Unfulfilled Promises and Arab Expectations; Or, the Obama Administration's Other Credibility Problem

A recent Huffington Post article by James Zogby makes note that Arabs are a pretty jaded bunch. They are used to the fact that American politicians promise much and deliver little, and are therefore relatively pessimistic about any American-led progress on the Arab-Israeli peace front. Particularly where Israel is concerned, Arabs have little reason to believe that America will change direction any time soon.

When President Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, however, Arabs took him seriously. More than one year later, however, they are still waiting. And their jaded attitude has returned. As Zogby comments, "credit must still be given to the President's good intentions, but it is now clear that it will take more than a year to undo the damage of the last eight."

Closing GITMO may indeed be complicated by issues of jeopardizing classified information or risking the release of dangerous individuals whose conviction cannot be secured on the basis of evidence obtained though torture. However, even if we put aside issues of justice, we would do good to think of an important question: for every individual NOT released from GITMO, how many actual NEW dangerous individuals do we create and encourage to join or assist dangerous organizations? Although this question is ultimately unanswerable, the thought exercise may help us to determine a major cost of violating the principles upon which our country was founded.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Monster We Created in Iraq

A recent article in the NY Times outlines the growing disputes in Iraq over the rule of law in Iraqi politics. Prime Minister Nur al-Malaki ordered the Iraqi Army's Fourth Division to cordon off the provisional council building on Tuesday in the latest of a number of moves that call into question the quality of democracy imposed by the US.

It is the second time the Prime Minister has shown his willingness to use force to impose his political will.  This most recent intervention involved a dispute over the provincial council’s legal powers to appoint a governor.  As a result, Mr. Maliki ordered in the military to exert executive power.

An earlier intervention appears to be even more suspect. According to the New York Times:

"Mr. Maliki’s government has acted with, at best, disputed legal authority.
In Diyala Province, a leading candidate from one of the main blocs challenging Mr. Maliki’s political coalition, known as State of Law, was arrested Sunday night by special forces sent from Baghdad only days after he took part in a recorded debate in which he criticized the security forces.
Warrants are said to have been issued for five other members of that province’s legislature on charges that remain unclear."


The reasons for the interventions stem from weak democratic institutions and values.


NY Times: "The political turmoil convulsing Iraq stems not just from suspenseful elections in which Mr. Maliki, a Shiite who has allied with several Sunni politicians, appears to be losing popular support and potentially his chances for re-election.
It also stems from an untested separation of powers, opaque back-room agreements and a loose fidelity to the country’s laws, whose interpretation often depends on who is reading them.
“Iraq is like a sick person,” the speaker of Parliament, Ayad al-Samarrai, said at a recent news conference. “All its organs are ailing.”

One only hopes for a successful democracy in Iraq. Iraqis are certainly capable of democracy, despite the "culturalists" who argue that only a strong dictator can hold together Iraqi's "madly warring" factions. However, well-intentioned (I hope!) Americans created institutions and initial conditions that favored sectariansim and weak government. Now, Iraqis have to live with the consequences.

The Party of No: Fiction or Reality?

I know the filibuster (and threat thereof) is used by both parties, but it has seemed to me that it has taken a much more prominent role in politics lately. My impression has been that Replubicans have taken a particularly active role in blocking Obama's agenda in the last year. However, as a social scientist, I know that impressions are merely a place to start inquiry, not the end.

So, I have been wondering if the threat of filibuster has been used more often lately, or if that is just my (admittedly somewhat partisan) biased impression.

Well, I will wonder no longer.

Alternet and Talking Points Memo have posted an illuminating set of figures about the use of cloture, or filibuster, in recent years.

The most instructive figure is for the number of cloture motions filed since the Democrats took control of the Senate. Close to 140 motions on cloture and over 140 votes on cloture took place during the first session (2007-08) in which Democrats were in control of the Senate. Compare this to previous sessions, none of which experienced over 80 votes or motions of cloture, with the exception of the 1995-1998 session - another highly partisan era in American politics. (It still did not come even close to 100!)

Somehow, only 1 in 4 Americans know that 60 votes are required to break a filibuster in the Senate. I don't know how anyone in America could miss the hype over the formerly "filibuster-proof" Senate and its loss upon the election of Scott Brown in the special election to fill former Senator Ted Kennedy's seat. But if they did manage to miss it, they would not know that only 40 votes block any legislation in the Senate, and therefore in the entire government.

