Who Makes Policy Campaign 2016 Edition

As America plays politics with its’ economic future, Vietnam and China press forward with securing their place in the world. The truth is that America is by far the world’s most powerful nation. However, with that in mind, America cannot afford to stop and admire itself in the mirror. With China working towards peeling off American allies like the Philippines, and Vietnam already working on its own free trade agreements; America risks losing ground in a region of the world it cannot afford to lose an inch. While it does sound like an alarmist position because America’s role in the world is secure, for now, it is important to understand that agreements take years to negotiate and once a topic is politically toxic it is virtually impossible to revive it with any kind quickness.

Is Putin crazy like one? When we finally finish fumbling around in the dark looking for our glasses, what will we see?  With the hacking of  Clinton campaign and DNC emails, and with the attacks on various state election systems, could Russia really be trying to alter the results of the U.S. presidential elections? If indeed it turns out to be Russia, are they really that crude and unsophisticated in their tactics? With individual states and counties having their own independent voting systems, is it realistic for Russia to undermine the election results? Or perhaps they’ve already succeeded in finishing what the Republican party began almost a decade ago, which is undermining the confidence in our political institutions. Recently released hacked emails purported to belong to Vladislav Surkov, a top aide to Putin, point to a concerted effort between him the Kremlin to undermine Ukrainian elections. The U.S. is a much bigger and sophisticated nation than the Ukraine so altering the direct results would be very complicated. However, by undermining confidence in the institutions and their leaders, they can achieve a similar result. It may sound narcissistic, but nonetheless, the world, just like U.S. citizens, hold American institutions in high regard. America derives much of its global authority from the fact that we are a Democracy and that we have institutions of power that are transparent and trustworthy. It would benefit Russia to see a decline in that power and in seeing the U.S. retreat from the world stage and global commerce. Over the last few presidencies, Russia has witnessed America expand its power and influence closer to its own borders. A Trump presidency would mean a retreat from that stage and perhaps from America’s commitment to NATO. Failure of the TPP would be comforting to a country that has witnessed itself commercially being frozen out of regions by American free trade agreements. A weaker America is good news for a Russian government that grows increasingly distrustful of American intentions in their sphere of influence.

I know that this is another post not about Russia, but it is one that is near and dear to my heart: The Basic Income Guarantee. Before I get into a Vox article, I read this morning I want to invite you to read a great piece on libertarianism.org (a Cato brand) “The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income.”

The basic income has come in many flavors, from Milton Freedman’s “negative income tax” to the so-called “citizen’s dividend.” It is an idea that creeps up every once and a while, and while it reeks of socialism, there are many libertarians who defend the idea (though they come to that defense in a way that might make some liberals cringe).

In fact, there is a “basic income guarantee” program that is alive and well in America today: The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. It works in Alaska because they have partially socialized oil extraction (not lost is the irony that Sara Palin was their governor).

While, from a moral and ideological standpoint, I agree with the concept of a basic income I also realized that in America the idea of giving people something for nothing is antithetical to our national Puritan work ethic. Politically I do not see how we can achieve something like this.

But we may not have a choice in the near future.

I was reading this piece on Vox this morning, and it hit me, probably because the author made the point quite well, that as we move to a world of autonomous cars and trucks where will people labor. Labor is, in fact, being replaced by capital and as capital can increasingly do the work of labor many will find themselves on the proverbial bread lines.

The Vox piece puts this issue front and center in my mind. While libertarian conceptions of markets make a lot of sense I have to wonder if these conceptions work in the technological age. If we no longer need truck drivers and waiters and cooks and janitors and drivers and train crew and… then what will all those people do? Can we change the minds of people as to what work is in a world where there is an increasingly small number of traditional jobs?

Let us establish first of all here that, at this point, it is unlikely that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will win on November 8th.  Between the current polling and all of the scandals, the Donald is on a sinking ship that’s going down in a raging ball of fire.  Nothing can seem to save him now.

Now, let’s imagine for a second if Mr. Trump were to, by some act of God, win the presidency in November.  Then say, from the moment that he takes office in January, he goes about enacting the plans that he announced throughout his campaign, such as banning Muslim immigration to the United States, engaging in torture for the sake of torture, and going after the families of terrorists, among other things.  Will the American system be able to handle such blatant authoritarian actions?  Will it be able to reel back in a madman with little to no regard for the Constitution?

Yascha Mounk of Politico doesn’t have much confidence that it can handle a danger like Mr. Trump.  In this piece, “Yes, American Democracy Could Break Down,” the author argues that there is some chance that our American democratic system can ultimately fall apart when put to the test.  There are three reasons for this, according to Mounk:  1- the unprecedented nature of a person like Mr. Trump getting so close to winning the White House, let alone taking up residence there; 2- the fact that there are relatively few resources provided by the constitution to stop an authoritarian president; and 3- stopping tyranny in the United States would ultimately be contingent on public opinion.  If public opinion were to side with the authoritarian, not much can be done to stop that person’s agenda.

