i don't get this

ughhh...man, can conservative media be idiotic. what a bunch of douches:

jerk

the real reason why i link the above it, like so many other articles i've seen about the convention, talk about hillary clinton. a commonly cited fact is "only 52 percent of whom are now supporting him, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll." but i don't get this?! each article seems to make reference to some generic angry, bicurious, vengeful, near-sighted, embittered hillary supporter. but i don't think there are that many of these. are hillary supporters really so myopic and bitter? many some, but even with the above poll, i'm not convinced it's many. here's an over-simplification of the three hillary supporters i envision (sorry for the cartoonish stereotypes):

1. liberal, feminist women
2. clinton-lovers (southern democrats and the like that loved bill clinton and the clinton brand of democratic politics)
3. salt of the earth working class rural folk in west virginia (and other rural states where obama was creamed)

of these three, i think #2 shouldn't be a problem. people who are truly clinton-lovers, are deeply partisan. as much as they dislike the primary results, their democrats and will grit their teeth and put aside resentment to vote obama. with #3, i think this group is always tough for a democratic candidate. had clinton gotten the nomination, i still think it would've been a tough job to keep from losing these votes to a republican ticket. obama is actively working to gain these votes with the biden selection, and i think just as in the primaries it's gonna be tough. and these are the important votes. painting mccain as disconnected and shrouded in multi-house luxury is good tactic for obama. the #1s, however, seem to be the most often-cited disgruntled hillary supporters. but i don't think they're a large contingency and i don't think any would really vote for a pro-life, drill and kill gop candidate.

it's all about securing #3. it was this demographic that obama struggled with in the primaries. and mccain thus far seems like a much less formidable candidate than hillary in securing these votes. they're the 52%, and they're what ultimately matters.

kagan quotes i'll look at

there's certainly a lot of things that I strongly disagree with Kagan about, but he's a smart guy, and it's helpful to read someone who is able to describe the bush administration and the past decade as a logical, linear process (on the surface to me it just seems disconnected and illogical). also, his conclusion--the last three paragraphs below--seem incredible for a realist like kagan to make. a realist advocating more international cooperation and a less state-centric world?? that's what I just wrote in the post I made five minutes ago! so, guess it's pretty clear i agree with that conclusion then...as much as my analysis of the bush administration may differ. here are some quotes:


The problem with the "war on terror" paradigm is not that the war has failed in its main and vitally important purpose. It is that the paradigm was and is an insufficient one on which to base the entirety of U.S. foreign policy.

In a world of selfish states and selfish peoples -- which is to say, the world that exists -- the question is always, "What is in it for us?" The inadequacy of the "war on terror" paradigm stems from the fact that very few nations other than the United States consider terrorism to be their primary challenge. The United States' fight has not been regarded as an international "public good" for which the rest of the world can be grateful. On the contrary, most nations believe that they are doing the United States a favor when they send troops to Afghanistan (or Iraq), often at a perceived sacrifice to their own interests.

The war on terror, in short, has been a source more of division than of unity. The United States, which in the 1990s was already seen by many as a bullying hegemon, came to be viewed after September 11 as a self-absorbed, bullying hegemon, heedless of the consequences of its actions.

....

It would also be an illusion, however, to imagine that there can be an easy return to the U.S. leadership and the cooperation among U.S. allies that existed during the Cold War era. There is no single unifying threat along the same lines as the Soviet Union to bind the United States and other nations together in seemingly permanent alliance. The world today looks more like that of the nineteenth century than like that of the late twentieth. Those who imagine this is good news should recall that the nineteenth-century order did not end as well as the Cold War did.

To avoid such a fate, the United States and other democratic nations will need to take a more enlightened and generous view of their interests than they did even during the Cold War. The United States, as the strongest democracy, should not oppose but welcome a world of pooled and diminished national sovereignty. It has little to fear and much to gain in a world of expanding laws and norms based on liberal ideals and designed to protect them. At the same time, the democracies of Asia and Europe need to rediscover that progress toward this more perfect liberal order depends not only on law and popular will but also on powerful nations that can support and defend it.

