The House has shown the same pattern. A bipartisan War Powers push led by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie a test not only of Republican loyalty to Trump but also of whether Democratic leadership would risk a recorded vote that could split the caucus. Even when members publicly invoke the Constitution, many behave as if the vote itself is the threat.

That is the ā€œtheaterā€ problem. Congress keeps rehearsing oversight while letting the executive branch set facts on the ground. A War Powers process that begins after thousands of sorties and hundreds of deaths is not a guardrail. It is a postscript.

A strategy built on speed and ambiguity invites civilian catastrophe

The administrationā€™s public case has leaned heavily on urgency and prevention, but urgency is not evidence, and prevention is not a legal blank check. A UN panel was ā€œdeeply disturbedā€ by the on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girlsā€™ school in Minab, southern Iran, which Iranā€™s UN mission said killed more than 160 children, with calls for transparency and an investigation. Washington and Tel Aviv can say they did not intend to hit a school, yet intention is not the only standard. International humanitarian law feasible precautions, distinction and proportionality. When children die at that scale, the burden shifts to the attackers to explain what happened, what intelligence supported the target, what safeguards were used and what changes will prevent repetition.

Hospitals have also been pulled into the blast radius. Reuters imagery and reporting the aftermath at the Gandhi Hotel Hospital in Tehran, including residents carrying belongings and visible damage. Al Jazeeraā€™s photo gallery likewise damage at Gandhi Hospital amid the US-Israeli strikes. These are the kinds of incidents that turn policy failure into moral failure. Once hospitals and schools become recurring features of the warā€™s footprint, claims of surgical precision stop sounding like reassurance and start sounding like evasion.

This is where Trumpā€™s approach is uniquely dangerous. His political style favors maximal threats and minimal disclosure. In war, that combination is not strength. It is volatility. The less the public knows about objectives, target selection and constraints, the easier it becomes for the campaign to expand while accountability shrinks.

Costs are not just dollars; they are capabilities

War Powers debates often get framed as constitutional symbolism. The numbers make the argument concrete. Estimates indicated that the first day of the US offensive through roughly $779 million, about 0.1% of the 2026 defense budget, a staggering sum to spend before Congress authorizes anything. Even if precise accounting varies, the direction of travel is unmistakable: The US is consuming high-end munitions at a high speed.

The more strategically relevant story is what those expenditures do to readiness. The US is shortages of key missiles and interceptors such as Tomahawks and SM-3s amid the ongoing offensive. Shortages do not simply raise the bill. They narrow the menu of choices. As stockpiles tighten, leaders become more likely to ā€œdouble downā€ to avoid an ugly pause, more likely to widen the battlefield to chase decisive outcomes and more likely to treat restraint as weakness. A campaign that begins as air strikes can drift into a larger commitment because the political cost of stopping rises as the sunk cost grows.

This is the core indictment of Congressā€™s passivity. When lawmakers refuse to force an upfront authorization debate, they do not prevent war. They prevent strategy. They hand the executive a blank check, then act surprised when the ink runs out.

Trumpā€™s war-making model is escalation plus impunity

A serious war policy requires three things the administration has not credibly supplied: a clear legal rationale, a defined objective and an off-ramp. The legal debate is not academic. Experts have whether the scale of the operation fits within presidential authority absent congressional approval and noted the limits imposed by international law on the use of force. If the White House believes the operation is lawful and necessary, it should be able to state the rationale plainly, publish supporting evidence where possible and accept independent scrutiny where evidence cannot be made public.

Instead, the administration has relied on assertion. A striking example is the reported gap between the rhetoric of imminent threat and what officials privately told lawmakers. Reports the Pentagon told Congress there was no sign Iran was going to attack the US first, undercutting claims of urgent self-defense. When a war is framed as necessary to stop an imminent attack, but briefings acknowledge no clear sign of one, the policy begins to look less like defense and more like a choice.

This is where Trump is politically exposed. A president who normalizes war without authorization is not merely bypassing Congress. He is hollowing out the accountability mechanisms that protect Americans from executive overreach and protect civilians from unchecked military force. The civilian toll inside Iran and the strain on US capabilities are not separate issues. They are the predictable products of the same model: act fast, disclose little, dare Congress to stop it.

