Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Reposted from http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8071 because I think it’s interesting.

The most important election you’re not talking about

JIHAN AMMAR/AFP/Getty Images

We’re in the midst of the most exciting presidential race in decades here in the United States. Pakistan’s legislative elections are coming up on Feb. 18. And within the next two months, we’ll also see elections in Russia, Spain, and Taiwan. But there’s one more upcoming election that you probably haven’t heard much about: the presidential race in Cyprus that takes place in two rounds on Feb. 17 and 24. Right now, there’s a virtual dead heat between the top three candidates. Check out this poll here. It’s in Greek, but the colors on the chart show it all: 30.0 percent to 30.1 percent to 30.5 percent.

You might be asking: Why should you care about a presidential election taking place on a tiny island that’s home to fewer than one million people? We’ll get there, but first, a little background.

Cyprus has been split into two entities ever since 1974, when Turkey invaded the island in response to a military coup that was backed by Athens. The northern part is currently recognized as a state by only Turkey. Everyone else recognizes the southern Greek-speaking part as the official government. As the EU expanded, there were hopes that Cyprus could enter as a united island, but unification talks sponsored by the U.N. were unsuccessful. Cyprus joined the EU, still divided, in May 2004. Current Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos, who is running for re-election, is considered by many to be a hardliner when it comes to Greek-Turkish rapprochement. One of his opponents, Communist Dimitris Kristofias, was previously in a ruling coalition with Papadopoulos, but decided to run on his own this time. The other front-runner is Ioannis Kasoulides, a member of the European Parliament and someone who is largely in favor of unification. The winner will be tasked with determining how unification talks move forward.�

So, the Cypriot elections mean a lot for the future Europe as a whole, and not just for the island itself. Turkey will never be able to accede to the EU so long as Cyprus is opposed, and Cyprus will continue to oppose it so long as Turkey still recognizes the north as legitimate. Cyprus also plays a major role in how the EU approaches prospective independence for Kosovo. Cyprus is opposed to independence for Kosovo because it’s viewed as a vote against U.N. legitimacy. Greek Cypriots are also worried that Kosovar independence would be a rubber stamp for Turkish Cypriots to gain legal recognition. The most powerful states in the EU are in favor of independence for Kosovo. But as long as Cyprus remains opposed, the EU’s goal for a common foreign policy remains stymied. The elections in Cyprus may seem like small peanuts compared to other happenings in the world, but there are a lot of people who are watching closely.

Thanks for asking.

I voted in the Super Tuesday primary, voter #17 at my precinct this morning.  I think that makes me super too.  How I actually voted is private, and so to all potential future political bosses, the following may be a total lie:

I made up my mind yesterday how I would be voting.  It wasn’t that hard, when it came down to it.  As a voter who declined to register with any party, I was not allowed to vote in the Republican primary, but I was allowed to vote in the Democratic (or, if you were so inclined, American Independent) primary.  So it didn’t matter, for the purposes of today’s vote, what my political leanings were.  On the democratic side, I had quite a few names on the ballot but only two contenders, and I don’t see enough policy differences to judge in that manner.  What differences there are between the candidates’ policies would almost certainly be ironed out through the legislative and bureaucratic processes long before they impacted me.  On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with families which smack of dynasties, and I prefer the elevated moral and intellectual tone of the Senator from Illinois, and thus I voted.

Also, there were some propositions on the ballot, and in case you care, I voted No, No, No, No, No, No, No, Yes.  That’s EMS 1, Gas tax slush fund / community college tuition break / gratuitous slot machine expansion 0.

This was going to be another look at another presidential candidate but I just can’t do it.

It’s so discouraging.  I was reading Mitt Romney’s campaign site at www.mittromney.com, and I just won’t be bothered to translate the willful misrepresentations or sort through the codewords or look through the attacks for the substance.

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Rel

Wherefore the political party?

I find it enlightening that every few years, the members of a political party (or more accurately, their delegates) get together to decide what, exactly, constitutes their party.  For a few days, as planks are added or withdrawn or recast in tones militant or conciliatory, the very ideas which may have brought some people to the party are in limbo.  It’s as if a political party is merely a vehicle, and every so often you get the chance to pull off and touch up the paint, hammer out the dents, or if you’re really ambitious, swap out the engine.

The great frustration is that there are only two serious vehicles in the whole country, and it’s pretty much a free-for-all for the driver’s seats.  Right now one of them seems to be a dusty Chevy truck with a few questionable bumper stickers, and the other one is an underpowered but conscience-soothing hybrid which annoyingly makes a big production out of obeying the speed limit.  If you’re not driving, you just better hope one of them is going your way.  Everyone else gets bikes.

