The Blue State

Take the political quiz

Every six months or so I like to post the link to the "OkCupid! The Politics Test".  Hands down, compared to the other ones I have seen, this is by far the best political quiz out there.  No, it isn't perfect.  There are some obvious flaws.  But it forces you to take clear stances on issues by thinking about them in a different way.

So if you have time, fill out this political quiz.  It consists of about 45 questions, but they go by very fast.  It takes roughly seven to ten minutes.  The questions around the end get quite humorous.  Feel free to comment on where you get mapped.

Just in case you were wondering, this was where I finished:

You are a               Social Moderate          (56% permissive)                and an...           Economic Moderate            (50% permissive)                  You are best described as a:      Centrist                                                                                                                       Link: The Politics Test  on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

So no, I'm not some raging socialist like some of you commenters claim I am.

Poll: Most consider Bush an idealist, not a realist

In the latest Newsweek Poll, most Americans think the President's actions in Iraq are influenced by his personal beliefs, not by policy realities:

Do you think President Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by the facts or more by his personal beliefs, regardless of the facts?

Facts - 22%
Personal Beliefs - 67%
Unsure - 11%

Remember, this was not a typical "do you support the President or not" kind of poll.  It has to do with how Americans think our President makes decisions.

What it comes down to is idealism vs realism.  An idealist is guided by mental considerations, not by what is physically practical.  In other words -- this war, this idea about democracy in the Middle East -- might not be practical.  But at least it's all in his head.

How I view the events unfolding in Thailand

The military coup in Thailand exposed the Administration's double-standard about defending democracy around the world.  I will also explain the political theory behind why military governments, even if only in power for a short time, spell trouble for the survival of democratic institutions.

Hardly any other location in the world has been getting more U.S. media coverage than Iraq, and rightfully so.  Parts of that country have been, still are, and will remain some of the dangerous places on the planet.  Just this week, 200 more bodies turned up on Iraqi streets, most of which were shot execution style by militia groups.  The Anbar Province is a mess.  Different Iraqi government agencies have been getting into gun fights with one another.  There is no doubt that Iraq deserves attention.  But Iraq is not all that is going on in the world.

Over in Thailand, King Bhumibol Adulyadej endorsed a military coup that removed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from power.  Shinawatra was in New York for the UN General Assembly meeting when he had learned that he had been deposed.  The King of Thailand has personally appointed the military leader who led the coup to be the new Prime Minister until it he decides that the government shall return democratic power back to the people.

By some, this coup was viewed as positive, as the Christian Science Monitor reported:

Other critics of Thaksin, however, say that given his lock on thepolitical system, and gutting of institutional checks and balances,there was no other way to end the stalemate. Thaksin packed courts withallies, politicized the nominally nonpartisan Senate, and muzzledtelevision news. During a 2003 antidrugs campaign, Thaksin cheered whenover 2,000 suspected dealers were shot dead in what rights groupscalled extrajudicial killings.

But is packing the courts with political allies, polarizing the legislature and censoring the news a sound justification to overthrow a government elected by the people?  Some might argue that here in the United States President Bush has nominated two right-wingers who are outside the mainstream to the Supreme Court; used the terrorism issue to polarize the agenda in Congress; and at times has only given interviews with friendly media sources like Fox News.  But that does not mean we should stage a coup in the United States?  Just because you don't approve of the group in power does not mean that you have to respond by deposing the very democratic system that one day might enable you to elect your favorite individuals into positions of power.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it is much better than handing over complete authority to a military force that, unlike an elected body, has no incentive other than possibly its own idealism to serve the people's best interest.  I am sorry to all you idealists out there.  But when a governmental system relies solely on idealistic trust, as opposed to a realistic power structure that forces leaders to serve the people, then that system is taking a giant leap of faith.  In that leap of faith, all that it takes is one non-idealist official in the government who uses his power as a means to an end, as power politics usually works, to completely consolidate authority and remove populist-friendly laws to his liking.

