The Center

The following post was written in October of 2004 - I never hit the publish button, and it sat in "editing purgatory" since then. Please keep in mind that although this was written at the height of the election madness, it remains topical and completely valid.


This post - probably the last I write in this forum is a brief discussion of some of my sense of people, and my sense of America. And my sense of politics.

I have always loved politics. In my world, in my perception, politics at its best is one of the most beautiful of human endeavors. It is in its purest form the science of applied philosophy. It is ideas, ideals, and the effort of a people to create a better world for themselves to live in.

From either side, from the redistribution of wealth at the heart of the left, to abortion being a moral issue about the value, and idea of life. You have a people, a nation of people, who are working to build and refine a system that helps to create a better life for themselves and their neighbors.

It's from this perspective that I find politics (over and over) to be the most crushing of disappointments. The black and white, red or blue combat that so wildly overshadows the real discussion is to be frank ... disgusting. The us against them gamesmanship that is the reality of politics is wrong. It's just wrong. It's counter productive, and it's stupid. But it spreads, and the blogsphere is helping to spread it faster and more effectively then any medium before.

The fact that now days, people can read a news that always agrees with them, and more or less live in a world that always reaffirms their beliefs is perhaps the most frightening development facing modern the American democracy. The political landscape has become more like competing cults, each simply trying to interpret everything that happens in the world to fit its own prophecy, its own ideology. Anything which contradicts it, is simply ignored, or passionately raged against.

It is these political bubbles that most of us become increasingly reliant on to shield from ideas that challenge us to reassess, or think. These political bubbles are spreading like wild fire, conservative radio, to fox news, to the daily show, to what feels like every book written in the last four years.

It scares me. It scares me that it seems like the momentum is strongly in favor of higher political polarity, more then momentum - that the institutions we rely on to inform us as propagating the division. But I digress, there is a point I wanted to make.

I believe in progressive politics. Progressive values are what I believe is right, they are my values. I believe that wealth redistribution is a critically important tool for shaping a fair an equitable society, one where a child born in poverty is guaranteed the opportunity to better himself. One where a man who has made mistakes is given a second chance to make a good life for himself. See, it is the redistribution of wealth which at core allows for government to fulfil what I believe is its most important role: as a tool by which people can better themselves.

I do not want government to be the vehicle of the moral will of the majority. I believe that it is one of the most fundamental tenants of freedom that the individual has the right to seek happiness in what ever form they should please, be it Tom marrying Fred, Jane getting an abortion, Sam buying a pistol to protect his home, or Joe relaxing with a joint after a hard day at the office. If it does not infringe on another persons freedom, on anothers rights, then government has no business even discussing it. It is the role of government to serve the people, not to dictate their lives for them. A society that dictates the moral tyranny of the majority is to freedom what communism is to capitalism (if that makes sense).

Which brings us finally, to my beef, the point of this post.

These two ideas, that I hold quite dear are currently losing. They're losing the debate. But this is not a new development, they've been losing the debate for atleast a decade. It's probably been much longer that they've been losing, perhaps it was Regans election that marks the turning point? For the time I've been politically aware I've seen these values lose ground.

And I think a lot of it has to do with the misunderstanding the Left has. See, it isn't about winning elections. It doesn't matter who gets elected president, or even who gets elected to the senate. See, the fight isn't over parties. The fight is over ideas.

It's time for the left to sit down and think about what it stands for. A time for basics and reassessment. We have lost our way, and America needs us to find it again.

Latin America, Communism, and its lessons in the War on Terror

Eric Martin of Total Information Awareness added some comments to my Previous post: Democracy, and the War on Terror: Fatal Flaw?. I thought they were interesting, and I wanted to properly respond. His comments in full can be found here.

His point is as follows:

[The assertion that "type of government it can be argued has been the unwavering guideline between our friends, and our enemies"] is not necessarily true in all places. It was true in Europe and much of Asia, but the opposite was true in Central America, South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

Eric goes on and points out numerous examples. But I think he misses the point. Especially in the context of Latin America. We undermined various democractic governments, assassinated or funded the assassination of various democratic leaders, but we did so because to allow Democracy to flourish in Latin America would mean we would be essentially allowing Communism.