Note how malleable the party platform truly is.  Republicans, the party of Lincoln.  Democrats, today’s doves, but yesterday’s FDRs.  Whigs.  Got nothin’ to say about Whigs.  It’s just that in my lifetime, “conservative” and “liberal” have pretty broad (and not inaccurate) associations with “Republican” and “Democrat”.

What do you want from politics?  And which party will get you there?  I think that either vehicle will do; it’s just a question of which one is easiest to steer that way.  Imagine yourself at the side of the road, and a car pulls up…
Option 1.) This guy say he’s going to Tehran.  It seems awfully far, and I’m not even sure you can drive there, but oh well, I’m bored sitting around here anyway.
Option 2.) Carpooling.  Tell you what, on your way to Tehran, why don’t you swing by the city, I’ve got a job interview.  See, we can both get what we want sometimes.
Option 3.) Dude, Tehran sucks anyway.  And haven’t you heard, we’ve got these awesome planes, we don’t have to go there to put the hurt on them.  Move over, I’m driving.  You’re good to drink with but totally not qualified for this job.
Option 4.) Screw it, I’m going with those other guys.  Their car is cleaner anyway.  Plus they’re handing out free condoms, they must know how to have fun.  Also they’ve got a chick and a token black guy.

As we can all clearly see the natural successor to Ron Paul is Hillary Clinton.  Because, uhh, Ron Paul has seven letters in both names and Hillary Clinton has seven letters in each name?  Anyway, she’s next for the cursory analysis which will color my opinion of all her future actions.  First impressions are important, you know.  HillaryClinton.com has this to say on…

- “Strengthening the Middle Class”
Corporate profits are up, CEO pay is up, wages are lagging, and household debt is soaring.  Also, more people went bankrupt last year than graduated from college.  America’s middle class is invisible to the current president, but Hillary will help all the workers who can’t organize, the poor sad grandmothers who are being robbed by a bankrupt social security system, the precious grandchildren who will grow up under staggering national debt.  Hillary loves you all.  Come on, this shit is advertising, not policy.  And it’s dripping with populism.  It’s not on TV therefore it doesn’t have to be lowest common denominator anymore; you have my permission to use big words and state actual positions.

Okay, it’s unfair to judge the candidacy based on this.  If I can find anything concrete to judge on, I’ll let you know.  Also, does anybody know how many people consider themselves part of the “middle class”?  It’s about on par with the proportion of people who consider themselves “among the best” drivers.

- “Providing Affordable and Accessible Healthcare”
I give up on quoting this website.  The gist of it is she wants to provide universal healthcare.  I would like people to have healthcare; how best to do it is beyond me, but I’m open to ideas.  Can’t seem to find anything really substantial…. But it seems the insurance companies are villains and Hillary will take them on for you.

- “Ending the War in Iraq”
Thank god, something concrete.  Most of her stuff is about her Senate career, but she does say that if she becomes president and the war is still going on, she’ll end it.  Actually, she said when she becomes president.  But to her credit she does go on to say that she opposes permanent bases in Iraq, but supports training, logistical, and counterterrorism operations in Iraq.  These are actual policies within the President’s purview, in my opinion.  They’re not new – in fact the bill that was recently vetoed was pretty much exactly this plan – but they’re reasonably concrete.

- “I can’t stand to read this anymore”

That was totally not a fair assessment of her candidacy based on policies but I couldn’t find too many.  And, if you consider that nobody can foresee all the things that will pop up for a president to deal with, you should probably vote for someone whose thinking you can get behind even if their positions don’t line up perfectly with yours.  Unfortunately I don’t think Hillary has a high enough opinion of me to share actual thoughts.

I just caught Ron Paul on the rerun of yesterday’s Colbert Report, so I’m just going to run through his positions.  According to his presidential website (ronpaul2008.com):

- “Debt and Taxes”

Ron Paul is for lower taxes.  I could go either way on this; lower taxes are nice come April, and in theory make the money go around faster, but whatever level the taxes are, if they are spread around evenly and pay for mostly good things, I’m okay with them.

Ron Paul is for lower government spending and minimizing inflation, and against running a national debt.  For those who don’t know, every dollar that the government spends which is not paid for by taxes must be either borrowed or printed.  All you people complaining about the national debt: I’m with you, it’s pretty bad.  All those people complaining about inflation: well, it happens, but that doesn’t mean we should encourage it.  Ron Paul is on to something here; the real problem (as far as those complainants, including me, are concerned) is the higher government spending in the first place.