What an actual War Powers response would look like

If Congress wants to prove the War Powers Resolution still has meaning, it has to treat authorization as a threshold, not as commentary. That means a binding requirement for specific authorization for continued hostilities, with defined objectives, geographic limits, time limits and mandatory public reporting on civilian harm. It means independent investigations into incidents like the Minab school strike and the damage to medical facilities, with findings released in a form the public can evaluate. It means funding tied to compliance, not compliance tied to vague promises.

A War Powers vote that comes after the bombs is still better than silence. But if Congress lets this war proceed without authorization, it will be sending a message that the Constitution is optional in wartime, civilian protection is negotiable and presidential discretion is the only policy America needs. That is not oversight. That is surrender.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Congress Canā€™t Keep Pretending the Iran War Is Optional appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The Indian Government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in , underlined the necessity of foreign social media enterprises adhering to national laws if they intended to operate within the country. It emphasized that requiring them to comply with such laws on combating destructive online content should not be equated with ā€œunfortunate and condemnableā€ words such as ā€œcensorshipā€. The case has been filed in the Karnataka High Court, a provincial judicial authority in Southern India, and is awaiting a court ruling.Ģż

Social platforms operate in murky waters

This development has again brought to light the contestations regarding what qualifies as censorship: whether it is appropriate at all, and who sets the criteria for determining online content as harmful and thus censorship-worthy? At the same time, including, of course, the general discourse surrounding national sovereignty and the fundamental right to free speech. 

While it’s clear the Indian government is seeking to regulate and streamline online content, it doesn’t automatically follow that every state-led move to manage public information is unethical or repressive. Nor should every tech companyā€™s claim of standing up to a rudimentary idea of democratic freedom of speech be taken at face value. 

State-led regulations imposed on social media giants should not predispose them to rational sympathy simply because they seem to initiate transparent information-sharing and a more-informed public discourse or speak the ā€œtruthā€ of state power and hold it accountable.

These platformsā€™ real-world operations often enjoy unearned moral high ground, positioned as champions of transparency and accountability. But no matter how hard such corporations bend over backwards to present free-speech absolutism as their sole guiding principle, in reality, their own operations are steeped in political motivations and interests, geopolitical alliances, ideological leanings and overall lack of internal checks or self-reflexivity. 

Take Muskā€™s own jaunts and wrangles with Grok, an Artificial Intelligence chatbot he designed to, as he claims, ā€œmaximize truth and objectivityā€ on X. However, when Grokā€™s seemingly factual imperative pointed out the in his own statements and the right-leaning ideological rhetoric he sympathized with, he claimed it had been ā€œparroting legacy mediaā€ and is ā€œworking on itā€. Earlier in July, he then on X that ā€œWe have improved @Grok significantly.ā€ The new Grok has since made anti-semitic statements and ±į¾±³Ł±ō±š°ł.Ģż

The Indian governmentā€™s regulation isnā€™t just a reactive policy

The dialectics over content regulation hinges on two opposing claims. The first is whether the state is making a legally and ethically legitimate decision by blocking and controlling content that its democratic institutions constitutionally deem harmful. The second is that these (officially) politically neutral social media companies have the right to resist such oversight when their internal mechanisms to moderate and combat harmful online content already exist and are operational.

Scrutinizing both positions reveals that the reality is far murkier than these tech platforms belie. And in that murk, the Indian governmentā€™s regulations begin to look less like repression, and more like a necessary reckoning ā€” one that goes beyond the rhetoric and recognizes the actual political and economic inclinations behind their operations.

The government seeks to establish the necessity of such a regulation because tech giants have operated for years with little to no real scrutiny. There has been almost no accountability for whether their internal systems actually succeed in curbing harmful content, or whether they even try to guard against their own ideological leaningsā€™ ability to skew moderation decisions. 

These platforms, be it X or , have blocked users with viewpoints ideologically opposed to theirs or their managementā€™s, throttled reach, flagged users as politically affiliated in the absence of official declaration from the users themselves and in some cases, erased profiles entirely ā€” all while claiming neutrality.Ģż

The 2018 Cambridge Analytica has already shown how IT companies work with social platforms ā€” in this case, Meta (formerly Facebook) ā€” to improperly harvest data from millions of users without consent, and then use it to target voters with political ads during elections. Meta faced global backlash and investigations for failing to prevent the misuse of its platform, and the exact concerns we face here: data privacy, electoral manipulation and platform accountability.

