around the country may be enough to keep some crazies in the House and prevent us from making progress, but they can't be nationally viable. Right now, as the President has pointed out, one faction of one party in one half of one branch of Congress is all that stands between America and forward motion. Does the tea party really believe that this inglorious stand will allow them to take control of other branches of government and undo what has been done legally? Do they think that a fight to the death that punishes Americans will lead us to rally around their cause and grant them the power to actually govern when they have already so poorly squandered their first shot? Sadly, they probably do believe this, and sadly for the rest of us, they will continue to act on those beliefs.

So here we go. We are temporarily without government and perhaps only a few weeks away from defaulting on our national debt. The jury on Obamacare may still be out, but there is only one group responsible for the totally reckless and harmful (in)action of our government: the tea party.

The Serious Progress in the UN

Over the course of the last three days the UN has done two important things, one of which is far more significant than the other, but both of which bear merit and deserve to be lauded.

Let's start with the Security Council resolution that requires Syria to turn over and destroy all of its chemical weapons and materials for producing those weapons within a year. I've previously lambasted the Russian proposal - it's still a disingenuous cop out - but I must say that I'm cautiously optimistic about the Security Council Resolution though it is terribly lax.

The bad news is that the Security Council Resolution is toothless. If Syria fails to comply, the Security Council can consider talking about taking action...it's that tough. However, early indications are that Syria will comply, and at least the Security Council agreed to something legally binding. Small steps, but steps. Although as The Economist and I have both pointed out, even the prompt and full removal of all chemical weapons does nothing to stop bloodshed that has been driven by conventional weapons.

Despite my reservations, I do support the resolution, and I hope it will be implemented swiftly and successfully. Perhaps it will open the door to other communication that will help end the fighting.

But onto what may be the more important of the two events: a UN Climate Panel formally set an upper limit at which the world needs to stop emitting carbon gases or really, irreversibly screw things up. This is pretty substantial even if it's somewhat inexact and the science is evolving. The people who do this for a living are telling us that we need to somehow get cleaner and quickly. According to the report, 2040 is the year we will probably hit the limit at the rate we're going. That's not so distant.

I've long advocated for clean and renewable energy in this blog, and I think it is a true travesty that we haven't started addressing this problem at a natural level sooner. It's not only necessary for our survival, but would be an enormous economic boon upon which someone else will capitalize if we do not.

I am encouraged by the UN's work, but I do hope to see further action on both of these issues in the immediate future. The crisis in Syria must come to an end soon before more blood is shed and the region becomes even more dangerous and unstable. Furthermore, immediate action on climate change is long overdue. I hope that Congress will use the recent UN report to finally make encouraging clean and alternative energy a serious priority.

Wasted Opportunity

While the world has spent three years watching a slaughter in Syria and doing nothing, the terrorist groups who seek to do innocents worldwide (most recently in Kenya) harm have gotten stronger. Just today the NYTimes reported that key rebel groups formerly aligned with the political opposition to Assad have disavowed that opposition government in favor of the Islamist movement building among the Syrian rebels.


While the article does not mention the failure of Western powers to intervene to stop the bloodshed, it is undeniable that the group we support is wavering while the Islamist rebels, those with ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, those who want Sharia law, are growing stronger. Not only have we failed to prevent a massacre, but we have wasted a chance to help forge a stronger, more democratic, more stable Syria. Instead we find ourselves looking through a closing window of opportunity at a soon-to-be failed state in which violence and instability are the norm. We may very well laud ourselves for not being drawn into the conflict in Syria, but I maintain that is silly. We were drawn in the moment the fighting started, we have simply failed to accept responsibility, and as a result we are both guilty of being passive bystanders to slaughter and also for undermining our own strategic interests.

This should have been - and was - obvious to some from the outset, but the recent defection of key rebel forces to the Islamist branch from the government in exile only increases the likelihood that whenever Assad falls - and fall he will, there is no way he can ever rule a united Syria again - an Islamic pseudo-state will replace his regime. So instead of intervening to stop a massacre when there was a chance of establishing a legitimate government - I don't pretend this would have been easy - we sat on our hands while innocents were and continue to be slaughtered, and now the tide has turned in favor of the group of rebels we would prefer not to see win.


Doing the right thing is rarely easy. In Syria, the decision to do the right thing, the hard thing, was never made, and so we've never had the chance to take difficult action. Instead we did what was "easy" - which in this scenario also means morally indefensible - and as a result we are now looking at a situation that seems likely to end up far worse than how it started, and potentially far worse than if we had taken action.

This wasted opportunity will probably haunt us. The violence and instability in Syria is detrimental to world peace and security, and particularly to our safety here in the United States. Our short-sighted indifference to the plight of others has already started paying the wrong kinds of dividends.

