Demonstrations for freedom and democracy began in Syria as an outgrowth of last year's "Arab Spring" movement. Syrian demonstrators began taking to the streets in late January 2011 and gathered strength in March, following the successful liberalization movements in Tunisia and Egypt and while the Libyan effort was still underway. While most Americans are aware of the turmoil in Syria, especially now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is speaking out strongly in favor of the rebels, the overall situation seems rather confusing. There are indeed several levels of complexity, both from the mix of different groups inside Syria and from the intricacies of international politics. I'll try to shed some light on things.
You can learn quite a bit about the country from the U.S. State Department site on Syria. It's strategically important because it is situated on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea next to Israel and Lebanon. It also borders Iraq, Jordan and regional power Turkey. Protests arose in Syria as a result of its repressive governmental regime. Though ostensibly a republic, Syria is in actuality an authoritarian one-party state that has labored under the grip of the Assad family since 1970, when Air Force Colonel and Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup. The Ba'ath (Arab Socialist Renaissance) Party runs the show, enforced by a security apparatus that operates outside the bounds of the constitutional legal system. Upon Assad's death in 2000 he was succeeded by his Western-educated son Bashar.
There was quite a bit of hope of reform when Bashar took over, given his Western training and public relations charm offensive upon taking over the government. But disapointment in his continuation of police-state ruthlessness combined with economic stagnation and the examples of other Arab people throwing off oppressive regimes finally led to upheaval in Syria. What began as peaceful protests and demonstrations was met by increasingly brutal force from police elements and even the military. Finally, defections from army units by soldiers unwilling to fire on their own people led to an armed resistance to Assad's crackdown. The city of Homs, population 1.7 million, has been surrounded and unceasingly shelled by Syrian Army units for weeks. An estimated 9,000 people have been killed throughout the country by regime forces. See video here.
In addition to the objection to dictatorship and police-state control, religious division is part of the equation in Syria too. Syria is a majority-Muslim nation, and about 74% of the nation's 22.5 million people follow mainline Sunni Islam. Another 10% are Christians. The Assads, however, are members of the secretive Allawi sect, to which about 12% of Syrians adhere. Allawites claim to be Muslims, basing their views on Ali, a cousin of Muhammad from whom the group derives its name, but many Sunnis see them as heretics against traditional Islam. Though Sunnis and Christians are carefully included in the Assad Ba'ath power structure at lower levels, Allawites close to the Assads dominate all the higher echelon posts. A desire to break minority Allawi control of the state is an important contributing factor to the anti-government movement.
The tangled international situation regarding Syria can be confusing as well. Though the Assad regime has been condemned and asked to resign by the Arab League and the United Nations General Assembly and subjected to economic sanctions by the United States and the European Union for its murderous crackdown on its own citizens, Russia and China have used their U.N. Security Council vetoes to prevent U.N. sanctions or possible military intervention. Many wonder why. It is part of a larger power struggle of alignments playing out across the region. As a fellow pariah regime, Syria has allied itself with Iran, providing its services as a conduit of support for the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Without much oil itself, the Syrian regime felt the need for a wealthy benefactor, and Iran has filled the bill. Cozying up to Iran had already put Syria out of the good graces of the United States and Europe. But what is more, it also incurred the hostility of Sunni Muslim Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Egypt, who not only disagree religiously with Iran's Shia version of Islam but fear Iran's apparent drive to develop a nuclear weapon which could be used to intimidate or even attack them. Arabs also feel no ethnic affinity for Iranians, who are Persians and not Arabs.
Russia and China are so far sticking up for Syria, in a gambit to prevent increasing Western inroads into the Middle East and to try to enhance their own leverage. Part of this is due to Chinese dependence on Iranian oil. But also in the calculation is the thought that if the pro-Iranian Syrian government goes down that could mean another pro-Western nation in the region, isolating Iran and Russian and Chinese influence even further. It wouldn't be surprising to see Sunni arms getting into Syria to aid the rebels soon, perhaps through Jordan. If Turkey were to similarly cooperate it would quickly spell curtains for Assad and his regime--unless Russia and/or China came to his aid. That would be a perilous situation indeed, for it could run the risk of a great-power confrontation.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Libertarianism
Reader David asked me to comment on libertarianism. I'll first take a look at what libertarianism is and believes and then I'll share my perspectives on its usefulness for our society. You can find a good definition and background explanation of the development of libertarian thought in the WordIQ article here. The Libertarian Party of the United States provides an excellent synopsis of its beliefs on various issues in its 2010 Libertarian Party Platform.