See, the population of thses south American countries were pro-communist, or at least very communist friendly. To allow "the people" of these nations to put in power a government of their choosing would be to allow communism to spread to our southern doorstep. So we overthrew them, and oppressed the wishes of the population, as the wishes of the population ran counter to our global interests, or ran counter to the plight of Democracy against Communism.

In 1963 after various assassinations and the installation of an anti-Communist military dictatorship Newsweek said, "Democracy was being saved from Communism by getting rid of democracy".

The point I was trying to make in my previous post ties into this idea directly. The concerns we faced in the 1960s in the Cold War in Latin America, may have the same underpinnings that we should have in the spread of Democracy today. The will of the people in many Middle Eastern countries run counter to our interests, and in fact our safety. The reason I brought Iran into the picture was not to focus on Iran being sneaky and trying to intrude on Iraqi politics, but instead to point out that with Iraq being lead Democratically, the Shiite population may, naturally lean towards making strong ties with Iran. It seems to be a natural evolution. And if Iraq and Iran grow close, the power they would be able to leverage would be considerate. The oil wealth of the two nations alone would allow them to dominate the region, and the threat that a "unified" Iraq and Iran could pose Israel would be significant.

See, its Democracy itself that allows Iraq and Iran to naturally join. It is Democracy itself which puts the Shiite population of Iraq in control of the country. And it may turn out that the will of the Shiite population runs very counter to our interests, and ... our security.

Democracy in Iraq does not make us Safer. It may turn out that way, but a friendly and cooperative Iraq/Iran scenario seems likely, logical, and means that Democracy has make us LESS secure, while strengthening the hand of Iran.

The question we need to ask ourselves then, is The Spread of Democracy an invalid tool in the War on Terror? Does the Spread of Democracy in the Middle East make us safer?

NOTE:
I want to clarify that I am not advocating the installation of dictatorships, nor am I advocating the kind of actions we took in the Iran Iraq war. I am simply asking that other people reflect on the question seriously, as it seems to me to be a potentially fatal flaw in the WoT. And if it is a flaw, it needs to be addressed.

Democracy, and the War on Terror: Fatal Flaw?

[Edit: Consider this a draft. I didn't have time to go over this enough. Will be refined later today]

A question has been rolling around in the back of my head for some time. Recent events have made me reconsider it more seriously.

Does Democracy in the Middle East make us safer?

The idea should be well known to anyone who follows the WoT. It was one of the cornerstone arguments for an invasion of Iraq, and it is one of the corner stones of our global strategy in the War on Terror. But as far as I have seen, nobody has really questioned that idea, does Democracy further American interests?

Historically, it has. Looking at the last century, all of the great conflicts can be seen as a clash of forms of Government. World War One was the clash between democracy and monarchy (or autocracy). World War Two was the clash between Democracy, Fascism, and Communism. And the Cold War, a clash between the victors of WWII, Democracy and Communism.

For the past hundred years, type of government it can be argued has been the unwavering guideline between our friends, and our enemies. With Democracies being our most staunch allies, and the various challengers to it being our most staunch opponents, the titanic struggle of the Cold war being the most direct illustration.

But is it possible though, that the War on Terror truly is such a new type of war that this guiding principal is no longer valid? But lets examine one of the scenarios facing us today, the scenario which forced me to really ask myself this question.

Let’s assume Iraqi Democracy works. It gains the support of the Iraqi people and becomes a somewhat stable entity. The relationship that the majority of Shiite Southern Iraq has with Iran is probably closer then the relationship it has with its northern Kurdish population. For example, Sistani, the man most regard as the most powerful man in Iraq was born in Iran, studied for some time in Iran, and has personal ties with Khomeini, as does al Sadr. It has been reported that Sadr’s militia received support from Iran, and that the uprising coincided with the return of al Sadr from alleged meetings with Khomeini in Iran.

A case could be made that one of the reasons that Saddam Hussein’s regime was secular had much to do with the Iraqi Shiite majority. The Sunni regime of Hussein would have considerable trouble keeping control over the country should state religion be officially embraced. The Shiite uprisings after the Gulf War One seem to stand testament to this. And the possibility of Iran (the Iraqi counterweight in the region) funding and assisting a Shiite rebellion against him was probably a reasonable one.

