Independent Caucus

Something To Be Afraid Of

And here after I quoted FDR and everything.

But fear is useful I think to this extent - it gets your attention.  It's impossible to be obliviously afraid.  Whether you respond to fear effectively, with effective action, is a different question.  But you certainly don't respond at all if you never feel the fear.

Well, here's something to be afraid of:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/budget_deficit

The Bush administration and the Congress are jointly responsible for the passage of laws and appropriations bills which will give the U.S. a record budget deficit in 2008.  An all-time record of nearly $500 billion in additional debt added to the national debt total of now something probably approaching $10 trillion, as it was already over $9 trillion several months ago.  That's the total accumulated debt of the United States, many of those trillions owed to lenders outside the United States, which means the interest isn't even recirculating within our economy, but leaving our shores for good, except for the degree to which those foreigners turn around and buy American products.  If you'll take notice of our trade deficit, you'll see that we are far more buying their products than they are buying ours.

So our country - literally - is getting poorer.  Rather than paying cash (i.e. from collected tax revenues) for what our government wants, it is seeing fit, Republicans and Democrats alike, the President, as well as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Baynor, and so on, to not ask us for that money, where we (the electorate) might answer "no", but to take the irresponsible yet politically expedient way out, which is just to borrow it.  And not even to borrow it from American banks, which could put pressure on the money supply here and increase domestic interest rates, where the electorate might again say "no", but to borrow it from foreign lenders.

If you don't fear that, you will not take any action, effective or ineffective.

An appropriate metaphor here, and an especially appropriate one for America, is that of a heavy person on his way to obesity.  A heavy person can continue or accelerate the behavior which made him heavy, and still be able to well function (play golf, walk, climb steps, dress well, but in clothes of larger size) up to a point.  Then walking becomes unpleasant, as does climbing stairs or any other act of physical exertion, because of the feeling and cosmetic appearance of being out of breath.  So such person now drives more and takes elevators, yet continues the behavior, the same level and kind of eating, and now the obesity accelerates at an even more astonishing pace.  Once the person says, "Enough!  This sucks!  I feel and look terrible, and I can't do anything!" the road to an improved life is a long, slow and painful one, full of sacrifice, pain, and hard work.

Since and including Ronald Reagan, presidents and congresses, with the exception of Bill Clinton and the Newt Gingrich Congress, have continued to eat and eat and eat, leaving the attendant problems from such behavior to some future President and Congress to address, with pain, sacrifice, and hard work.

Left for too long, and we know what happens to the obese person.  He simply doesn't make it.  I'm not predicting that for this country.  We, the electorate, will see the obesity, will see the problem eventually.  And we will act, with resolve, sacrifice, pain, and hard work.  But it will be a long road back.  And it could take several decades.  That prospect is worth fearing.  It's time to feel the fear, and say "no" right now.

A Few Predictions

Obama will be next president.  Ok, everyone is saying, "What?  Shocking!"  And that's partly why Obama will be next president.

The next vice president will be...Joe Biden.  Now everyone is saying, "Dude, enough with Biden already.  I know you and he have a virtual love fest going on, but give it a rest."  Anyone who heard Obama on Meet The Press today, and heard his description of his future vice president, heard him say, in so many words, that it will be Hillary or Joe Biden.

First, he laughed at concern over the question of "What do you do with Bill?"  He laughed.  He said he not only wants Bill Clinton campaigning for him, but that he considers him one of the most intelligent men in politics or any other arena, and he wants his counsel as president.  Al Gore should have been so insightful.  And he called Hillary one of the most intelligent, courageous, tireless, and effective politicians in the country.  He dodged various of Tom Brokaw's other questions.  He didn't have to go on like that.  He respects the Clintons.  And Hillary is still in the running.  In fact, here's another prediction:  If Obama chooses a woman, he will choose no other woman than Hillary Clinton.

Why Biden?  Because, again, in answering Brokaw, he said he wants someone who can be president, who is an independent thinker, who absolutely will tell Obama if he disagrees with him, who shares his vision that the approach to domestic and international politics has to fundamentally change, and finally, someone with whom Obama can work directly and closely in solving problems and drafting strategy.  He said he doesn't want a vice president for attending state funerals, but someone who will roll up his sleeves and work together with Obama to solve domestic and international problems.

Folks, that description doesn't leave many people.  You can completely forget about any governor.  Obama doesn't know any very closely.  He knows senators the best.  It will be a senator.  If it's a female senator, it will be Hillary.  If it's a male senator, well, I hope you see my point now, of the senators with the gravitas to be president, whom Obama knows well and highly respects, who is an independent thinker and politician, and who shares his general vision, well, I don't know another male senator besides Biden who fits all of that.