- “American Independence and Sovereignty”

Ron Paul is against the WTO, ICC, NAFTA, CAFTA, and UN.  On Colbert, he also came out against NATO.  Here’s what I think.  If Hugo Chavez got a friendly judge into the ICC, then people you recognize would probably be investigated as war criminals.  That’s worrying, in a way.  But if it’s as politically motivated as people expect, we can hope that jurisprudence would prevent it the investigation from becoming a prosecution and conviction.  If it actually has some merit, then perhaps they deserve the prosecution.

Pause. Turn for a moment to the UN, where 1.) purely political resolutions directed against the US are introduced pretty frequently (with a fair number of votes in favor), but 2) we hold a veto for most resolutions of any substance.  I suppose, first and foremost, this shows that I don’t think we need to be withdrawing from the UN.  It could be a powerful force for world dialogue, and we’re not in so much danger from the UN.  On the other hand, it also illustrates why misgivings about the ICC might be justified.  That’s one body where nobody gets a veto, and there are, in fact, enough people out there who might try legal charges just because they’re miffed.

NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO I don’t know enough about to say much, but I will say: I don’t think I’ve been personally hurt by these.  The WTO especially might actually help considering how many things I buy are made in China.  NATO is in fact a Good Thing ™ in my eyes, because 1.) it was a good idea at the time and 2.) it’s a really incredibly useful tool for getting Eastern Europe, especially the Balkans, to do the right thing.  So I might support Ron Paul on the ICC thing, but he’d be doing it for vast sweeping reasons I don’t agree with.

- “War and Foreign Policy”

Ron Paul thinks the war in Iraq was based on bad information.  No argument here, but that’s a catchphrase, not a policy.  He says we have troops in over 130 countries and need to bring people home, stop fighting “police actions,” and stop arming other countries.  He says the only action that should lead us to war is a congressional war resolution.

Personally, I think that we happen to have a pretty kickass army, and that its okay to use it now and again when it’ll do more good than harm (overall), will do more good than harm (to us, specifically), and it’s a job the army can do.  I dunno if you heard, but they specialize in killing people.

We could certainly do with a bit more moral and long-term practical judgment in who we give the guns to.  Historically speaking there have been more than a few fuckups there.  On the other hand, the people who like to point out Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places as examples where our guns are being used on us usually don’t mention places like France, England, Taiwan, Jordan, or the Dominican, where judicious (or blind-but-lucky) exports helped secure Europe, defend democracy (corny phrase but you’ll agree it’s true), and prevent another Lebanon or Haiti.

I have no complaint with the idea that war is a congressional prerogative.  I’d still expect any president to go to war without it in the _immediate_ defense of the country or an ally.  I bet Ron Paul would do the former, but I think our allies would probably be on their own.  On war and foreign policy, I’m afraid I just don’t agree with the gentleman from Texas.  I think he’d probably reduce our overseas military involvement and arms sales, which could be the right direction.  I’m just afraid of how drastically he might do it.

- “Border Security and Immigration Reform”

He’s got a 6-point plan.  First, physically secure borders and coastlines.  I’m going to assume this means he’s for funding and equipping the border patrol and coast guard, which is great.  It might also mean he’s for the fence.  I think the fence is ridiculous but only because it’s generating so much uproar.  Really?  A fence at the border?  Next you’re going to tell me the army has guns.  We got by without one for a while, and now we’re building one, and yes we look silly but it’s not so outlandish.  Jose Cuervo has a fence around their agave plants, you probably have one between you and your neighbors, and we can have one around our country.

Second, enforce visa rules.  Great, no complaints.  I’m pretty sure the rules don’t say things like “shoot the left nut and pour lemon juice on it,” so it’s not cruel or unusual to enforce them.  Caveat to be discussed below.

No amnesty.  Okay, this is somebody’s ideal but might have to compromise with reality.  I don’t relish a future of illegal-immigrant witchhunts or whatnot.  People who want every illegal immigrant out: it’s not going to happen.  People who want every illegal immigrant to automagically be a citizen: yes, it does sort of reward the behavior.  Maybe we should just make it easier to be a citizen, I don’t know.

No welfare or social services for illegal aliens.  Here we disagree a bit; Ron Paul would like to bar them from services including schools, welfare, clinics, hospitals, and roads.  Don’t ask me how we’re going to enforce that last one; tons of people who were born and raised here are driving illegally anyway.  But more importantly, from a humanitarian standpoint, I have a hard time denying people access to healthcare if its possible to provide it and they need it.