Iran seems to have a geopolitical history with some parallels to Russia during the cold war. Only instead of being a global sponsor for the Communist rebellion, it is the global sponsor for Shia rebellion. And has funded resistance against the Sunni Tabliban in Afghanistan as well armed groups in Pakistan fighting against Sunni extremists. Unlike the ideological political conflicts we’ve fought, Iran is fighting an ideological religious conflict, one that replaces Democracy and Communism with Shiite and Sunni.

A functioning Democracy in Iraq must place the Shiite south in ultimate control of the country, and although safeguards are being made to guarantee representation for the minority Sunni and Kurdish population, any version of Democracy which did not give Shiites control of the country would simply not be Democracy.

It is hard to imagine a scenario, and these are the successful scenarios mind you, where we have not aided in the creation of a Shiite block, guided primarily by Iran in the Middle East. A block which if relations grow warmer (which in all likelihood they will), will simply dominate the region.

If this seemingly natural, and likely scenario takes place – a scenario mind you that is defined as success – will our promotion of democracy in Iraq have furthered the War on Terror?

If the answer is no, if our declared success in Iraq results in less secure world, or less secure America, then the cornerstone of our long term strategy in the War on Terror. Then the goal of democracy promotion must be re-examined. And the possibility that the War on Terror is such a new conflict, and such a shift from previous conflicts that the spread of democracy no longer has any intrinsic connection to American security, is a possibility which must be examined.


Some supporting material - note: I used Lexis Nexus to dig up these articles and so am unable to link directly to them.

New York Times - Sept 20th 2004
Headline: Iran Is Helping Insurgents In Iraq, U.S. Officials Say

Pentagon, State Department and military officials, describing intelligence reports that are fueling those concerns, say money, weapons and even a small number of fighters are flowing over the border from Iran to assist Shiite insurgents commanded by Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel cleric. But there is no consensus on the exact scale of Iranian activities.

Mr. Powell, in an interview with the editors of The Washington Times released by the State Department on Friday, said that Iran was ''providing support'' for the insurgency but that the extent of its influence was not clear.

Powell says that Iran was supporting the insurgency. Particularly al-Sadr

New York Times – April 15th 2004
Headline: IRANIANS IN IRAQ TO HELP IN TALKS ON REBEL CLERIC

An Iranian government delegation arrived in Baghdad on Wednesday to help ediate the standoff between American troops and a rebel Shiite cleric holed up in Najaf with hundreds of his militiamen, offering American officials an improbable ally in their quest to put Iraq on a peaceful path to self-government.

...

The Iranian delegation held no formal meetings on Wednesday. It was headed by Hossein Sadeghi, the Foreign Ministry's director of Persian Gulf affairs. In remarks to reporters, he played down the delegation's role, saying it would be one not of mediation, but of gaining ''a better understanding of what's going on in Iraq.' 'But the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, said earlier in Tehran that the delegation was responding to an appeal for assistance and would do all it could to end the crisis. An earlier hint of Iran's willingness to help head off more turmoil in Iraq came in remarks on Saturday by Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami. Greeting a visiting Iraqi official, he indirectly criticized the uprising led by Mr. Sadr, saying, ''Iran considers any policy that would intensify the crisis in Iraq and jeopardize the establishment of security harmful for Shiites and Islam.''

Clever geopolitical maneuvering? Iran attempts to mediate a conflict it has allegedly funded.

International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism
Muqtada al-Sadr - A Threat to coalition forces and moderate Iraqi Shiite

According to sources in the Shiite leadership in the city of Kum, Muktada al-Sadr received guarantees (during his July 2003 visit to Iran) for financial and moral support in exchange for his recognition of the Iranian spiritual Shiite leadership as a source of Shiite religious and political authority. Sadr was purportedly also urged to accept the revolutionary Iranian Islamic doctrine and face off against the traditional Iraqi Shiite leadership headed by Ayatollah Sistani.

During his visit, Sadr met with several Iranian leaders, including the spiritual leader of radical Shiites in Iraq who also serves as a Khamenei advisor, Ayatollah Muhammad Kazam Khairi. The two discussed ways to undermine the leadership of Ayatollah Sistani following the latter’s refusal to accept Iranian spiritual authority.