Please share a comment if you think there is another, or if you think it will be a governor.  But I'm going on what Obama says are his reasons and criteria for choosing a vice president, and among the few criteria is someone he knows, trusts, and can work closely with on a daily basis, and on the matters and problems which will be most central to his administration.  That's Biden.  I don't know of any others.  If you do, please share.

Lastly, I have heard before what a keen and astute analyst King Abdullah of Jordan is just generally, but particularly on matters relating to the Middle East.  Obama made mention of this again with Brokaw.  Brokaw showed the text of an answer from the King on the threat posed by Iran, whether Iran was the greatest threat to the region.  And, of course, this relates to the previous post on that subject, and he said flatly no, that Iran was not the greatest threat, that, boring and familiar as it may sound, no peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is, as it has been, the greatest threat to peace in the region, and to the world.  And that leads to this prediction:  A Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement will occur within the Obama presidency.  He's focused on it.  He wants it.  He believes the Bush administration erred greatly by not picking up where President Clinton left off, which was very nearly a peace agreement.

McCain may choose Romney.  Obviously, the word "may" falls short of a prediction, so that statement is only a safe statement of the obvious.  But if he does, it will be a tremendous sell-out, because he doesn't like him.  If he does what Obama has basically said he will not, which is choose, through political calculation, some swing-state governor no one has ever heard of, then he will appear like an old-school politician rather than a maverick, only because he will be behaving like one.  I think he may just do either of those things.  If he avoids both of those mistakes (no state governor that I am aware of has the gravitas to be president right now except Ed Rendell, who doesn't want the job, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, incredibly successful governor of the largest state in the country, who is constitutionally prohibited from being vice president), and doesn't take a woman just to take one, another mistake, then what you are going to get is a boring white guy - either a fellow Republican senator with whom McCain has plenty of personal experience, or someone like Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania, and the first head of Homeland Security.  Such choice will be his best, but as with his other bad choices, unavoidably hurts him, due to the decidedly non-change look of two white men on the Republican ticket.  But it's true to McCain's maverick reputation as a non-political politician, and to what he has said is his number one criteria for the choice - someone who can step in and be president.

So, the final prediction, less confidently delivered, is that McCain will choose Ridge or a fellow Republican senator.  If he chooses otherwise, in the end, I think it hurts him.  People make too much of the notion that choosing Johnson gave Kennedy Texas.  Authenticity determines elections more than political calculus.  Just ask Al Gore, and, if you want, see the "Authenticity" post, if you want to make me happy, and boost my blog numbers.

So, that's it.  Obama-Biden.  McCain-Ridge.  Obama-Biden.  And if it's a woman, then substitute Clinton for Biden, but otherwise predictions stay the same, oh, in which case, pencil in Biden for the job everyone for years has been saying he would hold if either Hillary or Obama became President, and that's Secretary of State.

With these predictions, I'm putting at risk a good predictive past.  Last October, when the major news outlets were saying it would be Rudy versus Hillary, I said the final four would be:  Clinton, Biden, McCain, Huckabee.  Three for four.  Not bad.  And if Biden actually becomes Vice President, then arguably it's three and a half for four.  But it's fun to do, predict.  And it's why we love our NCAA basketball pool.  It's fun.  So feel free to join in the fun, and add a comment with your prediction, and in the end we will give props and kudos to whomever predicted correctly.  But, in true IndependentCaucus fashion, be sure to tell us why you predict whomever you predict.  Because that's what we want to know here, and why this blog exists at all.

Should We Fear Iran?

Is Iran a threat?  Should the U.S. be afraid of what they might likely do to us if we anger them too severely?  Should Israel fear Iran dropping a nuke on a major Israeli city?  Should we fear them dropping one on one of our cities?  Should we fear them building one and happily handing it over to Al Qaeda to do with as they please?

I'll save you all the utter delight and entertainment you derive from reading through my usual 7 or 8 paragraphs at this point.  NO!

Now, during the Cold War?...Russia..Russia was threat.  World powers of any size were either communist or capitalist/democratic, and an ideological struggle was taking place that had everyone worried that if one side thought it had reasonable chance of completely taking out the other side before the other side could respond in kind, then it might just try.