In a selfish world, this kind of enlightened wisdom may be beyond the capacities of all states. But if there is any hope, it lies in a renewed understanding of the importance of values. The United States and other democratic nations share a common aspiration for a liberal international order, built on democratic principles and held together, however imperfectly, by laws and conventions among nations. This order is gradually coming under pressure as the great-power autocracies grow in strength and influence and as the antidemocratic struggle of radical Islamic terrorism persists. If the democracies' need for one another is less obvious than before, the need for these nations, including the United States, to "see further into the future" is all the greater.

the future in perspective

kagan: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_september_12_paradigm.html

make national interests international interests.

when two states share a common interest, then unity, compromise, and communication will permeate their interactions and actions.

thus, from a realist perspective the best way to make the state-centric world more cooperative and less state-centric is by unifying interest.

ex1. it has to be in the interest of strong states to aid weak states. what's more it has to be in the interest of strong states to provide aid to weak states that comes without compromising the interests of weak states (through domestic policy and politics manipulation). it has to be in the interest of weak states to relenquish a bit of sovereignty and accept humanitarian intervention from time to time in order to grow and become more sovereing in the long term. strong state aid to weak states cannot be simply "humanitarian" for it to be successful; it must be necessary for strong state national interest as well as for weak state national interest.

ex2. it has to be in the interest of the world (as it should already be by now) to act on international problems that effect national interest: climate control, international justice, etc.

blah blah.

Don't get me wrong david brooks is the man

but in response to:

david brooks' article, 7-25

I think there's no harm in unbridled optimism. It empowers folks and catalyzes action. obama's campaign speaks for itself, the empowering nature of them has spurred lots of apathetic folks to be local political organizers and such. Sure there's a lack of concreteness and reality to his speeches--and yeah, brooks is right it is a sort of saccharine facade--but the power and optimism it creates is useful too. 

Obama is way more of a cynical realist than those speeches indicate. He's damn smart when he looks at the cold reality of things. (see his q&a in Iraq)

I think obama's got a pretty good balance of cynical realism and optimism. The trick for the public is listening to both sides of him.

I'll try to lay off the Obama posts for a bit. There are other people and other things going on in the world.

Added:

Another thought: I feel like every op-ed piece I read (mostly in the nytimes, but wpost too) and every mid-thirties to sixties person I speak with is hyperbolically close-minded and overwhelmingly cynical. Uninformed, but cynical. All they can find are the evils and stupidities of this administration and the evils and stupidity of the corporations and the private sector unhinged. In most respects there absolutely right. But it seems like everyone's lost sight of optimistic moderation and logical balance.

Nothing is inherently evil and stupid. We're all more alike than we'd like to admit. And, in general, we all want the same thing, just disagree in the ways to obtain it. Snide swipes at people and events are necessary, but that doesn't mean they help anything.

That's why I find Obama's optimism so incredible. And it's great for me, because I know that at the same time he's grounded in the reality of things; yet he pushes people off this cold, sad level that is the mentality of our nation.

Lastly:

For the most part, David Brooks is the one op-ed writer that keeps this balance of moderated criticism and a logical, balanced look at things--not laded in hyperbolic critiques that appeal to the baby-boomers-turned-old masses.

Everything's In Sight, Anything's Possible

words / ideas prompted by: Obama's Remarks From Jordan

I'm continually impressed with Barack Obama. I think this post needs more than the usual Obama-crazed blogosphere affection, but in due time. In due time.

Here are just some general reactions to parts of the speech:

• I should read political speeches more; most legislators are incredibly thoughtful, well-spoken people. Yet speeches rarely are heard (unless you're one of the 5 people who watches C-Span), and full quotes are rarely published. Media sources interpret for the public; they're translators. And just like a translation of a novel, even the best can't convey the style of the original author. Can't pick up each thought / emotion / phrasing that the speaker articulates. All of this adds up to a subjective interpretation and a different reaction prompted by the reader than the actual speech would have prompted.

• Obama constantly mentions successful foreign policy in the Middle East (and entire world for that matter) as being more than just military action. Eliminating al Qaeda, bringing stability to Iraq, and establishing peace between Israel and Palestine is about much more than just military action. It's about more than aggressive counter-terrorism and policies like The Surge. 
  

For instance; to fight al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan will take more than just shifting troops from Iraq over to these areas. It will take stability in these two states in order to sustain the fight against terrorists. And to bring stability to these states, the US must help Afghanistan and Pakistan bring "economic opportunity for their people."

The same goes for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israelis want security, and economically- frustrated Palestinians who feel they have no opportunities will not ensure Israeli security. Palestinians that feel suffocated, without a chance for bettering themselves economically will react against the establishment that they believe has created this (Israel). And the terrorism that this economic frustration spurs will just perpetuate a cycle of senseless violence between the two sides. Therefore, as Obama says economic opportunities for Palestinians are in the interest of Israeli security and peace between the two. So logical. (side note: What if some of the money donated by wealthy Jewish Americans that funds birthright trips and powerful lobbying organizations instead went to social welfare and education programs for economically-disadvantaged Palestinians (and Israelis))?