In the case of X, particularly, evidence demonstrates the brazen and unilateral abuse of power, as the of progressive, American Democrat politicians and representatives were imposed with a limited reach, whereas accounts of far-right American politicians were heavily circulated and amplified. Similar cases were observed in India, where Grok has, on repeated occasions, published opinionated content in favor of Congress, an Indian political party currently in the opposition, showing little regard for non-partisan objectivity.Ģż

And this raises a pertinent question: if the European Union can regulate these social platforms and take actions to curb on platforms like Meta, why canā€™t India?Ģż

What makes matters much worse, apart from the blatant ideological bias and political engineering, is the unabated mushrooming of user accounts that confidently indulge in hate towards people of colour, having implicit backing from the enterpriseā€™s top brass; those who employ racist staff ā€œnormalizing Indian hateā€ on X in the American federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), without any repercussion.Ģż

It is necessary to note that of Xā€™s revenue comes from advertising, and the remaining from the sale of data licenses. This implies that X is heavily reliant on conservative Western political representatives using X as a platform for election campaigning and propaganda. This results in the intensification of discriminatory content against people of colour and minority religions.

Quite understandably, this inclination flows into the moderation of content posted in India by Indian users, and content that exposits ideas contrarian to the strict doctrine of Western conservatism is, in a way, expunged or restricted. There is, however, a rational concern as to whether the Indian governmentā€™s regulation of social media intermediaries would result in content critical of the government being removed. 

The scales tilt heavily towards government regulation

At the heart of this concern is the simple question: who legitimately and ethically determines which content is censorship-worthy ā€” and why? When the choice lies between a foreign tech giant and the democratically elected government of the country where it operates, the tilt should be obvious.

An institution vested with the responsibility of safeguarding the countryā€™s sovereignty, and which, however flawed, can be held accountable through courts, elections and and provisions. A private company headquartered abroad, answerable to shareholders and driven by profit, will not be.Ģż

Thatā€™s why Indiaā€™s IT Act matters ā€” it creates a channel to institute some level of accountability in the operations of tech companies within Indiaā€™s territorial boundaries.

Even when governments or parties misuse their power ā€” say, by silencing criticism ā€” the solution isnā€™t to hand the reins to Silicon Valley. Its panacea is to strengthen domestic democratic institutions: constitutionally-bound independent entities like the , special non-partisan investigative and grievance redressal commissions such as the and legal provisions such as the Indian “”³¦³Ł.Ģż

There are constitutional pathways to address state overreach. But when tech platforms take incidents and spin them into ideological narratives, it doesn’t promote justice. It risks spurring social unrest and antagonism. 

The priority of the elected legislature should be to democratically empower domestic institutions to create a more informed Indian electorate ā€” instead of allowing Western tech corporations to shape public discourse, misrepresent real-time developments and impose their often carefully fabricated, biased and geopolitically motivated viewpoints that masquerade as objective information onto the Indian public.

As foreign media companies deepen their footprint in India, it is high time for the Indian government to draw clear legal boundaries. The unchecked influence of these occasionally deleterious, unchecked platforms cannot be allowed to compromise the countryā€™s legal preeminence or democratic institutions. 

Foreign tech firms operating here must be held to the same constitutional standards as any domestic entity. And most importantly, adherence to the constitutionally mandated laws of the land by foreign companies should continue to be rightfully emphasized ā€” it forms a cornerstone of the nationā€™s right to self-determination and sovereignty.  

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post X versus the Indian Government: Whose Narrative is it Anyway? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Recently, my partner, Criscillia, and I demonstrated that truth mathematically, by understanding that the information brains need for is not the kind of information you find in newspapers or books. It is the kind of information we receive through our senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch and interoception, all at once. Real people know nervous systems need real life.

That same math shows that digital inputs are bad for us. The more ā€œpersonalizedā€ they are, the worse. Because personalized digital technology makes so much money, that basic tension pits private profit against public health. I have never heard any scientific disagreements with this contention, even after for a decade to provoke them. The math of information flow and all unbiased evidence agree: Digital media damage learning and sociability. So any country hoping to protect its youth must severely limit childrensā€™ digital exposure.

The United States, which pioneered this awful tech and makes the most money from it, must now officially face this choice just as Trump takes office. The Senate side of Congress already the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) ā€” a proposed legislation meant to protect children on the Internet ā€” by the lopsided odds of 91ā€“3, showing wide bipartisan support. But the House of Representatives has and tried to weaken it to make it easier on industry.