Even Al Qaeda doesn't live under such illusion!  They took down two buildings in America and have been hiding in caves and remote border regions since.  And they ever shall hide.  And if they ever did set off a biological weapon, dirty nuke, or especially clean one, necessarily gift-wrapped and handed to them by Pakistan or perhaps Iran - if you think Iran would ever do such a thing, and risk the elimination of their historic country, its cities and culture dating back before the Old Testament - then they know...they know!...from the response to taking down two buildings, that the U.S, and this time with just about every other country with them, would march east with a care and thoroughness that would make the Crusades look like a hiking trip.  And that hike would go right through Pakistan and Iran and any other small country the rest of the world thought had anything to do with it.  It would be World War III.  And it would leave no stone unturned.

They KNOW this.  Moreover, Pakistan and Iran know this.

So, returning to the top of this post.  No, we needn't fear Iran starting a nuclear war with Israel or us, nor helping the terrorists do the same.  It would spell their end.  And they know it.  They do not have Hitler's delusion.  Hitler's delusion was a credible one.  To beat and dominate Europe and be the third time in history that Germany was a reich throughout Europe and northern Africa, the Holy Roman Empire (it's a misnomer; it was German) being, I believe, the last.  And Hitler came within a few bad decisions of succeeding, his worst decision, breaking his non-aggression pact with Russia and starting an eastern front.  It proved too much, and weakened them considerably in the west.

Iran and Pakistan hold no delusion of succeeding.  So then why does Iran want nukes, and why does Pakistan already have them?  See previous post, but, to conclude, they want them for their deterrent effect and they want them as a matter of national pride, a technological barometer for having moved from the 3rd World to maybe the 2nd.

Some also fear Iran cutting off oil if we anger them too much.  As with the other oil-rich Middle Eastern states, they have been shortsighted for decades in not diversifying their economy.  It runs on oil.  If they cut off the oil from us or the west, they impoverish their people.  The Iranian people will rise up, march through the streets, and bring down the government.  They are not afraid to do that, as they've demonstrated before.  They'd do it again in a heartbeat to feed themselves and their families.  What's more, their government knows that, too.

So, I don't know how nicely to say other than to just say that we should not fear.  That we should not be scared and fearful Americans.  That what we should fear, "is fear itself," as FDR knew, and implored us strongly against, even then, when the west was facing down Hitler, and not Iran.  And it is fear itself we should be afraid of when the President (or Vice President, as the case may be) or the Congress want to vote to constrict our privacy further (the "Patriot" Act, if you are a patriot who did not fear fear itself enough), deny individuals habeas corpus, or use interrogation techniques which run directly counter to the Geneva Convention, when all signers of that document, including us, knew at the time the folks they were really protecting by signing were their own soldiers.  It's why our military...military, not the CIA and the president...always objected to them.  They feared the impact on their boys if taken prisoner.

Fear itself.  That one is and always has been worth fearing, in international affairs and in our own lives.  But of writers, congressmen, presidential candidates who clearly fear a mushroom cloud from Al Qaeda, Iran, Pakistan, and want you to fear one too, I would say, and my strongest caution would be, fear them, and vote otherwise.

Why Two Standards?

Do two standards really make sense?  Who would think it makes sense to have one constitution which applies to one segment of our society and a different constitution which applies to another?  I think we would all find that idea highly suspect.

I think we all understand contracts.  Usually, between two parties, but maybe more, but in the former case, the contract stipulates requirements on each party, which, if met, cause something to happen in a certain way; otherwise, the contract is said to have been "breached".  Once a contract is breached by one party, it's breached, null and void, for the other.  What sense would be a bartering contract, if the contract were that one party would swap two sheep for another party's one cow, and then the first party showed up with only one sheep?  Should the dude with the solo sheep still get his cow?  I think we would all say, noooOOOoooooooo (sorry).

So why can't Iran develop ballistic missiles?  Who has more and better ballistic missile capability than anyone in the world?  Us, as in U.S.

And I know this next statement is scarier still, but then now you know how the rest of the world, particularly the smaller third-world countries feel who are not exactly on America's Christmas-card list - why can't Iran develop a nuclear weapon?  Who has more and better nuclear weapons than anyone in the world?

Now, some of you might be thinking, "Yes, Mr. Contract Definition, but they signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which they are breaching by developing nuclear weapons!  Stick that up your centrifuge!"

You know, I can't be sure, but I think they did.  Seems every other country, nuclear and non-nuclear at the time, did.  America did.  Why do you suppose so many countries so willingly signed a treaty which told them they couldn't do something in the future that some were legally doing, and maybe they had no intention of doing anyway at the time, but, still, who likes broad, sweeping rules like that that seem to define two standards?  No sovereign country does, as does no adult or no child.