Lastly, Obama talks extensively about how for stability in Iraq there must be significant political progress (specifically in reconciliation between rival groups that distrust one another). In addition, economic opportunities must be created for Iraqis and growing national wealth created by skyrocketing oil prices must be spent wisely and productively. So while The Surge (starring Steven Seagal) may have "worked" in the eyes of most, the solution to domestic and international problems ultimately cannot be accomplished solely by the military.

9/11 can be an example of a failure to do provide economic opportunity. Highly educated Saudis with little economic opportunity living under a US-funded autocratic government were filtered into religious extremism. When they looked around and saw that their lack of opportunity was made possible, in part, by the US funding the decadent, oppressive House of Saud, they targeted US.

• In short, Obama's solutions involve military action, but only as a bolt in a larger machine aimed at bringing peace. Education, economic opportunity, and unity are the real agents of peace. (Nicholas Kristof couldn't have articulated this better in a recent article.) Books not bombs. Obama sees the larger picture; sure The Surge worked for what it was aiming to do, but do we have a safer US?

• Some other quick thoughts: in his speech Obama sums up the feelings / frustrations of: Israelis, Palestinians, General Petraeus, Afganis, President Maliki, Iraqi provincial officials, and Sunni tribal leaders to name a few. And he does it with a succinct thoughtful grace. I got the impression that he really is a great listener; able to understand and learn a lot from his conversations with various world leaders.

• Obama has a confident, unbridled optimism. In the course of his speech he even manages to touch on ways to resolve tensions/conflict between Pakistan and India. Everything's in sight and anything's possible.

Somalia, Islam, Democracy, Confusion

ideas / words prompted by: Somalia Killings of Aid Workers Imperil Relief (nytimes)

Being weary of sounding like Samuel Huntington: what we have today is a major ideological clash. Similar to the last great ideological clash between capitalism and communism, however, with some significant differences and oddities.

The battle today is between democracy and Islamic fundamentalsim. Islam is practiced throughout the world. It is the second most practiced religion, and at danger of generalizaing, it has become the primary religion in weak, developing states. In many developing states (specifically in Africa, Asia) that have already been torn apart by western colonialism, western international institutions, and western-backed anti-communist fascist regimes, Islam is a welcome tonic. Nevertheless, the idea of a government guided solely by religion is dangerous anywhere you go. Cemented dogma, closemindedness, and authoritarian religious leaders are bad. Maybe an authoritarian leader can be good—and may even be necessary—in developing states, but whether this is true and the world will allow it to be proven true is another issue. (For instance, Hitler was popular in Weimar Germany and welcomed for the authoritative control he took over Germany’s WWI-torn economy, but then…)

The ideological war between democracy and Islamic fundamentalism is hurting mainstream Muslims (and less fundamentalist regimes) in developing states. For instance. An Islamic government emerged in Somalia bringing stability to a nation that had been termed a "collapsed state" for decades. This Islamic government defeated violent, business-like warlords and united the nation. Under this religious regime, the country was relatively peaceful for a year until the UN backed (or asked...I don't know) Ethiopian troops to invade the country and establish a non (or less) Islamic regime. The UN justified these rather strong actions by claiming that the government was connected to al-Qaeda.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea. I’m still in college, and haven’t been anywhere near the Horn of Africa or Middle East.

What I do see is that, like in the international war between communism and capitalism, weak states trying to develop with the aid of either socialism or capitalist democracy are being torn apart by the extremes of these ideologies. Each ideology is insecure and reacts harshly to any positive middle ground that a nation might assume. Weak states are caught between major ideological powers fighting a major ideological. The US, fearing the spread of socialism to the Americas, backed Pinochet’s military government over the nationally-elected Salvador Allende. This is the story in countless other places. On the other side of things, in Afghanistan and throughout much of Africa, the USSR took power and gave weapons to leaders who would emerge as violent dictators. (Although in many cases the USSR helped liberation movements, which must be lauded).

Today, in Somalia, and throughout the world, the UN fears extreme Islam, and moderate / healthy Islamic governments that do not exterminate extremists / fundamentalists suffer. Likewise, healthy secular democracies, that do not peg Westerners as “infidels” suffer. More and more, this war is in already weak states where different (hegemonic-aspiring) ideologies grapple for supremacy.

There are of course some obvious shortcomings of this analogy. The most blatant of which is the following: while the fact that this 'battle' is between two ideologies might suggest a bipolar world (as was the case during the Cold War), instead today there exists a unipolar world with the US (and the EU) acting as the sole hegemon. More and more the representatives of the other ideological force (Islamic fundamentalism) are non-state actors (sub-state or international organizations).