Luckily, for now our nation won’t have to put this to the test.  The Donald will most likely not be president.  But this is important, theoretical food for thought, as someone with similar authoritarian tendencies in a better package can come along next time and prove to be an even bigger threat.

A lot of disturbing reports coming out of Mosul today as Iraqi forcues continued their march towards the ISIL stronghold. The New York Times reported that ISIL has used civilians as human shields and may have killed nearly 200 people.

The Guardian reported that authorities found “several murdered journalists, the bodies of nearly 50 former police officers, and dozens of dead people thrown into a river nearly 30 miles south of Mosul.”

We can expect to see these types of atrocities as ISIL continues to lose the battle for Mosul.

I got a paragraph into this piece and decided to write a post.

It’s not racism, its White Identity.

I remember someone at my internship site who said something along the lines of “is it wrong for me to want to look out for my interests and other white people?”

Honestly, I did not think much of it at the time. Perhaps because I am white and the privilege that goes along with that made that comment slide under the proverbial radar.

I read the first few paragraphs of this piece and it all came together like Rodger Rabbit dropping and anvil on my head. There is something wrong with that statement. Sure, prima face, looking out for your own interests is arguably fine. Frankly, that is what our society is based and we have to look no further than capitalism and the greed motivation to realize that.

Take for example Speaker Paul Ryan’s favorite author, Ayn Rand. Rand promoted the theory of rational egoism or the belief that it is both “irrational and immoral” to “act against one’s self-interest.”

Perhaps that is true. But the study of ethics would have us ask is it morally right to act in one’s self-interest alone, as an end in itself, at the expense of others.

I say all of this because it leads me to the following. First, I reject the claim that “White Identity Politics” is not racial. All we have to look at is the systemic institutionalized racism that already exists in our criminal justice system, in our economic systems. White Identity Politics is a nice way of saying “were having an existential crisis because we will no longer have all the power in a few years and we don’t want to be treated the way we treated everyone else.”

Well, I am sorry, too bad. White people enslaved Blacks and hung them in trees. Promoted Jim Crow and prevented equal education. And when all of this was deemed to be a violation of human rights we ensured that possession of “black cocaine” products kept entire racial groups in jail and out of society.

Now that we have seen that for as much as things have changed nothing has changed and in the near future white people will not be a plurality of the population, well, frankly, white people ought to be scared because if we are treated as badly as we have treated black people, latinos, and other racial groups then there is something to fear.

Or, we can accept the fact that we have to atone for the past.

Acknowledging that “White Identity Politics” is racism by another name would be a good start.

Iraqi and Kurdish forces continued their march toward Mosul today, surrounding the city of Bashiqa – 8 miles from Mosul. Although ISIL is outnumbered (reports put them at anywhere from 3K to 5K soldiers while the Iraqi coalition is 30k strong) the advance is proceeding with caution because of booby traps and suicide bombs that ISIL is using. Despite this, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi says it is progressing faster than planned. The battle is expected to take months and will likely produce a severe humanitarian crisis.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37702442

 

 

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Obama has yet to decide on a plan to send heavier weapons to CIA-backed rebels in Syria. The plan would send anti-aircraft and other heavy artillery to vetted rebels fighting Assad in Syria’s 5 1/2 year war. The plan was brought to the president’s desk this weekend and after a review, Obama decided to hold off on the program for now. The plan is supported by CIA Director Brennan and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter but its opponents, including John Kerry, raise serious concerns.

Kerry fears that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists or be used to shoot down Russian aircrafts, sparking a conflict with the Russians. Whatever the case, we should be rightfully skeptical of any plan/partnership with rebel groups. Our track record to date has been less than desirable.

So much of today’s conflict in the Middle East can be understood by studying the region’s history. Sectarian conflict, tribalism, oil and trade routes all have played critical roles in the fighting that we see going on today. This Washington Post piece takes a look at Mosul and how the city has developed over the course of the past thousand years.

I’ll be posting about Mosul a lot over the next couple of weeks and this article explains why it is such an important city in the fight against ISIL.

Free trade agreements (FTAs), when done fairly, distribute progress in an equitable manner. It is much easier to achieve these type of results when the nations involved have similar economic conditions. FTAs have the ability to generate economic opportunities, and  bonds of cooperation and interdependence which many nations seek. That is why 54 African nations are currently negotiating the Continental Free Trade Area agreement. It would include every nation on the continent and create the largest free trade zone in the world. This zone would bring together a population of 1 billion people that is estimated to reach 2 billion by 2050. The west should see this as an opportunity to help the continent without direct “meddling.” Western nations can offer their expertise in the development of infrastructure and capacity. As Western Europe understands all too well, a crisis in Africa can create mass migration which in turn destabilize its local political landscape. It is make sense to assist underdeveloped nations in pooling their resources and strengths to create free trade zones that will result in stronger bonds of cooperation.  The potential stability can help ease some of the strain that western nations face in coping with the absorption of large numbers of economic, political and conflict refugees.