Why sign?  Well, for many of these countries, particularly those who hadn't even considered matters of building nuclear weapons, building water-purification facilities much more their concern, it was completely a case of getting something for nothing.  They hadn't planned on nuclear weapons anyway, and yet there were promises of being helped, aided in building nuclear power plants so long as the fuel was provided and collected by one of the, at the time, "nuclear" powers.

So why did those who, perhaps, were a bit more technologically advanced, and could foresee possibly starting a nuclear weapons program, sign?  They signed because the "nuclear powers" agreed - it was their part of the contract - to pursue a steady decrease in nuclear weapons until they were eliminated.

Yep, that's America's charge.  America's part of the bargain.  Russia's.  Great Britain's.  France's.  China.  Israel's.  Oops, not quite; Israel never signed.

So, has the contract been breached then by those countries?  Did America, Russia, Great Britain, France and China show up with only one sheep?  Absolutely.  There have not been nuclear arms reduction talks I'm aware of since Reagan.  Reagan once briefly proposed to Gorbachev the accelerated elimination of all nuclear weapons.  When those talks went no where, I'm not aware of any others.

So, what are we talking then?  When's the last time we attempted to take action required of us under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is, basically, under the treaty language, a good-faith effort at the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons?  Unless someone knows better, the SALT I and II talks of the 70s were the last time nuclear stockpiles were actually reduced.  There was a veritable nuclear arms race between particularly America and the Soviet Union during the 80s, capped by the the signing of the START treaty in 1991, which basically capped nuclear armaments and numbers at their arms-race zenith at the time.

So, what's the overall progress report on treaty compliance of the nuclear-weapons-possessing and non-possessing signatories?  Let's see, from America's standpoint, since we seem the most vocal and critical of Iran, our nuclear weapons stockpiles and quality since signing have gone dramatically UP.  From Iran's standpoint, best as we can tell, they still don't have one.  But now, are more than likely trying.

They are keeping the cow.

Also, America has something she has never had till now in her history - an official policy of preemption -  first put into action in Iraq.  They don't want a second exercising of that policy to be Iran, you can absolutely bet on that.

Take that America has effectively breached the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a policy of preemption, has used it just across the border in Iraq, has Iran on its "Axis of Evil", and that Iran hears much of the same tough talk that Saddam Hussein used to hear, and also that America has never invaded a country with nuclear weapons....and you can bet the Iranians want nuclear weapons!  They want them soon!  All those things taken together, you would too.  Throw in (the throw-ins are endless) that there is no effective diplomatic channel and hasn't been for decades with America, and I would definitely want them.  America has a history of not negotiating unless you have something to negotiate with (see North Korea).

America's recent reaction to Iranian ballistic missile tests, when we pulled out of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty with Russia recently so that we could legally continue development of our anti-missile defense system, and America's ongoing objection to Iran attempting to develop a nuclear weapon, when our stockpiles have done nothing but soar since we signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and further haven't made any "good faith" effort at reducing those stockpiles in 30 years time, means America has adopted a position of two standards in the area of missiles and nuclear weapons.  It's a position no man, woman, society or country would or should stand for, especially if that country were the one who brought the cow.

Barr and Nader

To that I could add Perot, Anderson.  Why do these guys end up making so much sense?  In short, because they have no money.  Their only shot is making sense.

People view their party registration like it's an oath.  It's not.  But that's how they vote.  "I'm true blue; blue as they come."  "I've never voted for a Democrat, and won't be voting for a Democrat this time."  Why such pride?  Why such a direct and personal association?  There's no mention of political parties in the constitution.  That the Democratic and Republican parties play such a central role in American government now - majority and minority leaders, controlling the legislative calendar, anonymous holds, party-line voting, the filibuster - is a perversion of sorts born out of a single constitutional line, that Congress shall adopt whatever rules for administering itself.

So that you all realize - the Republican and Democratic parties are clubs.  4H.  Lions.  They are clubs.  They no more MUST play the central role they play than you must eat your carrots.  Ok, sometimes you do have to eat your carrots.  Especially if you want some of that German chocolate cake.  At least, that's how it was when I was growing up.

They play the central role because we let them.  We let them.

And we continue to let them, by doing exactly what each club wants us to do, tie some significant portion of our own pride, significance, and role in our government in being a member.

Be a patriot - vote Democrat!  Help us help this country and put more Republicans in the Congress!  Help us take our country back - let's bring a filibuster-proof Democratic majority to the Senate!

