The Gingrich-Clinton Paradox:
Do you remember the good old days...I don't but they tell me they were really good. Every family could have an avocado on their table and every child a cell-phone under their desk. Credit cards were more numerous then dollar bills and China's 40 plus 4 million people cities were not swiftly replacing the memory of a towerless ground zero.
Yet what I wish to remember most is the time when the staunchly conservative speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, and a Democratic stalwart, Bill Clinton worked together, and succeeded.
Yes Clinton was fulfilling the fantasy of many an aspiring politician. Yes the Republican controlled house, it turns out, had much of its own corrupt political figures. But the country was succeeding and our political class was not getting in the way.
Why?
I am sure some political theorist will pontificate about how I reversed the cause and the effect -it was a booming economy despite the government not because of the government.
However one can just as easily make the argument that the political class had an incentive to work together, and that their work facilitated the nations growth.
The Democrats recent control of both the house and the executive exemplifies this paradox:
As the Executive and the legislative branch were politically homogenous, the republican minority did all it could to obstruct and undermine the majority. They then blamed the majority for their failures despite claiming that "the majority had a real chance, they controlled it all, and blew it". True a minority that is focused on obstruction can be a serious impediment to the majorities success, but the public doesn’t see it that way, and that’s what counts.
On the other hand if there is a legislative-executive split, every party has a real and, even more importantly, obvious stake in success. Obvious, because the public is aware of their control/responsibility. It is one thing for politicians (in this case the republicans) to argue that they were "kept out of the process" as the minority, it is another thing, entirely, to fail when in control.
Now that the the GOP controls the house, can Obama get things done?
I think yes.
Why?
Because now both parties are in power and have a stake in the success of the political class they control. Think Clinton and Newt Gingrich's' "contract with America". In this case it is Obama and the "Take back America"/Tea party.
In short the recent political developments are conducive to plentiful avocados and credit, (I hope this time it will be debit cards) cards. Yes it may be as simple as restoring the the check on the balance. Or, if you will, the reemergence of the Newt Gingrich-Clinton paradox.
Tea-party Ideology May be Good for China Too:
Obama's visit to Americas four major Democratic allies in the region -Indonesia, India, Japan, and South Korea- all of which serve, in part, to hedge in China's spreading power, converts wide-spread public condemnation of China in congress into action.
This makes sense.
Besides China's abysmal human rights record, its menacing attitude to many of Americas Asian allies, and its implicit support for nuclear proliferation/bad actors, in Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, China is also an aggressive if not unscrupulous global competitor. Of course America is not free of its own foibles and out-right blunders, but I believe in America not China.
Still, despite the rhetoric surrounding currency manipulation and the PLC's increasingly anti-American indoctrination -both issues that the tea-party targeted in their campaign- the tea-parties ascendancy can be interpreted as beneficial to China.
Yes I know that Republicans are perceived as strong on defense-spending and war (please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/republicans-and-democrates-herd.html) issues that are inherently threatening to China.
But republicans are also against protectionism, cap-on-trade, and pro free-markets.
Even more China gains from an austerity prone House, after all cuts in spending will strengthen the dollar; a dollar that China is invested in to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.
Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Are the Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians Really Pursuing Nuclear Weapons, Or...
Over the past year the “moderate” Arab nation block of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have patently publicized their intent to pursue “peaceful” nuclear energy.
Jordan's nuclear ambitions stretch back to 2007 when King Hussein of Jordan declared their nation's peaceful ambitions to acquire nuclear energy (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178500). Recently Hussein has ostensibly ratcheted up his attempts, and even publicly admonished Israel for using its international political connections to hinder Jordan's nuclear ambitions (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10321361.stm).
Meanwhile the Saudis too, are already in the process of establishing the prerequisite infrastructure, which the Saudis call "a renewable energy complex" (www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173730).