The House will vote on KOSA on Tuesday, December 17. Will the congressmen protect kids from known digital toxins? Or will they protect their contributorsā€™ profit margins? It seems too close to call.

KOSA vs free speech

The big news came this week when Trumpā€™s tech vizier, Elon Musk, the worldā€™s most influential technologist, his support of KOSA. Even more crucially, he and X CEO Linda Yaccarino helped the House the teeth of the Senate version. He and his tech company voted for life over tech.

Unlike earlier bills, KOSA was designed to identify and neutralize the toxin, not just give it a name and a punishment. The toxin in this case is described in the key term, ā€œ.ā€ Design features are software elements (such as ā€œinfinite scroll,ā€ for example) which entrain the human nervous system unconsciously; individuals canā€™t defend themselves. Their basic structures have been mathematically understood since the old days when ā€œpersuasive technologyā€ was considered good, not evil. KOSAā€™s genius approach embeds that established industry knowledge into the very legislation regulating industry and protecting kids and teens.

The major objection to KOSA is based on a weird US myth, going by the name ā€œfree speech.ā€ Free speech in the US means people get to speak their minds without government interference, which is good for democracy. Furthermore, according to our scientific understanding of trust, speaking out loud in public is for the nervous system. So what our Founding Fathers imagined is still alive and well.

Unfortunately, the US also has a sub-population of people who think that typing posts is equal to using the voice. Some of those people further claim that free speech ought to apply in ways having nothing to do with voices or even people, so any regulation at all constitutes ā€œcensorship.ā€

The people who say such things call themselves intelligent. But does a foreign server hosting porn deserve free speech? How about social media platforms urging kids to kill themselves?

Musk was right: Choose life. Science says so.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Elon Musk Chooses Life (and Science) Over Tech appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

This legislation would allow the federal government to revoke tax-exempt status for any non-profit organizations it decides to qualify as ā€œterrorist supporting.ā€ We have recently witnessed numerous examples of politicians and the media figures claiming that individuals suspected of voicing pro-Palestinian sentiments are, by that very act of speech, active supporters of Hamas, an officially designated ā€œterrorist organization.ā€ It isnā€™t difficult to see how such a law in the hands of any government ā€” Democrat, Republican or simply fascist ā€” can be used to throttle free speech.

The 51³Ō¹Ļ team has good reason to worry about this bill, but for reasons other than those cited by the dozens of Democrats who have suddenly seen the light. Our journalā€™s vocation is to allow everyone ā€” including ordinary citizens with strong feelings ā€” to publish the widest variety of reasoned readings of the events of contemporary history. We systematically require that the facts be respected. But we know that the interpretation people may have of the same facts will vary according to the elements of context from which they view those facts. Allowing for the expression of contrasting appreciations helps all of us better understand our own perceptions. It also invites us to revise our own partial understanding of the issues.

Many people see the exercise of freedom of thought and speech as the foundation of democracy. Now, whether what we have today is a healthy democracy remains a matter of open debate. For most Americans, freedom of expression stands as the axiom on which the logic of democracy is built.

But what is HR9495? Here is the official summary of the billā€™s intent:

ā€œLegislation that would prevent U.S. citizens who have been
taken hostage or wrongfully detained abroad from incurring
penalties for late tax payments while they were held, as well
as terminating tax-exempt status for organizations found to
be supporting terrorism.ā€

So why would Democrats even be tempted to flip-flop on such a question?

The Minnesota Reformer that ā€œMinnesota Rep. Angie Craig voted in favor of the legislation last week, one of 52 House Democrats ā€” and the only Minnesota Democrat ā€” to do so.ā€ She supported the bill because of its provisions granting tax leeway to Americans held hostage overseas. ā€œHowever, Craig said she will vote against the bill this week.ā€

Craig claimed that she was initially motivated by her strong opposition to any actions that support foreign terrorist organizations. So, what has changed? ā€œOver the past several days as the president-elect has rolled out his cabinet nominees, Iā€™ve become increasingly concerned that H.R. 9495 would be used inappropriately by the incoming Administration.ā€

°Õ“Ē»å²¹²āā€™s Weekly Devilā€™s Dictionary definition:

Inappropriately:

In a way that would be abusive, possibly illegal and directed against a selection of enemies different from my own.

Contextual note

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat, who clearly understands the danger such legislation represents,: ā€œA frequent tool of dictators is to label political opposition groups as ā€˜terrorist groupsā€™ and shut them down.ā€ That has been the case at least since President George W. Bush launched his global war on terror.