The fundamental idea of libertarianism is, as the word implies, to maximize individual liberty. Libertarians believe that all rights originate with the individual and that collective, national or government entities have no rights or prerogatives. In this view, individuals should enjoy the maximum freedom possible in their economic, personal and private lives to do as they see fit with as little restriction as possible. Basically, everyone should take care of themselves and no one should be obligated to contribute to the welfare of anyone else.
Not all libertarians agree on every detail, but based on the philosophical basis described in the previous paragraph, most libertarians are minarchists, people who believe there should be a government but that its responsibilities should be strictly minimal. The Libertarian Party Platform identifies governmental responsibilities as enforcing property rights and contracts, enforcing laws against force and fraud, and national defense and intelligence.
The 2010 Platform document shows they do not feel that government has legitimate authority to do such things as tax people or regulate the economy, including trade and the prevention of monopolies. They oppose any regulation of immigration or the environment, personal behavior such as drug use or consensual sexual relations, and the institution of a military draft under any circumstances. People's retirement, medical care and education should be their own responsibilities, thus programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the public school systems ought to be abolished.
As most thinking people will ascertain from what they have read so far, libertarianism is a utopian philosophy. It has a total faith in private decision making and none at all in group decision making or in society acting together or though its elected representatives to protect its own rights and interests from individual threats or dangers. Back in 2010 I did one of these blogs ("What Rand Paul Means") on the views of libertarian-leaning Republican Tennessee Senator Rand Paul, relating how in an interview he took issue with such laws as the Civil Rights Act and environmental laws. In his interview, Paul asserted the superiority of property rights over human rights. He said, for example, that a restaurant owner ought to be able to racially discriminate in his own place of business and that BP should have been able to pollute the Gulf of Mexico to its heart's content.
Ron Paul is a Texas Congressman and current Republican Presidential candidate. The father of Rand Paul, Ron is a former Libertarian Party presidential nominee. Much of his support this year has come from younger voters, most of whom are male. I would surmise that libertarianism may have a particular appeal to some younger people because of its simplicity. It is indeed logically consistent. Just take all the controls off everything; there is no need to think about anything except one's own self-interest. And young men, in particular, tend to consider themselves invulnerable. They think they will never be old and sick, or laid off and broke.
The reality, however, is that the libertarian utopian vision is impractical in the extreme. I believe a nation governed under strongly libertarian principles would descend into a hellish chaos. Without counter cyclical policies, recessions would be deeper and last longer. Pollution would rage uncontrolled. Racial, ethnic and gender discrimination would return. A monopoly or syndicalized cartel would soon control every aspect of the economy, pauperizing the citizenry and likely setting up a corporative fascist-style society. Only the wealthy could afford to school their children or medically insure themselves. The elderly and infirm would consequently starve in their hovels and epidemics would rage uncontrolled. The gap between the wealthy few and the desperate many would come to resemble that of France and Russia on the eves of their respective cataclysmic revolutions. The final chapter would, I feel, entail such a revolution happening here.
The fundamental idea of libertarianism is, as the word implies, to maximize individual liberty. Libertarians believe that all rights originate with the individual and that collective, national or government entities have no rights or prerogatives. In this view, individuals should enjoy the maximum freedom possible in their economic, personal and private lives to do as they see fit with as little restriction as possible. Basically, everyone should take care of themselves and no one should be obligated to contribute to the welfare of anyone else.
Not all libertarians agree on every detail, but based on the philosophical basis described in the previous paragraph, most libertarians are minarchists, people who believe there should be a government but that its responsibilities should be strictly minimal. The Libertarian Party Platform identifies governmental responsibilities as enforcing property rights and contracts, enforcing laws against force and fraud, and national defense and intelligence.
The 2010 Platform document shows they do not feel that government has legitimate authority to do such things as tax people or regulate the economy, including trade and the prevention of monopolies. They oppose any regulation of immigration or the environment, personal behavior such as drug use or consensual sexual relations, and the institution of a military draft under any circumstances. People's retirement, medical care and education should be their own responsibilities, thus programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the public school systems ought to be abolished.