End birthright citizenship.  That’s a pretty big change; after several hundred years of that “American” might actually resemble an ethnic group.  I’m not so keen on it.

Pass true immigration reform, because, and I quote, “the current system is incoherent and unfair.”  Yeah, but it’s a pretty fucking complicated issue.  Sure, we’ve got laws.  Sure, we should enforce them.  But (here’s the caveat) we really shouldn’t desire, nor can we afford, to deport every illegal immigrant, or even to identify every illegal immigrant.  It would be madness.  No witchhunts, please.  Maybe I could get behind a policy of deporting every convict who was found to be in the country illegally. And yeah, if you catch them sneaking across the border, or doing something else which is Bad ™, do your legal thing.  But I don’t want a world where parents are afraid to go to their child’s PTA meetings for fear of arrest, or (worse yet) a world where the parents are afraid to send the children to school in the first place.  Healthcare is an even bigger can of worms, let’s not go there.

- “Privacy and Personal Liberty”

Ron Paul is worried about national IDs, the widespread use of social security numbers as IDs, medical privacy, financial privacy, and overturning the Patriot Act.  I’ve got no real arguments with his concerns here.

- “Property Rights and Eminent Domain”

I’m not sure what he’s talking about here.  I’m all for property rights, but he says they’re in danger by a NAFTA superhighway lobby.  What?

In summary, I would be okay with Ron Paul as, say, Secretary of the Treasury?

Issue: Creationism
Scope: Endorsing or advocating the teaching of biblical creation or “intelligent design” in public schools.
My view: My ideal presidential candidate will not in any way discourage the teaching of the theory of evolution.  I’m not sure whether I would vote for someone who wanted creationism taught next to evolution; I know they should be teaching evolution, and I don’t think creationism is really useful, but I can’t quite say they _shouldn’t_ teach it (since a lot of people believe it, it might be hard for it to not come up).  However, it would be a big no-no if the candidate wanted evolution to not be taught, or to somehow endorse creation as superior.
Outlook: The dems are likely, on the whole, better in this category, but the republicans can’t all be literal bible-thumpers.  I’ll have to look into it, but from what I just heard on the debate I can’t vote for Huckabee.

Issue: Energy
Scope: Any positions on funding or encouraging solar, ethanol, nuclear, or other non-oil, non-gas energy sources
My view: I’d like more nuclear energy.  I’m convinced that it is safe and relatively cheap.  As for cars, I like driving, so let’s keep cars on the road, but I’m entirely okay with throwing money at ethanol research or other alternative fuel ideas.  I know it takes more energy now to make a gallon of ethanol than that gallon will produce, but even if it is itself a dead end it has already given rise to other interesting ideas like cellulosic ethanol.  It’s worth a little money to go exploring – let’s just hope they stay sane and don’t mandate it’s production, because it’s only exploratory right now.  I’m not interested in grand statements about weaning ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil because it’s just a statement until somebody comes up with a good alternative.  Technology first, thank you.
Outlook: As far as I know this hasn’t come up in debates yet.  Just wait for Iowa.

…in a presidential candidate.

So here’s the idea.  People are talking about politics – who might be running, what their poll numbers are, how much money they have, etc.  With some recent debates, there is even some discussion of issues and voting records, etc.  Last (national) time around, I voted based on a few issues, but it wasn’t a hard choice.  But to celebrate my relatively new political awareness, I’m going to consciously examine the choices, try to nail down what I want in a candidate, and then figure out how to use my vote to get there.

I’m in California now, so casting my actual vote next November will just be a rhetorical exercise.  Not that it wasn’t in Illinois, either.  But I’m going to do it anyway, and I have a primary vote if I so choose, too.  I’m not a registered member of either party, and I think I can vote in either primary I want, so that’s one tool at my disposal to help get my presidential candidate of choice.

I’m going to start by outlining some of the axes of this exercise.

“Electability”
I’m actually going to use this discussion to determine my votes, so I want to decide on a vote I can actually cast.  If somebody isn’t running for nomination or election, we won’t be discussing them — but as far as I am concerned that is the limit of electability. For instance, people say Hillary Clinton is not electable.  That won’t be part of my consideration, but her qualities and positions that cause people to think that will be.  Primary qualities and positions only, please, not meta-qualities.