We know Murphy believes Donald Trump is a potential dictator. Before the election, he Fox News that ā€œDonald Trump has made it very clear: if you put him back in power, heā€™s going to think about only one group of people and thatā€™s his friends at Mar-a-Lago.ā€ That in itself is a recipe for dictatorship.

We also know that Murphy does not believe President Joe Biden is a dictator, even if traditionally Americans tend to believe that only dictators would allow themselves to be complicit in a genocide. That distinction between who is and who isnā€™t a dictator has offered Murphy some serious clarity in his decision-making.

Another Democratic Congressman, Lloyd Doggett, is among only a minority of Democrats who have shown authentic for Palestinian suffering. He opposed the bill for the following reason. ā€œThis bill is not about terrorism ā€” itā€™s about giving Donald Trump unlimited authority to label his opponents as terrorists.ā€

Of course, had the bill passed earlier, it would have given the same unlimited power to Biden, who consistently showed his managerial skill at neutralizing or even cancelling opponents. It isnā€™t clear whether Doggett would have had similar objections had Democratic candidate Kamala Harris been elected.

This episode raises serious questions about how Americans view the question of authority. The constitution establishes radical principles such as freedom of speech and religion, which should protect the widest range of expression and opinion, so long as it does not translate into illegal acts. Do all Americans share this concern? Itā€™s becoming less and less clear.

Historical note

As some people predicted, November 5 has already proved to be a watershed moment in US political history. The debate about what catastrophes we can expect over the next four years will keep on raging at least until January 20, 2025. From that point on, we will be in a position to assess not only what those events turn out to be, but what long-term transformations they are likely to produce. A return to some imaginary status quo ante Trump 2 seems highly unlikely.

Trumpā€™s unpredictability alone will cause serious havoc in various sectors. One in particular is the immense complex of the national security state, which Trump himself has in the past referred to as the ā€œdeep state.ā€ We may see a struggle between the hyperreal personality of Trump ā€” assisted by another hyperreal hero, Elon Musk ā€” and the tentacular military and intelligence complex that has pretty consistently orientated US foreign policy for many decades, despite the alternation of parties and personalities in the White House.

Could it be that Trump won the election not because the population wished to elect an authoritarian leader, but because they were intent on voting out the current Democratic regime that they felt had become deeply authoritarian in its acts? Because of his flamboyant personality, Trump may well prove more explicitly authoritarian in his acts, but ā€” and some find this trait redeeming ā€” he doesnā€™t disguise his taste for authoritarianism. He puts it on display. He proudly proclaims his most ā€œinappropriateā€ initiatives.

The Biden administrationā€™s policies concerning freedom of speech, in contrast, have been highly visible examples of public hypocrisy. It has used and abused the bugbear of ā€œdisinformationā€ to accuse everyone who challenges its own arbitrary use of authority ā€” whether concerning Covid-19 or its engagement in wars ā€” as purveyors of misinformation, suppliers of harmful content and even apologists of terrorism. Many of them have joined the popular trend of calling critics of Israel antisemites, a rhetorical ploy that seeks to excuse the administrationā€™s too obvious complicity in an ongoing genocide conducted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the most authentically authoritarian leaders of our era.

Finally, let me clarify why we at 51³Ō¹Ļ share the worries of those Democrats who have now found the courage to oppose HR9495.

51³Ō¹Ļ is a US non-profit organization that seeks to allow the expression of the widest range of insights, interpretations, opinions, sentiments and beliefs. The journalā€™s editorial standards require that the expression of any opinion, however marginal or eccentric, conform to the norms of rational discourse. This includes respect for facts and consistent reasoning. Consistent reasoning does not mean impeccable or complete reasoning. It means constructing a coherent viewpoint based on the facts presented. That alone does not prove whether a point of view is right or wrong. It reveals how that point of view attains some level of credibility.

Consequently, we publish some points of view that some people may consider ā€œsupporting terrorism.ā€ The underlying problem is that in a democracy there is, and there should be ā€œsomeā€ of everything, simply because every individualā€™s and every groupā€™s perception of the world is variable, over space and time.