As a realist -- someone who until last year had been an idealist his whole life -- I have learned that when you are dealing with positions of power you never trust a person's words alone.  You instead analyze how their political posturing and decision-making relate to the fundamental structure that is in place, and whether that fundamental structure is in jeopardy of being violated.  In Thailand, that structure, realistically speaking, is in serious jeopardy.

Lastly, I need to beg the following question: why does the Bush Administration only protect democracies when it is convenient for them?  Thailand now joins Lebanon on the list of countries that we failed to prop up while we were distracted with Iraq.  President Bush's hope of promoting democracy is a great goal -- that is if he would actually follow through on that policy for a change!  Weak democracies like in Thailand and Lebanon, who only cry out for assistance, need to be aided.  Their institutions need to work.

Why is that, you ask?  Two things are definitely true with regard to human beings: people have good memories, and they know when something is legitimate.  When citizens watch as their country's democratic institutions easily get deposed over and over again, they take those democratic institutions less seriously.  But when institutions are strengthened and time passes without them being targeted, citizens are more likely to view those institutions as more legitimate, and they also hold more historical value.

Therefore, it should be the job of the U.S. government to strengthen democratic institutions throughout the world, not by the barrel of a gun, but through financial aide, diplomatic support and most importantly by encouraging stability.  This Thailand example was a missed opportunity and an alarming example of how the current Bush Administration needs to do a better job living what they say about democracy.
----------------------------------------------
Other progressive sites blogging about Thailand: Raw Story, Newsvine, Truth Dig, Booman Tribune, Truthout, Boing Boing, Drudge Retort, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground.

Don't use democracy to make a point about fascism

I don't plan on making this a long blog entry.  But as a political science and history student at the University of Washington, it hurts to hear political science vocabulary and segments in history used improperly.  This week was filled with such instances.  Without picking apart those speeches, as I have done in other blog entries, here are two points worth mentioning:

1. From being tested on this term on more than one occasion, fascism is used to describe a form of government that is dictatorial -- socially, economically and politically speaking -- that maintains a centralized structure of power by invoking belligerent nationalism.  If we go by that definition, in order for there to be fascism, a governmental structure must be in place.  Terrorists are stateless, so labeling terrorists as fascists is not a sound comparison.  Instead, terrorists are terrorists.
2. Do not use the free press, which is a democratic ideal by the way, to make a point about Nazism during World War II.  It's just a politically and historically bad analogy.

There, enough said.

The difference between idealism and realism

From the very beginning of this web site I have at least tried my best to explain why foreign policy realism should almost always trump idealism when it comes to hard power (decisions involving the use of force).  In an April column, I explained that I see political theory as the struggle between those who want to maintain a balance of power and those who want to use idealism to disrupt it.

But I still get e-mails that ask, "What in the heck are you talking about?  Can you explain realism again without all the big words?"  Over at the Daily Kos web site, one member wrote what I consider to be a better explanation of the difference between idealism and realism as it pertains to foreign policy:

Idealism speaks naturally in terms of morality, of good and evil, and of having a mission or calling. Coupled with a belief in American Exceptionalism ,the idea that the United States possesses a moral superiority thatmakes it a unique and positive example to the world, idealism canbecome a tremendously potent force in international affairs, for goodor ill.

The president that Bush is most often compared with in terms of hisattitude toward foreign policy is Woodrow Wilson. But Wilson was aprogressive, not a radical conservative like today's neoconservatives.The neocons' YOYO ("You're On Your Own") attitude toward theresponsibilities of government and their belief that chaos is notdestructive but in fact a suitable means for sorting out life's winnersand losers makes their crusading idealism a recipe for disaster on amonumental scale.