Apparenly, Republicans have learned how to appeal to the less educated and lower classes. Otherwise, how would they figure out how to (over)simplify their messages into tiny packages like "socialized medicine doesn't work, ever" and "free markets are more efficient than regulations" (despite our horrific experience with unregulated markets in the last couple of years!!). In short, they have the mentality of the American folk tradition down pat. Stragtegic use of sound bites can really get traction, especially on Fox News.

The end result of this lop-sided competition is that fifty percent of independents say Obama has done “too little to compromise with the Republican leaders in Congress on important issues.”

In short, the GOP has every incentive in the world to block everything as long as they don’t pay a political price for it. Which is exactly what they have been doing.

School Lunch Health is a No-Brainer! (But tell that to the Republicans!)

It's about time!

The New York Times reports:

"The Obama administration will begin a drive this week to expel Pepsi, French fries and Snickers bars from the nation’s schools in hopes of reducing the number of children who get fat during their school years.
In legislation, soon to be introduced, candy and sugary beverages would be banned and many schools would be required to offer more nutritious fare."

Fantastic! This sounds like a no-brainer. Why would we want to subject our kids to increased advertising, sugary and fat-filled foods, and greater risk of obesity and health problems?

But wait...

The New York Times report continues:

"Republican support is far from certain.

Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican and the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, met at the White House with Mrs. Obama on Tuesday to talk about childhood obesity. And while Mr. Chambliss released a statement saying that “schools play an important role in shaping nutrition habits of young children,” an aide refused to say whether he would support a ban on junk foods."

Why am I not surprised? Potential Republican opposition, from my own state (!). These days, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans opposed heaven itself if it could be dressed up as socialist or if it was supported by corporate lobbyists.

With this one, they are opposing their own future.

On the Wrong Side of History

I am starting to get worried about the direction this country is taking. The Obama administration is getting hammered for its decision (which should be an automatic non-decision, by the way) to charge and try Nigerian Christmas day bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian court and provide him access to a lawyer.

The criticism comes mainly from Republicans, who argue that it is wrong to "treat Abdulmutallab as if he were an ordinary criminal," and that the administration should not grant "new rights" to terrorists. According to newly elected senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, "tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

For its part, the Obama administration argues that civil rights should be a central part of anti-terrorism efforts. Cooperation by Muslim communities in the US and abroad can only be secured when a degree of trust can be established. To state the obvious, would Abdulmutallab's father have come forward to report his son as a potential threat to the United States if he feared his son would be tortured in US custody or "disappeared"? (see Andrea Prasow's excellent discussion of this in the Huffington Post a couple of days ago)

In my opinion, I believe America is losing its soul. At one time in history, America was at the forefront of human rights and democracy. Kings and the forces of tradition feared our "radical" ideas of equality and civil rights. Although there were many imperfections in the implementation of these ideals (and the imperfections were huge - slavery, "manifest destiny" and so on), the ideals became the seeds of important liberation movements in the US and around the world.

Now that the US is a global hegemon, power, not freedom, is its most important concern. The direction that is taking us should concern us all.

Ian Frazier: Easy Cocktails from the Cursing Mommy

I have found my alter ego!

From the New Yorker:

Ian Frazier: Easy Cocktails from the Cursing Mommy: "Those high-priced bartenders in their red vests and white shirts who your caterers recommended to serve at your last party may know a thing or two, but for entertaining on a smaller scale—for parties of seven people, four, or even just one—a few simple steps to the perfect cocktail are all you’ll ever need. Take, for example, this drink I’m drinking right now. Where the hell did I put it? I just set it down five minutes ago. I had it when I was watching the news, I know that. Now what in hell could I have done with it? O.K.—I found it, thank heavens. I must have set it here on the stairs when I went to throw away the mail. Anyway, as I was saying, making this particular drink, which happens to be a vodka gimlet, is simplicity itself, once you know how..."

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2009/09/14/090914sh_shouts_frazier#ixzz0eaAEMvGF

 I feel like I have met a kindred spirit! I have to admit, however, unlike the Cursing Mommy, I rarely drink vodka gimlets. If I mix something up, it will be Sangria. Otherwise I will stick to wine or beer. Usually beer. It goes down soooo smoothly and easily, especially after a long day at work. And it makes my kids so much nicer. And quieter. Too bad it doesn't make them less hungry. Oh well. Two out of three isn't bad.