I am not sure how reliable the ICT is, but Israeli intelligence in these matters tends to be much, much better then our own. A power block controlled by Iraq/Iran would be the most serious threats to Israel in decades, especially if Iran should gain nuclear weapons.


The New York Times
November 24, 2003 Monday
Headline: A REGION INFLAMED: THE HAND OF TEHRAN; Hezbollah, in Iraq, Refrains From Attacks on Americans

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite group, has established a significant presence in Iraq, but is not taking part in attacks on American forces inside the country, according to current and former United States officials and Arabs familiar with the organization.

Iran is believed to be restraining Hezbollah from attacking American troops, and that is prompting a debate within the Bush administration about Iran's objectives, administration officials said.

Hezbollah's presence has become a source of concern as it is recognized by counterterrorist experts to have some of the most dangerous operatives in the world.

Both American and Israeli intelligence have found evidence that Hezbollah operatives have established themselves in Iraq, according to current and former United States officials. Separately, Arabs in Lebanon and elsewhere who are familiar with the organization say Hezbollah has sent what they describe as a security team of up to 90 members to Iraq.

The organization has steered clear of attacks on Americans, the American officials and Arabs familiar with Hezbollah agree. United States intelligence officials said Hezbollah operatives were believed to have arrived in Iraq soon after the end of major combat operations last spring, and had refrained from attacks on Americans ever since. The Central Intelligence Agency has not seen a major influx of Hezbollah operatives since that time, officials added.

"Hezbollah has moved to establish a presence inside Iraq, but it isn't clear from the intelligence reports what their intent is," one administration official said.

Based in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a Shiite Islamic group that is under Tehran's control. Syria, which dominates Lebanon and controls Hezbollah's supply lines from Iran, also plays a powerful role with the group.

Hezbollah takes up camp in Iraq.

Troubling? To say the least.

The War from the Top

There is a new argument arising against the "Bush is incompetent" line. It is the "Look, not everything is Bush's fault" argument. And unless you are a die hard left partisan you should probably see the truth in this. It's become something of a joke, if it rains, its Bush's fault, if there was traffic, it was Bush's fault, etc. It has gotten silly, mistakes are made, and no president is perfect.

But neither is every argument. There is a a recent WSJ article talking about this "Not everything is Bush's fault" point. The article is interesting, and has moments of rationality, which I may or may not address in later posts, for now lets just deal with the irrational icing:

"Yet who ever said war is easy?"

The obvious answer? George W. Bush. There is truth that Bush is taking unfair blame for every mistake in Iraq, but lets not rewrite history here. Absolutely everything coming out of the Bush administration pre-invasion said that it was going to be easy. From being greeted with flowers, to projected occupations that had a maximum of two years, to the installation of a happy pro-American government, all the way to "Mission Accomplished". We were told over and over by everyone who wasn't a doomsaying, pessimist, liberal pussy, that in fact, Iraq would be easy. I'm sure almost every projection had a disclaimer, like the Wall Street Journal did stating something to the effect of:

"the law of unintended consequences has not been repealed, no war ever goes precisely as planned"

But lets not bullshit here. The war in Iraq was sold to the American people as a cakewalk with no possibility of failure who's only results could be glorious victory and a better world. Anyone who said otherwise was... a pussy liberal, and possibly a traitor:

Throughout most of 2003, a sufficient fraction of America's liberal elite concurred in the Administration's view that the choice America faced in Iraq was between Saddam Hussein's eventual rehabilitation or his destruction, and that the first option was intolerable. They further agreed that the goal of a free and moderate Iraq was both attainable and essential if America was to prevail in the overall war on terror.

Not much more than a year later, this pro-war liberal elite has broken with that earlier consensus, much as the liberal elite that initially supported the Vietnam War headed for the tall grass as the going got tough after 1965.

Or in this case, flipflopping sunshine hawk elite liberal pussies who also are responsible for us losing Viet Nam. Of course none of this is any fault of Mr Bush, nor is any responsibility being held of those who told us, over and over, what a cakewalk Iraq would be. This is a case of the pussy liberals trying to make America fail.

Lets move on. There is an important real point here, and the real point is that this war was a war that came straight from the top. Do not forget that.

We did not decide to invade Iraq because some new intelligence that the CIA handed both Bush and Kerry made them suddenly realize that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with. In fact it was quite the opposite. This was George W. Bush's war. It came from the top, and the intelligence reports did not prompt action, they were to provide justification for action.