Realism, on the other hand, sees that moral or ethical concerns are notthe primary motivation in the struggle between states for military andeconomic advantage. Realism prizes stability, survival, and thepreservation of the nation's resources. As a worldview, it is morecircumspect and more aware that power, particularly military power, hasdistinct limitations and can all too easily produce dangerousunintended consequences. Realists advocate using force only as a lastresort, and realize that it is always a negative course. Realistsinclude Kissinger, Brzezinski, Kennan, and historically such thinkersas Sun Tzu and Machiavelli.

The distinction between realism and idealism isn't commonly used theway left-right or conservative-liberal are, but it is particularlyuseful for understanding this administration's actions. Bush'sdeparture from two centuries of American policy in favor of his"doctrine of preemptive war" becomes understandable as an act ofcrusading idealism over realist caution. So does the newsthat we're willing to give up allies in Africa vital to the struggleagainst al-Qaeda rather than abandon moralistic and punitive attemptsto keep U.S. personnel beyond the reach of international law. Notsensible from a realist point of view, but perfectly predictable as the"unintended consequence" of idealist policy.

So, in a nutshell, there are good idealists and bad idealists, just as there are good realists and bad realists.  It just depends on how you use realism or idealism as an end.  It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.  It has more to do with whether you allow zealotry to trump qualitative objectiveness.

Video: John Dean explains psychology behind authoritarianism

Last night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart interviewed John Dean, whowas the former legal counsel to Richard Nixon.  He is also the authorof the new book Conservatives Without Conscience. They talked about how Goldwater Republicans today would be left ofcenter, and more importantly about the psychology of whereauthoritarianism comes from:

Click to watch video clip

--------- Partial Transcript --------

DEAN: "Absence of conscience does not necessarilymean evil, it means the ability to set aside what's right and wrong. When a Vice President goes to the Congress to lobby for torture, whenthe President threatens to veto a bill --"

STEWART: "No, Cheney I'll go with as evil.  I'll gowith him as evil.  Let me ask you this.  On the left, couldn't theyargue that if you look at the 20th century, the two largestauthoritarian issues were communism, which was considered theauthoritarianism of the left, and Stalinism and Fascism on the right,isn't it a strain in both ideologies?"

DEAN: "No question.  You could have it in, where we've never had it, is here.  And that's --"

STEWART: "America?"

DEAN: "Yeah.  And that's what's troubling is that conservatives -- not all conservatives, by any stretch of the imagination --"

STEWART: "Just the ones on the cover."

DEAN: "The guys on the cover, and a few inside."

In other words, when you see the cover that reads "ConservativesWithout Conscience," he is not trying to accuse the GOP of being evil;he just means that some within the highest levels of the GOP arechoosing not to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.

I would not go as far to say that we are turning authoritarian.  Itcould be a lot worse than it is today.  Even if it were goingauthoritarian, the American people would offset that balance, which Isort of touched on in my analysis of how I view political thought (balance of power theory).
--------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: J-Dub!, Thinking Blue, The Ramblings, My Two Cents, A Dakota Democrat, Cloak and Swagger, They're Just Words.

The difference between patriotism and nationalism

I know that this was from yesterday.  But it was really well-written, so here it is.  I was reading the blog Bring it On!, and I came across a post that quoted a recent Newsweek article.  I wish every conservative Republican could get the chance to read this.  Too many people today forget the distinction between patriotism and nationalism:

Orwell defined patriotism as “devotion to a particular place and aparticular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the worldbut has no wish to force upon other people.” Can’t argue with that.

The subtitle of this article is “The greatness of the United States isunique—and not a model to be exported by narrow-minded nationalists.”

Accordingto Orwell, nationalism is the habit of identifying oneself with asingle nation or an idea, and “placing it beyond good and evil andrecognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.” Inother words nationalism doesn’t have to be based on a country. Thissame fanaticism can be applied to any “ism”: Communism,Neo-Conservatism, Fundamentalism (of any religion), you name it.Whether it’s based on a country or an “ism,” nationalism always hasthat combination of blind zeal and indifference to reality.