Losing our tax-exempt status would be fatal and not just to our journal, to the idea of democracy itself. We truly are at a historical turning-point.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devilā€™s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51³Ō¹Ļ Devilā€™s Dictionary.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post 51³Ō¹Ļ Too Has Reason to Be Unhappy About HR9495 appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Let us review the agenda. The number one problem in the world today, and Trump’s greatest threat, is the climate crisis, which is accelerating its destructive consequences. Trump will undoubtedly promote fossil production, but the Environmental Protection Agency will maintain the protective and preventive regulations established over the past few years, 12 states will continue to apply restrictions on emissions, and large cities will continue to spread renewable energy.

Regarding immigration, this time Trump did not insist on the wall (most of which he while he was last in the White House). In this campaign, he turned to ā€œmass deportations,ā€ which can mean common-sense controls to cross the border, as already agreed with the Mexican government regarding non-Mexicans, or an illusory hunt for individuals without proper documents in neighborhoods, workplaces and family homes, which would not only be savage but logistically unfeasible. In reality, it is to be hoped that Congress will reactivate the bipartisan agreement for immigrantsā€™ legalization and access to citizenship that Trump ordered to be stopped not because of its content but because it would have been approved during the campaign and would have taken away his favorite topic for demagoguery.

As for Israel and Palestine, the biggest problem is that Trump is now prioritizing enmity with Iran, which finances and pushes Hamas and Hezbollah and whose agents tried to assassinate him twice (or perhaps thrice). He will have a hard time resurrecting the Abraham Accords that his Jewish son-in-law negotiated during his first term: exploring again the two-state solution in exchange for diplomatic recognition of Israel by Arab countries. Now, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will only accept it if Trump diminishes his hostility against Iran, where a ā€œreformistā€ candidate won the presidential election and seems to have appeased the fury.

Regarding Ukraine, Trump boasted that he would ā€œfix it in 24 hours,ā€ but was not very specific. Two days after the election, at the Valdai Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin rushed to a peace agreement based on the ā€œself-determinationā€ of the people of Donbas in exchange for respecting Ukraineā€™s borders. Putin also that Russia could restore natural gas supplies through the Baltic to Germany, which Ukrainian agents . A Trump adviser has a plan to defend Ukraineā€™s neutrality outside NATO for the next twenty years. All this sounds similar to the Minsk Agreements reached a few years ago by Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, which US President Barack Obama ignored.

In the face of Trumpā€™s disdain, the European Union may reinforce internal solidity and external autonomy. Many NATO members are already ceasing to be free-riders on the United States and are fulfilling their commitment to invest at least 2% of GDP in defense. Their number has risen from four to 23 in just six years.

The biggest alarm raised by Trumpā€™s election is that the future of democracy and legal security in the United States may be in jeopardy. Will there be ā€œrevengeā€ against ā€œinternal enemies,ā€ and will he go after politicians, judges, generals, officials, journalists and other opponents? He may not need to once the pending court cases are canceled and he has satisfied his obsession with returning to power. The Senate Republican group has already rejected Trump’s nominee to lead it, and the Senate can veto some of his announced appointees. It is worth remembering that in his first term, Trump appointed three Chiefs of Staff in four years and changed most members of the Cabinet, including State, Defense, Justice, Interior and Homeland Security, a tenor of personal instability that is likely to continue.

Some of Trump’s boasts may end in a major ridicule, such as ordering Elon Musk to cut a third of the budget. Incompetence could also sink him in the face of some unforeseen catastrophe, as happened to during US President George Bushā€™s second term with Hurricane Katrina and to himself with the COVID-19 pandemic. Will Trump be able to maintain a regular daily work schedule in his eighties, or will he, like Joe Biden, be busy only from 10 AM to 4 PM? It is not guaranteed that he will complete four years in good shape.

Ultimately, Trump could also become a chaotic parody of the befuddled White House visitor in the film (1979). As Mister Chance says, “I can’t write. I can’t read. But I like to watch television.” Just like Donald the Returned.

[The authorā€™s first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post To Understand Trump, Take Him Seriously, but Not Literally appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Among the things Trump got right during his first residency in the White House was slapping Congress and the American public upside the head with a two-by-four to finally wake them up and realize that the Communist Party of China (CCP) is not a benign force in the world. This time around, Trump has the advantage of a Congress and an American public nearly unified in their opposition to the CCP, which should make it easier to ramp up the pressure on Beijing, particularly given the Republicansā€™ clean sweep of the Executive and Legislative branches.