As most thinking people will ascertain from what they have read so far, libertarianism is a utopian philosophy. It has a total faith in private decision making and none at all in group decision making or in society acting together or though its elected representatives to protect its own rights and interests from individual threats or dangers. Back in 2010 I did one of these blogs ("What Rand Paul Means") on the views of libertarian-leaning Republican Tennessee Senator Rand Paul, relating how in an interview he took issue with such laws as the Civil Rights Act and environmental laws. In his interview, Paul asserted the superiority of property rights over human rights. He said, for example, that a restaurant owner ought to be able to racially discriminate in his own place of business and that BP should have been able to pollute the Gulf of Mexico to its heart's content.
Ron Paul is a Texas Congressman and current Republican Presidential candidate. The father of Rand Paul, Ron is a former Libertarian Party presidential nominee. Much of his support this year has come from younger voters, most of whom are male. I would surmise that libertarianism may have a particular appeal to some younger people because of its simplicity. It is indeed logically consistent. Just take all the controls off everything; there is no need to think about anything except one's own self-interest. And young men, in particular, tend to consider themselves invulnerable. They think they will never be old and sick, or laid off and broke.
The reality, however, is that the libertarian utopian vision is impractical in the extreme. I believe a nation governed under strongly libertarian principles would descend into a hellish chaos. Without counter cyclical policies, recessions would be deeper and last longer. Pollution would rage uncontrolled. Racial, ethnic and gender discrimination would return. A monopoly or syndicalized cartel would soon control every aspect of the economy, pauperizing the citizenry and likely setting up a corporative fascist-style society. Only the wealthy could afford to school their children or medically insure themselves. The elderly and infirm would consequently starve in their hovels and epidemics would rage uncontrolled. The gap between the wealthy few and the desperate many would come to resemble that of France and Russia on the eves of their respective cataclysmic revolutions. The final chapter would, I feel, entail such a revolution happening here.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Conventioneering in San Diego
Over the weekend of February 10-12 I went to the California Democratic Party Convention in San Diego. I attended as a delegate and also went with nine students of the College of the Sequoias Young Democrats Club. We came down in two vans; two faculty colleagues, Lisa Greer and Sandy Valenzuela, came with us and drove the other van. This was the club's fourth consecutive annual state convention, and mine as well. In a recap today at the club meeting, President Jerry Lopez said the experience helped get him energized and eager to help campaign in 2012 for issues and candidates.
Governor Jerry Brown and Senator Dianne Feinstein represented the voices of experience. Brown understands state government like few others and laid out a clear vision of priorities centered on economic growth, investment in necessary infrastructure and education. He is keenly aware of limits but realizes there are down payments on the future that must be paid. Feinstein was the voice of reason in national affairs. As befits what needs doing in a recession, her focus is jobs now, deficits later.
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Kamala Harris seemed like the leaders of the future, statewide officers who will be the ones to contend for the top posts when the old guard changes. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor who was briefly able to legalize gay marriage in the city, has done a great deal of work on a very comprehensive development plan for the state over the next few years. In addition to his strong speaking skills, the ladies never fail to mention his leading-man good looks. Former prosecutor Harris was flush off her tremendous performance in the national negotiations over financial malfeasance. Despite heavy pressure to settle for easy terms, Harris demanded and got a nine fold increase in the penalties assessed to the five biggest banks in the lending and foreclosure crisis, a total of $25 billion, $18 billion of which is coming to California. She gave a rousing speech on consumer protection and income and tax fairness that brought down the house.
U. S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis represented President Obama's administration. She reminded the convention of Obama's many achievements and commitment to keep fighting for initiatives that foster jobs and opportunity. Access to higher education, labor rights, tax policies that incentivize creating and keeping jobs in America were some of her main themes.
It was a long drive but San Diego is a beautiful city and the Young Democrats got to enjoy a rare close-up glimpse of prominent officials, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who pointed out that a gain of 25 seats in the election could once again make her Speaker. The YD's also got to run their own show and held their own convention from 4 to 7 on Saturday night. Besides Jerry, our other attendees were Chelsea Velasquez, Rebecca Salgado, Samuel Diamant, Edith Pedraza, Erin Hitchcock, Jovani Lemus, Evann Peterson and Jonathon Sosa. (Yes, I got those spellings right!) Most remarkable, COS Young Democrats member Louie Campos was named "Democrat of the Year" for California Region 11 (Tulare, Inyo and San Bernardino Counties)! It is great to see our young people take an interest in public affairs and work to make a difference.