The two largest, national political clubs want you to wrap your sense of patriotism, with slogans they hit us with constantly, in voting either Republican or Democrat.  So it's no surprise they want those members who also become Congressional members to do the same thing.  So then why are "We the People" surprised to find that those we elect behave more like the Ravens and the Steelers than citizen legislators, people representing us in government?  In a very real way, they are representing us!  The media campaign has worked!  And for a long time.  We DO now, many of us, vote Republican or Democrat out of reflex, argue our political views similarly, and with incredible pride!  I'm a Democrat.  Al Franken is right!  George Bush is a GOOD president!  The Democrats want the second coming of Jimmy Carter!

It's fan support.  It's hollering, screaming fans, from the 50-yard line and the cheap seats.

"So, sir, if I might..yes, I'm sorry, I know it's very exciting..if I could just ask you.  I couldn't help notice you're pulling for the Democrats today.  Why is that?"
"Well, because Republicans are ruining this country!  I want to take my country back!"
"So..then..what you're saying is Republicans are traitors, then?  They want to bring this country down...is that right?"
"Well, that's what they're doing!  Spending all this money we don't have.  Weakening the dollar.  Oh!  And spying on us all the while."
"Since it's a Republican government, do you think they are only spying on Democrats?"
"Well, I have no idea.  Probably Republicans, too!  They're just too stupid to know it!"
"Republicans are really bad, then, eh?  Go Democrats!"
"Now you're talkin!  Whoooo!"

Is that all really so silly?  Because I'm as serious as I have ever been.  Do we like sports so much - winners and losers - do we crave them, get off on them so much, that we are willing to hand over the governing of this country, by our own foolish and deeply personal associations with two private, very large, very market-savvy, and completely extra-constitutional clubs, to a battle between sides?  The English versus the Irish national soccer teams - one great, the other with no reason for being.

America, that's how you've been behaving.  That's what you've been doing.  So, is it any surprise, that's whom you've been sending to Washington.  And is it any surprise, that's how they have been behaving once there.

There is the phrase, "Drank the Kool-Aid".  With regard to the power we have ceded to the Democrat and Republican parties, the marketing has worked.  We have drunk the Kool-Aid.  We don't think too much about it if a Green Party candidate and a Libertarian Party candidate, or even some independent candidate like Perot or Anderson of national prominence, is not invited to a debate.  Do we need their input?  Should the Steelers seek advice from the Browns on how to be a better football team?  What?  "Of course not.  We'll kill the Browns!"

Exactly.  We don't feel disenfranchised.  We're not looking for more information in this debate:  We're looking for a match!  We're looking for a game!  And mostly, we're looking for our side to kick some butt!  Our minds are proudly, very proudly made up.  Our Republican and Democrat positions very aware to ourselves.  Since it will be Federer / Nadal in the finals anyway, we don't need Andy Roddick or James Blake.  We don't need to watch their shots.  Let's cut to the chase.

That's the way Wimbledon was for quite a while - the champion only came back for the final.  Wimbledon recognized the error of their ways.  They realized the benefits to the sport, in determining who was the best, of having last year's champion and most likely contender confront shots from the Roddicks and the Blakes, and to beat them in the public arena, to gain the right to square off in the finals again.  They didn't just cut to Borg / McEnroe.  They made them play the entire fortnight, a variety of other, some unlikely players, before winning - winning - the right to play each other again.

But we will watch as we cut to the chase between the Democrat and Republican contender with nary the slightest degree of notice or objection.  In fact, we will quickly and easily assign the greatest insult to the other, less likely contenders - we will call them "spoilers".  Spoilers.  Bet Roddick doesn't know he's a spoiler.  He thought he was a tennis player.  A competitor for the title, just like Nadal.  Nope, if he hurts Nadal just enough that he loses - and since Nadal is patriotism and Federer a traitor, or visa versa, take your pick - then Roddick doesn't just "hurt" Nadal, he hurts patriotism.  He hurts the country.  So he's a spoiler.

Is any of this making you good and mad?  Because I'm sure tryin'.  Politics is not a side-show.  It's not a match, with sides to root for.  And it's not a match, or shouldn't be, one where the fix is in before the season even starts as to who will meet in the Super Bowl or in the finals.  It should be a debate, not a spectacle, and the final spectacle should not inevitably take place between the president of the Democrat club and president of the Republican club.  In there should be the Libertarian (he might make sense; you might find yourself nodding your head and rooting for him), the Green (same) and the independent.  They might try some shots, take some shots the others are not even attempting, which might help the country.  And here I stop with any further sports analogy.  Because it's not a game.  It's policy.  It's problems.  It's matters of cooperation and representation.  It's matters of patriotism, the real kind.