Lets face facts here, the "intelligence failure" that the CIA was blamed for was simply political gamesmanship. Spoken, or unspoken, the nature of all the reports released during the lead up to Iraq were ordered not as raw intelligence, not as a real threat assessment, but as a political tool to bolster the case for war. A war that was on the tip of the administrations tongue before 9/11, and a war to which 9/11 provided further justification. Is it any surprise that Mr. Bush's initial response to 9/11 was to attack Iraq? The discussion, documented in Plan of Attack, is quite telling of the character of the man in charge, and where his personal agenda, where his personal ambitions lay. A personal ambition which played a key role in taking this nation to war.

A war that Mr. Bush is personally responsible for.

Quick Debate Note

I think Kerry won hands down. Except for the last question. Kerry didn't flop on the "women in your life" question, but I don't want to touch why his answer for that went straight to his mother (there is no good answer for kerry in that). Bush on the other hand, hit a last minute home run with a really great response. After being on the receiving end of atleast 75% of the debate, he recovered at the last second maybe when it counted most.

That aside, the response that I think will really have the most impact on the election was the question about talking to Mr Just Lost His Job to Oversees Worker. If I was unemployed, or very concerned about losing my job to outsourcing, and George Bush's answer was that I can get federal money to go back to school. There is only one valid response :

"Go Fuck Yourself"

See, first off, to anyone in that position that was a personal insult. The assumption being that if you have or might lose your job its because you are uneducated, not because the company is closing shop and moving to China. Secondly, the rest of George's statements focused more on Kids going back to school (now I tend to agree, education is one of the tools we can use to keep our edge), but the message here is, "you middle aged guy who lost his job, yeah you, you're shit out of luck. What we are doing to keep jobs here is starting with your kids".

Neither candidate could handle this question well, because the truth isn't something the public wants to hear, but John Kerry came closer to the straight truth, which in this day and age counts for a lot. George lost the first debate, and was reported losing the second, but this was his worst, his statements, and his change in posture and mannerism (he started copying kerrys hand motions for instance) will come back to haunt him more then the first two.

I would direct you to Tradesports. At the time of writing the Bush Wins in '04 stock dropped 4.1 pts, but if you hurry you can probably still make a buck or two.

Substance?

Personally, I thought Bush won the second debate. I thought he connected with his early rhetoric, and I saw too many missed opportunities for Kerry to say something meaningful. In addition, I thought that Kerrys "I have a plan" stuff was vague and impossible to guarantee (how can you be sure you can contain Russian nuclear material in 4 years, how can anyone guarantee anything like that?). This isn't the time for run of the mill campaign promises. Thankfully, the rest of the world saw it differently. If Glenn Reynolds called it a draw, I don't have to worry about it taking steam out of the Kerry campaign.

That said. Something amazing happened in the last week or so. The 2004 Campaign suddenly elevated itself out from the muck, from bullshit character assassination into something where people are really taking a hard look at the two men, and trying to figure out who they think can best run the country. It gives me hope for American politics.

unfortunately, (and maybe I'm projecting here, but) the public is suffering from debate fatigue, and political fatigue in general. So my prediction for the commentary following this and the next debate is: more on nonsense like "Gore yawned". But I hope I'm wrong.

Win or Lose

There is a good and growing chance for Kerry to win in november. I'm glad, after the debates I have more confidence in Kerry, enough so that my vote will not just be a small protest against a President that I believe mislead this country for 4 years, but will be a vote for a man who I believe can do better.

But that does not change the fact that its time for the Democratic party to sit down and seriously think about what it stands for, why the American center is slowly shifting right. Its because the Democratic party has forgotten what it stands for. It during the heady days of Vietnam, the Sexual Revolution, and Watergate drank too deeply of its own success.

So I thought a bit about the issues that matter to me the most, and the issues that are most passionately fought over. The social issues that are the cornerstone of the liberal left. Here is what I found.

The Democratic Party is based around one, single idea: Protecting the Individual from the abuse of the collective. There are three collectives, or groups that this focuses most on.