Additionaly, there has been some Egyptian movement towards acquiring "peaceful" nuclear technology going back almost two decades. More recently, Egypt has displayed a new found earnestness when they signed a contract with an Austrian firm to find a suitable location in Egypt for the construction of an experimental nuclear energy plant (http://www.nuclearsafety.org/index.php/component/content/article/15-headlines/291-egypt-signs-160-million-deal-with-australias-worleyparson-for-nuclear-energy-plan).
It is no surprise that as the Shiite non-Arab Iranians move closer to becoming a nuclear power, the "moderate" Sunni Arab nations increase their efforts to acquire weapons in order to stave off Iranian domination. It is not an arbitrary correlation.
Of course the assumption is that the Arab states are not all of a sudden pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, but rather, like Iran, they use that terminology to cover up their true intentions. In other words as the Iranians get closer to developing "peaceful" nuclear power we can expect increased efforts by Arab states to acquire “peaceful” nuclear power.
But how credible are the attempts of these Arab states -all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- to obtain nuclear weapons?
Iran is one thing. It has actively pursued weapons since the 1979 Islamic-revolution (please see Khomeini’s Ghost, for more on this). Iran has significant international alliances with nuclear powers willing to share. Like China, Pakistan, Russia, and especially North Korea, Iran has an exponentially growing domestic know-how. They are succeeding for these reasons, and these reasons alone.
The Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians, have NONE of the above. So if the Arab nations have unrealistic ambitions, what is behind their nuclear rhetoric?
Their motives can be interpreted in two ways.
1. The Arab nations are notorious for their delusional rhetoric. For example during their 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel they reported great victories over the radio, prompted at times by their leaders, while in actuality they were suffering extraordinary defeats (please see the Arab Mind by Raphael Patai). I do not want to go into more detail here, because, despite the many blood libels and propaganda commonly spread in these countries (MEMRITV), I believe that this time they are more calculated in their actions.
2. By ratcheting up their talk of pursuing nuclear energy, aka nuclear weapons, they indirectly, but unambiguously, affirm the notion that Iran's nuclear drive is creating yet another problem -a regional nuclear race, lending further credence to the anti-proliferation argument applied to Iran.
In other words they do not want Iran to have weapons and are doing everything to focus the international community’s efforts on stopping Iran.
What does this mean?
There are two ways at looking at this -from a sanctions standpoint and from a tactical strike perspective.
On one hand their actions are helping galvanize the sanctions movement supported by the Obama administration and most other countries.
Yet the more sanctions that are successfully passed (passed is not synonymous with effective), the more passive the international community becomes in actually stopping Iran. This is because they feel like they are doing enough (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html ).
This passivity in turn makes it more difficult to take the only action that will actually stop Iran, a tactical strike.
Or the international community may get the hint and recognize publicly what they know privately: A nuclear Iran would cause such a range of negative consequences that they may actually not repeat history, and support a strike. Not that they would have to raise a finger -Israel will, as usual, do the dirty work. On the contrary, don’t raise a finger, against Israel that is.
Predictably the skeptic will respond:
1.“Let Israel disarm first”. Or, “Iran is only protecting itself from Israeli/American nuclear aggression”.
The very fact that the Arabs, yes the Arabs, have responded to Iran’s actions as a real and immediate threat, should give us a clue as to the real difference between Israel and other countries. Israel will not be the first to use weapons, or use weapons as an umbrella to protect themselves from international terror and Iran… As for America, America could have already attacked Iran.
2.“Look at North Korea, there nuclear weapons are not such a big problem."
Oh, but you forget that it was North Korea that helped Iran along the way to near nuclear armament. The consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will only accelerate that process.
If the Arabs are on to Iran's game what excuse does the rest of the sane world have?
Jordan's nuclear ambitions stretch back to 2007 when King Hussein of Jordan declared their nation's peaceful ambitions to acquire nuclear energy (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178500). Recently Hussein has ostensibly ratcheted up his attempts, and even publicly admonished Israel for using its international political connections to hinder Jordan's nuclear ambitions (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10321361.stm).