The Surprise that Wasn't

Well here's something that shouldn't shock anyone. The UN's report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, released yesterday, provides even more evidence that responsibility for the attack comes directly from elite military units positioned around the government's strong point in Damascus. Even though the report was commissioned only to determine if chemical weapons were used, not who used them, the evidence was just so in-your-face that the inspectors couldn't help but identify from where the missiles were launched.

Also unsurprisingly, Russia, the broker of this new "deal" to rid Syria of chemical weapons, strongly condemned the report. Wasn't it just last week that Vladimir Putin was writing an op-ed in the NYTimes compelling America to work through the UN to resolve this crisis? Now that the UN has issued a report he has denounced it. Not that Putin's op-ed carried any weight before this report, but if you were someone who thought he had a shred of credibility before (do not count me among those people), then his reaction to the report should deprive you of the notion that Putin is an honest broker in the attempt for peace in Syria.

Of course, I have been advocating for action since May, so the release of the UN's report is somewhat meaningless to me. It was evident long before the report was even commissioned, let alone released that chemical weapons had been used, and it was also obvious long before the report was able to pinpoint from where they were launched that the attack was carried out by the Syrian military. Still, Russia maintains the rebels are responsible, while simultaneously proposing a plan to strip the Syrian military of its chemical weapons and supplying them with traditional arms. If this doesn't make any sense to you, that's because it doesn't make any sense. This whole charade has gone on too long, and frankly I am both embarrassed and infuriated that the United States has ceded the moral high ground and our leadership role to a thug like Vladimir Putin whose actions are only going to cause more death and suffering in Syria in the short-term and more long-term instability and violence.

The time at which action became acceptable has long since passed. While the UN Security Council frivolously debates the measure to force Syria to turn over its poison gas more people are dying, more unnecessary suffering is happening, and the foundation for future violence - already having been laid - is being strengthened.

Neither the "revelations" of the UN report nor Russia's harsh condemnation of it should surprise anyone. What should surprise us is the fact that, even in light of overwhelming evidence that the Syrian government has gassed its own people (not to mention blowing them to bits), and the fact that we have been knowingly (and dare I say, willingly) duped by Russia, we still lack the political and moral willpower to do what is both ethically demanded of us and what is in our own strategic interests.

The surprise that wasn't was exactly that, a mundane confirmation of what anyone who is monitoring this situation already knew: the government of Syria is committing mass murder of its own citizens. My only question now is how long will we watch the slaughter continue before we take action?

Duped

The crisis du jour in Syria has abated though the actual problem is still as severe, if not more so, than it was months and years ago.

The "deal" struck between the US and Russia to wrest from the Syrian government its chemical weapons was an easy political non-solution to a human rights problem. It does nothing to end the slaughter, almost all of which has been caused by conventional weapons, weapons funneled to the Syrian government by its Russian backers.

I'd like to pose the question: what have we achieved? Assuming the Syrian government complies with this plan - and I assume they will given that Russia is their lifeline - so what? What have we done? The destruction of chemical weapons is certainly laudable, but only because those weapons take human life. So if we therefore see the protection of human life as the end goal when discussing the destruction of chemical weapons, I again pose the question: what have we achieved? A not-so-in-depth analysis highlights the answer: nothing substantial. If the goal of depriving Assad of his sarin gas is to save human lives, then we have in effect done almost nothing to reach that goal. Assad has shown he is perfectly willing and perfectly capable of killing his own citizens with bombs and bullets. In fact, it seems he has an affinity for this manner of meting out death given that less than 1% of the dead were killed by gas. So by removing chemical weapons from the equation our progress rate is essentially 1%. Fantastic job.

Of course, the real question this raises is: what is our goal in Syria? I know what mine would be, but what is ours, what is America's goal? It doesn't appear as though we have one, which is why we so easily acquiesced to a deal that does nothing to serve our national interests. In fact, the headline of today's New York Times article is telling. Yes, we were in fact, outfoxed and out-maneuvered. We wasted an opportunity to take a global stand for human rights and instead bowed to incoherent logic and irrational reasoning about how Syria's woes are akin to Iraq. While we watch more and more innocent people are killed, our long-term strategic interests are put at risk, and a nefarious Russian autocrat comes off looking like someone who has helped avert a crisis when in fact it is our failure to act and save lives that is more likely to lead to future violence. Put simply, we were duped.

While Assad stalls and regroups, he will be resupplied from Russia. His rule will ultimately end even if he wins this conflict, but the atrocities committed by both sides and the total abdication of leadership from the world community will breed future generations of violent jihadis who will be threats to world peace and stability. Not only are we making the active decision NOT to save lives now, we are almost guaranteeing more violence in the future. We let ourselves succumb to flawed logic, poor reasoning, and a misplaced sense of morality.