Issues
Let’s tag issues as we think of them – and define them, too.  For instance, “gay marriage” can be a label for candidates’ positions, proposals, and histories dealing with gay marriage, civil unions, or extending traditional marriage benefits to gay couples.  It’s not gays in the military or AIDS, which can be their own labels for separate issues.  So,

• “Gay marriage” – gay marriage, civil unions for gay couples, extending traditional marriage benefits to gay couples
• “Gays in the military” – don’t ask/don’t tell or alternative policies
• “AIDS” – combating and preventing AIDS domestically and/or abroad
• “Immigration” – criteria for amnesty, criteria for immigrant visas, immigration quotas, penalties and countermeasures for illegal immigration
• “Belligerence” – circumstances under which the U.S. should go to war
• “Counterterror” – ideas or policies on the use and usefulness of intelligence/covert ops
• “Iraq” – plans for pursuing or terminating the war in Iraq
• “Nukes” – thoughts and policies on the use of American nuclear weapons, nuclear shields, the NNPT (probably includes Iranian nukes and Indian nuclear technology transfers)
• “Iran” – thoughts on dealing with the Iranian regime, including the nuclear weapons program
• “Cuba” – thoughts on dealing with Cuba, including post-Castro policies and the embargo
• “Natural disasters” – plans and policies on responding and recovering from natural distasters, both at home and abroad.  I assume everyone will be bashing the handling of Katrina, but I’m going to try to look past that for real ideas and policies.
• “Education” – plans and policies for encouraging, financing, or reforming education, from elementary to university.

Okay, that’s all I can think of right now.  I’m sure I’ll find more.

Character
In the end, the character of the candidate probably matters too, because many issues will be out of the public eye (believe it or not) and some are quite complicated; in these cases, the candidate’s own judgment (i.e. beyond what they can inform me of in a 30 second tv spot or stump speech) will probably affect policy.  So identifying characteristics of the candidates and figuring out which ones I’d rather have in the oval office is valid.

Thoughts?
What issues did I miss?

We’ll get to the actual candidates (and my own positions) later.

NICOSIA, March 9 (Reuters) – Greek Cypriots razed to the ground a symbol of Cyprus’ decades-old division running through the heart of the capital Nicosia and challenged Turkey to respond by withdrawing its troops from the area.
Demolition work on a concrete barrier in Nicosia’s Ledra Street ceased by dawn on Friday, exposing a corridor of crumbling buildings untouched for decades.
The barrier was quickly replaced by sheets of aluminium and remained under heavy police guard. Authorities said that for security reasons the area would remain off limits to civilians until Turkey removed its troops from its side.
Nicosia residents hailed the move as an important step and one compared it with the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
This is extremely symbolic – “The dynamism created by this move will lead to the opening of the crossing,” said Rasit Pertev, chief adviser to Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat.

It was not clear what prompted the Greek Cypriot action but both sides on the divided Mediterranean island have been under intense pressure from the international community for the past few years to strike a lasting peace deal.
“Tonight we have demolished the checkpoint on our side,” Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos told reporters at an EU summit in Brussels.
So now we will see whether the Turkish troops will be withdrawn so the passage would be opened or not. Because if the troops are not withdrawn  - there cannot be a passage.
The barrier was a cement wall stretching from one side of the road to the other. Beyond it is a buffer zone about 50 metres wide and manned by UN troops. Ledra Street is the main commercial district of Nicosia, a city of 250,000 people.
Cyprus has been split into an internationally recognised Greek Cypriot south and a Turkish Cypriot north, recognised only by Turkey, since 1974 when Turkish troops invaded to foil an Athens-backed Greek Cypriot coup seeking to unite the island with Greece.
Turkey has about 35,000 troops in the island’s north.
SYMBOLIC WEDGE
Diplomats say even if there is a deal with Turkey, it could take several weeks to prepare for any possible opening of the crossing. “It would take about four to five weeks at least,” said a western diplomat.
When the barrier was demolished, people grabbed chunks of mangled metal and concrete from trucks as they rumbled past.
“This is what happened when the Berlin Wall came down, only in our case the police wouldn’t let us take anything,” said a woman who, after an altercation with police officers, retrieved a rotting plank of wood.
In 1989 Greek and Turkish Cypriots agreed to a partial military disengagement of sentry posts in Nicosia which reduced tensions.
Turkish Cypriot authorities eased restrictions on visits across the Green Line in 2003 and five crossing points have been erected since then between the north and south.
Cyprus relations remain a stumbling block to Turkey’s EU membership aspirations and a source of tension with neighbouring Greece. Greek Cypriots voted against a U.N. re-unification plan shortly before joining the EU in 2004.