Innationalism, thoughts “always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs andhumiliations. … Nationalism is power-hunger tempered byself-deception.” And this self-deception leads to disastrousmiscalculations based on wishful thinking rather than facts. Orwellsays:

“Political and military commentators, like astrologers,can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers donot look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulationof nationalistic loyalties.” Hey, whatever happened to all the flowersand ice cream that grateful Iraqis were supposed to showering ourtroops with?

Again, very well-written.

Last week, I wrote a 4th of July article that touched on this issue of what patriotism means.

-------------------------------------------------

Other blogs writing about this issue: Bring it On!, Americablog, Sepia Mutiny, Who hijacked our country, Reformed Leftist, Cheezy's Blog.

The bouncing ball polling theory

I have never really heard this political analogy before.  It comes from John Zogby, in a column by his brother James Zogby over at the Huffington Post:

Even "good news" (like the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) ormanufactured media events (like the "surprise visit" to Baghdad) don'tprovide dramatic results for the White House. My brother, John Zogby,has long compared Bush's poll ratings to a bouncing ball. Over the pastsix years, each time the President gets a "bounce" in the polls, it issmaller than the one before. Clearly this President is running out ofsteam. While a sitting President can never be discounted, despite staffchanges and other efforts at rehabilitation, the downward pull ofdomestic and international realities are working against the WhiteHouse.

In other words, the later in a presidency you go, barring an unprecedented major event, each political bounce that a president gets becomes smaller each time.  For example, Bush got almost a 40% bounce after 9/11.  He got a 20% bounce when we went to war in Iraq.  He got around a 10% bounce after his address at the Republican convention in 2004.  Following the Iraqi elections, it was about a 5% or 6% bounce, depending on what poll you look at.  Lastly, after the death of Zarqawi, the bounce was about half that (see for yourself).

So, barring a terrorist attack or a military strike on Iran, there is little that Karl Rove can do to change the President's image.  This is where political realism defeats ideological maneuvering.

Tuesday Editorial: Complexities that may not have been considered

One of the most disastrous strategic blunders of this war was the inability of the ideologues inside Bush's war cabinet to recognize the cultural complexities of the Iraqi state.  Within Iraq are three major geographic groups.  There are also sixteen distinct provinces.  There are also hundreds of towns, where some Iraqis have lived for thousands of years.  Within those downs are tribes, where loyalties originate.  Some of the southern tribes, although they are loyal to the Shiite sect of Islam, have been at war with one other for years.  Some tribes are even at war with themselves, putting neighborhood vs neighborhood.  So, as you can tell, bringing Iraq together is quite complicated.

Then there is this issue of democracy.  Those that study political theory understand that in order for a democratic government to be possible, people need to consent to it.  When the people first give their consent to government, it must be because they demand their government to give them security, not because the government demands security from its own people.  So, in order for a democracy to work, it must be populist driven.  Once it is populist driven, then the very top provides the security. 

While keeping all of this in mind, when looking specifically at Iraq, democracy was not demanded in the same way that it was demanded in other states that eventually turned democratic, such as the United States.  In a nutshell, Iraq's democracy is molded from the top-down, not from the bottom-up.  That poses a serious long-term risk for the ability of Iraq's newly developed institutional structure to sustain itself.

Respectfully, I have to ask whether Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney have ever studied political theory?  Or, an even better question, if they did study it, then what do they remember?

So marriage trumps life?

Pardon me in advance for editorializing this blog post.  I just cannot help but comment on the ethical inconsistencies regarding Bush's views on states' rights.  In comparing his stances on abortion and gay marriage, Bush believes the following:

• The abortion issue should be left up to the states 
• Abortion destroys life
• The gay marriage issue is important enough that it be decided federally, not by states.

Essentially, when taking these positions into account, what Bush is saying is that preventing certain people from getting married is more important than preventing the destruction of life.

If he thinks that abortion destroys life, then why not protect every fetus in the country?