1 - Protection of the Individual from the Abuse of The Corporation
The protection of the individual from the powers of the corporation is one of the tenants of liberal economics. Historically this should be obvious. The (dying) alliance between Unions and the Democratic Party is standing testimony to this. That the Democractic Party historically pushes to raise the minimum wage, to guarantee fair treatment of workers, safe environments, and protection from general abuse are historically liberal issues.

It cannot be overstated that this continues to be a powerfully relevant issue. The debate over tax cuts, supply side economics, and globalization pay their respect to the underlying conflict between what is good for the Individual American Worker, and what is good for the American Corporation.

2 - Protection of the Individual from the Abuse of The Government
Protecting the Individual from the powers of Government has a flagship issue that resonates with almost every American. Civil Rights. It is a critically important issue.

This is one of the prime failings of the current Democratic Leadership. The issue of Gay Rights is a cause to which the Democratic left has failed miserably to address. The Democratic party must make the case aggressively that it is wrong for government take away the rights of the individual to have sex with, and marry, whoever they choose. While helping the Democratic Party to attain idealistic consistency it has the advantage of being the right thing to do.

3 - Protection of the Individual from the Abuse of The Church

This one is most tricky. It is also one of the most important. This country was founded by a group seeking the freedom to practice their religion without persecution, but a lot has changed in the last few hundred year. The idea of organized political oppression of religious belief is one that Americans simply disregard, its "too far out".

The current issues that take form under this don't help the case, removal of the 10 commandments from courts for instance. Not letting the 3rd grade school teacher in south carolina wear a cross during class. These types of seemingly petty actions help to undermine the idea itself. Which brings us to:

Taking it Too Far
Overzealous action is one of the prime reasons for the awesome success of the Rights resurgence. Democrats simply took it too far. They went from protecting the rights of the black man to be treated as an equal to the white man, to advocating Affirmative Action, which although well intentioned and arguably helping to make a better society is a racially biased and deeply wrong practice. It is preferential treatment based on the color of your skin, or the nationality of your parents, and is fundamentally unamerican.

Likewise the crusade to remove the 10 Commandments from Courts is the ideological equivalent of banning gay marriage on the basis that marriage is a religious institution. Both the 10 Commandments and Marriage have grown from their roots to be universal traditions, almost human traditions. They are both cornerstones upon which we have built the society that we have today.

Ideological purity has its place, but so does common sense.

I have more to say on this, but for now, thank you for reading.

The Future of 30 to 1

So obviously 30to1 has suffered from a certain lack of love and attention. I haven't thrown anything new up in weeks, and although I have 5-6 posts stored in blogspots "draft" mode, I have yet to polish them to a point where I am sufficiently satisfied.

Why is this?

Because this blog does not yet have enough traffic to justify the amount of time it takes me to put together a thoughtful post. So how can I change that?

One of the key ingredients to beginning a change in traffic would be to make sure that there are a steady stream of new posts. Lets say that a few respectfully self promoting comments on other blogs bring 100 visitors (that figure is wishful thinking). Lets say that most appreciate the piece they see. 20 check the site again in a couple days. If there is nothing new the next day when those 20 check a second time, they're gone. If there is something equally interesting, maybe you can turn 5 of those original 100 visitors into regulars.

But if there is no new material there is no hook, and whatever respectful efforts at self promotion one makes for ones blog end up a waste of time.

It seems there are two choices:

1 - Post More Posts - I alone cannot post the amount of posts nessecary to hook an audence to this blog while maintaining what I hope is a high quality of thought provoking work. Most of the blogs that I've seen that have started providing similar high quality and thoughtful pieces start to decline in favor of "the quickie". The 5 line commentary on various other materials available.

2 - Accept a Talking to The Void - This approach would be to just accept that this blog will see very little traffic, and use it as a place where I can keep my own material and organize my thoughts in semi public.

I do not like either choice.

There is another option, one that I've been playing around with for a while. To rebirth 30 to 1 as a group blog. Unfortionatly I do not personally know a lot of political junkies, so this is a difficult approach to take.

Another option would be, and this is something I have not properly thought out, but seems promising. The community blog. That would be, trying to create and leverage a community of bloggers, who would through some sort of discussion self create material. Similar to how open source software is written with a changing 'community' contributing to the project.

There are other issues I have with the blog format, that I would like to address as well, but for now this will suffice. Commentary is more then welcome.