Governor Jerry Brown and Senator Dianne Feinstein represented the voices of experience. Brown understands state government like few others and laid out a clear vision of priorities centered on economic growth, investment in necessary infrastructure and education. He is keenly aware of limits but realizes there are down payments on the future that must be paid. Feinstein was the voice of reason in national affairs. As befits what needs doing in a recession, her focus is jobs now, deficits later.
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Kamala Harris seemed like the leaders of the future, statewide officers who will be the ones to contend for the top posts when the old guard changes. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor who was briefly able to legalize gay marriage in the city, has done a great deal of work on a very comprehensive development plan for the state over the next few years. In addition to his strong speaking skills, the ladies never fail to mention his leading-man good looks. Former prosecutor Harris was flush off her tremendous performance in the national negotiations over financial malfeasance. Despite heavy pressure to settle for easy terms, Harris demanded and got a nine fold increase in the penalties assessed to the five biggest banks in the lending and foreclosure crisis, a total of $25 billion, $18 billion of which is coming to California. She gave a rousing speech on consumer protection and income and tax fairness that brought down the house.
U. S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis represented President Obama's administration. She reminded the convention of Obama's many achievements and commitment to keep fighting for initiatives that foster jobs and opportunity. Access to higher education, labor rights, tax policies that incentivize creating and keeping jobs in America were some of her main themes.
It was a long drive but San Diego is a beautiful city and the Young Democrats got to enjoy a rare close-up glimpse of prominent officials, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who pointed out that a gain of 25 seats in the election could once again make her Speaker. The YD's also got to run their own show and held their own convention from 4 to 7 on Saturday night. Besides Jerry, our other attendees were Chelsea Velasquez, Rebecca Salgado, Samuel Diamant, Edith Pedraza, Erin Hitchcock, Jovani Lemus, Evann Peterson and Jonathon Sosa. (Yes, I got those spellings right!) Most remarkable, COS Young Democrats member Louie Campos was named "Democrat of the Year" for California Region 11 (Tulare, Inyo and San Bernardino Counties)! It is great to see our young people take an interest in public affairs and work to make a difference.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Romney's Not Very Concerned About the Poor
There's something just not quite right about Mitt Romney. It's true he has been governor of a state and did a good job running the Salt Lake City Olympic Games. He made a lot of money at Bain Capital. He reads a script well and has a handsome smile, but when he speaks off the cuff he tends to reveal an astonishingly deaf ear and callously dismissive attitude about those who don't move in his upper crust circles. He talks a lot about regular Americans but doesn't seems to have the slightest comprehension of what being one is really like. Yesterday he committed another huge "gaffe." This is the latest in a now lengthening succession of such verbal missteps. It seems to me when someone keeps saying the same kinds of things over and over it's not an exception or an aberration; it's how a person really thinks.
Yesterday's stunner was, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." The rich are doing "just fine" and the poor have a "safety net" that he will attend to if it needs some fixing, but that's apparently about it. He wants to focus on being president of the middle class, he said. Even Newt Gingrich quickly shot back that he looked forward to being president and looking after the needs of the whole American people. Today at the National Prayer Breakfast President Obama spoke of the Sermon on the Mount and how Jesus's commands to help the plight of "the least among us" motivates much of his policy thinking. Even Rush Limbaugh lectured on the sheer political stupidity of Romney's remark, of making himself a caricature of the "stereotypical rich Republican."
This follows a string of comments all hitting the same note. One was told jokingly, "I should tell my own story, I'm also unemployed!" The son of the president of an automobile manufacturer who later became governor of a state, Romney implausibly purported to have "worried about getting a pink slip" during one campaign stop. Then there was his challenge to bet Rick Perry $10,000 during a debate, a figure seemingly meant to signify a small friendly wager to him. He commented that his income from speaking fees last year was "not very much." It was $370,000, or seven times the income of the average American. He famously said he, "likes firing people" who provide services to him. He made major headlines by opposing tax hikes on corporations at one event by opining that, "Corporations are people too, my friend." He can't seem to comprehend how anyone could think his 13.9% tax rate on his largely investment-derived income was unfair compared to the 35% rate many pay on money earned actually working at a job. He has ascribed such a perspective to "envy."
While Obama was at the prayer breakfast discussing the New Testament's injunctions to serve those in pain and need, Romney, as if to underscore his plutocratic pedigree, was today in Las Vegas receiving the endorsement of none other than Donald Trump. Mr. Romney can't seem to help coming across as a "swell," a rich kid who has never had to interact with regular folks very much and has very little clue what it's like to actually be one. And that's likely because, well, that's who he really is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)