It is a sad day when America refuses to stand on the side of human rights. It is an even sadder day when America refuses to stand with human rights because we were tricked by a Russian neo-czar who intimidates his own political opponents, jails them, and rules with an iron fist. This is the man to whom we have ceded the moral and political situation in Syria. Tragicomic.

A Disingenuous Farce

I should have published this post yesterday, but I wanted to allow myself time to reflect on Vladimir Putin's op-ed in the New York Times. In the last day, my thoughts have solidified. Put frankly, Putin's piece is a disingenuous farce with a veneer of credibility so fragile and thin it's hard to imagine that Putin could even take himself seriously when writing it. Let's break it down.

For starters, the piece is well written and eloquent. Putin is a jerk, but he's not dumb. I actually think it's fantastic that Putin would bother submitting a piece to the NYTimes and that the Times would publish it, but that's all the good I can find in this. Now, to the bad and the ugly.

1) Does anyone believe Putin has even a shred of credibility when he says "the law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not"? Easy for him to say since he makes the laws in his country. In ours, no one is above the law, but Putin routinely jails and intimidates political opponents, rigs elections, brings false charges against enemies in courts he controls, and cracks down on peaceful protests against his authoritarian regime. Putin talking about rule of law is like Mitt Romney talking about integrity or like Kim Kardashian talking about neuroscience, it's just silly.

2) Assume for a moment that Putin is serious about a diplomatic solution...alright that was a fun game...why has he repeatedly blocked action in the UN that would try to resolve the situation? Russia is an internal dumpster fire, but still an international heavy weight with plenty of clout. If Putin wanted a solution to this issue he could have worked with the international community, including the US, prior to this. Consider the hypocrisy of Putin's stance: The US should work with the international community within the confines of international law even though I have previously blocked attempts to do this. Who buys this argument?

3) Putin lays out the outrageous charge that the rebels used chemical weapons - and I'm sure there are elements within the rebel umbrella who WOULD if they COULD - but we know this isn't true. Unlike in Iraq, the intelligence here is pretty clear. The rebels lack both the weapons themselves and the means to launch them. This attack could only have come from the Syrian Army and Putin knows it just like everyone else knows it. But even if Putin believed the rebels launched poison gas - and he doesn't - why would his proposed solution to this atrocity be to strip Assad of his weapons? That doesn't make sense does it? Punish the perpetrators, which Putin claims are the rebels. He can't even construct a coherent response to what he claims is the problem.

4) Finally, and I just saw this today, Putin's proposal has now apparently empowered Assad to start making demands of the US. Three years ago this guy responded to peaceful protests with violent force, sparking a civil war in which over 100,000 people have been killed. Now he thinks he can start making demands of us in exchange for weapons which are banned under international law, and which he has used more than once to kill his own people? No thanks. In Tuesday's post, I called the Russian offer an appealing cop out, and Assad's response confirms that I was right. This move isn't designed to stop the atrocities happening in Syria - not to sound like a broken record, but again, chemical weapons are responsible for roughly 1% of the total casualties in Syria - it's designed to appease the world community into a sense of complacency that we've taken some kind of morally justifiable action to stop the killing when in fact - especially if we stop arming the rebels as Assad demands - this will just lead to him continuing the slaughter with guns and bombs rather than with poison gas.

Putin's disingenuous eloquence is a dangerous stall tactic designed to support a brutal regime. It is appealing to strip Syria of its chemical weapons, but it does nothing to end the bloodshed or bring stability and peace. If anything, Russia will use the time spent figuring out the politics and logistics of all this to give Assad even more conventional weapons and the slaughter will continue while the world watches a massacre on television everyday. As I have said repeatedly, something should have been done long ago. To have no qualms with the deaths of 99,000 people killed with bombs and then find some sort of self-righteous morality when 1,400 are killed with gas reflects some cognitive dissonance on our part.

What America and the global community do to stop the killing of innocents - some of which certainly is being perpetrated by the rebels - will send an important message to the world about what is or is not acceptable in the future. Intervening to stop the violence is not only a moral mandate, it is, as I have claimed, in our long-term national strategic interests.

I'm glad Vladimir Putin took the time to address the American people with his op-ed, but his words only reaffirm his actions over the last three years, and those actions have shown that he cares not for peace, freedom, and stability. If we really question that, we need only ask ourselves: would Putin have ever allowed a Russian newspaper to publish and op-ed by President Obama (remember this is the guy who just made being gay illegal in Russia)? Yeah, I don't think so either. So much for the protector of international law and his well-worded farce.