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.