Meanwhile the Saudis too, are already in the process of establishing the prerequisite infrastructure, which the Saudis call "a renewable energy complex" (www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173730).
Additionaly, there has been some Egyptian movement towards acquiring "peaceful" nuclear technology going back almost two decades. More recently, Egypt has displayed a new found earnestness when they signed a contract with an Austrian firm to find a suitable location in Egypt for the construction of an experimental nuclear energy plant (http://www.nuclearsafety.org/index.php/component/content/article/15-headlines/291-egypt-signs-160-million-deal-with-australias-worleyparson-for-nuclear-energy-plan).
It is no surprise that as the Shiite non-Arab Iranians move closer to becoming a nuclear power, the "moderate" Sunni Arab nations increase their efforts to acquire weapons in order to stave off Iranian domination. It is not an arbitrary correlation.
Of course the assumption is that the Arab states are not all of a sudden pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, but rather, like Iran, they use that terminology to cover up their true intentions. In other words as the Iranians get closer to developing "peaceful" nuclear power we can expect increased efforts by Arab states to acquire “peaceful” nuclear power.
But how credible are the attempts of these Arab states -all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- to obtain nuclear weapons?
Iran is one thing. It has actively pursued weapons since the 1979 Islamic-revolution (please see Khomeini’s Ghost, for more on this). Iran has significant international alliances with nuclear powers willing to share. Like China, Pakistan, Russia, and especially North Korea, Iran has an exponentially growing domestic know-how. They are succeeding for these reasons, and these reasons alone.
The Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians, have NONE of the above. So if the Arab nations have unrealistic ambitions, what is behind their nuclear rhetoric?
Their motives can be interpreted in two ways.
1. The Arab nations are notorious for their delusional rhetoric. For example during their 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel they reported great victories over the radio, prompted at times by their leaders, while in actuality they were suffering extraordinary defeats (please see the Arab Mind by Raphael Patai). I do not want to go into more detail here, because, despite the many blood libels and propaganda commonly spread in these countries (MEMRITV), I believe that this time they are more calculated in their actions.
2. By ratcheting up their talk of pursuing nuclear energy, aka nuclear weapons, they indirectly, but unambiguously, affirm the notion that Iran's nuclear drive is creating yet another problem -a regional nuclear race, lending further credence to the anti-proliferation argument applied to Iran.
In other words they do not want Iran to have weapons and are doing everything to focus the international community’s efforts on stopping Iran.
What does this mean?
There are two ways at looking at this -from a sanctions standpoint and from a tactical strike perspective.
On one hand their actions are helping galvanize the sanctions movement supported by the Obama administration and most other countries.
Yet the more sanctions that are successfully passed (passed is not synonymous with effective), the more passive the international community becomes in actually stopping Iran. This is because they feel like they are doing enough (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html ).
This passivity in turn makes it more difficult to take the only action that will actually stop Iran, a tactical strike.
Or the international community may get the hint and recognize publicly what they know privately: A nuclear Iran would cause such a range of negative consequences that they may actually not repeat history, and support a strike. Not that they would have to raise a finger -Israel will, as usual, do the dirty work. On the contrary, don’t raise a finger, against Israel that is.
Predictably the skeptic will respond:
1.“Let Israel disarm first”. Or, “Iran is only protecting itself from Israeli/American nuclear aggression”.
The very fact that the Arabs, yes the Arabs, have responded to Iran’s actions as a real and immediate threat, should give us a clue as to the real difference between Israel and other countries. Israel will not be the first to use weapons, or use weapons as an umbrella to protect themselves from international terror and Iran… As for America, America could have already attacked Iran.
2.“Look at North Korea, there nuclear weapons are not such a big problem."
Oh, but you forget that it was North Korea that helped Iran along the way to near nuclear armament. The consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will only accelerate that process.
If the Arabs are on to Iran's game what excuse does the rest of the sane world have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