Trumpā€™s ā€œsubtlety of a Mack truckā€-driven approach to foreign policy stands a good chance of backfiring vis-Ć -vis American businesses, however, as many of them continue to feed from the Chinese teat. Tens of thousands of American businesses continue to manufacture, import from and/or export to China despite the many hardships associated with COVID-19, the downturn in the Chinese economy and the crackdown on foreign businesses in recent years. Their voices will undoubtedly be heard at the White House as Trump attempts to tighten the noose on Beijing.

Trumpā€™s cabinet and other nominations to date provide ample evidence that he is intent on burning the place down ā€” so why stop at Americaā€™s borders? The foreign policy patch-up job Biden attempted to complete over the last four years ā€” during which, many European governments, in particular, silently wondered whether an agreement with Washington was worth the paper it is printed upon ā€” will be quickly eviscerated. An unvarnished foreign policy whose core is nationalism, protectionism and a zero-sum approach to engagement is sure to delight friend and foe alike.

Is China ready for four more years of Trump?

Beijing is certainly ready, with a list of countermeasures aimed at the American government and American businesses. US businesses in China are going to find operating there even more unpleasant for the next four years. The CCP may also be expected to attempt to strengthen its bilateral relationships around the world as America retreats and will undoubtedly find heightened levels of interest, especially in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The newly inaugurated mega-port in Peru is emblematic of how Beijing continues to use its Belt-and-Road infrastructure projects to strengthen its economic and diplomatic relationships. Trumpā€™s re-election meshes nicely, also, with Beijingā€™s policy of self-reliance and the Made in China 2025 policy.

But the degree of economic, political and diplomatic malaise in China will also be impacted by Trumpā€™s second term. The Chinese economy could be significantly smaller than official statistics suggest. It is spending more and more to produce less and less. Most of its natural resources are in decline, its workforce is shrinking, Xiā€™s dictatorial rule has prompted increasing domestic uneasiness, its economy is under growing pressure, and its Asian neighbors are ever ore alarmed by Chinaā€™s aggressive actions in the region ā€” and they are reacting to it. 

China is exhibiting classic signs of a peaking power. Xiā€™s crackdowns at home and increasing aggression abroad. The military buildup during peacetime is unprecedented. And China is much more willing to extend its security perimeter and to strengthen its alliances with some of the worldā€™s most detestable regimes.

The Chinese word for crisis (·Éŧ¾±ĀįÄ«) contains characters that signify danger (危) and opportunity (ęœŗ), and Trump 2.0 represents both. Xi will want to use the next four years to de-emphasize Chinaā€™s many domestic challenges and re-emphasize its growing stature in the world. If one envisions a cessation of the Ukraine and Israel/Gaza/Lebanon/Iran wars in 2025, Xi will feel he has more latitude to further strengthen Chinaā€™s relationships with Russia, Iran, and Israel. Similarly, he is likely to feel more emboldened to introduce new initiatives to ingratiate China with a broader array of governments in areas where progress has been less pronounced, such as regarding climate change and natural disaster relief.

It seems doubtful that Trump will choose to embrace areas of possible collaboration with China, but we can expect a heightened degree of generalized competition, with an increased potential for conflict. Trumpā€™s presidency will coincide with 2027 ā€” the year Xi has targeted for the Chinese military to be ready to invade Taiwan. Trump will likely be tempted to cut some sort of deal with Xi (as he is so transaction-oriented) to essentially cede Taiwan to Beijing in return for something of substance for America. One can only speculate what that might be, but what seemed impossible only a few years ago seems increasingly possible, if not likely, now.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The View From China on Trump 2.0 appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The only conflict where peace negotiations seem to be on the agenda is Ukraine. In April, both Vice President-elect JD Vance and Senator Rubio a $95 billion military aid bill that included $61 billion for Ukraine.

Rubio recently on NBCā€™s TODAY Show, saying, ā€œI think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong when standing up to Russia. But at the end of the day, what weā€™re funding here is a stalemate war, and it needs to be brought to a conclusionā€¦ I think there has to be some common sense here.ā€

On the campaign trail, Vance made a that the best way to end the war was for Ukraine to cede the land Russia has seized, for a demilitarized zone to be established and for Ukraine to become neutral, i.e. not enter NATO. He was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats who argue that backing Ukraine is vitally important to US security since it weakens Russia, which is closely allied with China.

Any attempt by Trump to stop US military support for Ukraine will undoubtedly face fierce opposition from the pro-war forces in his own party, particularly in Congress, as well as perhaps the entirety of the Democratic Party. Two years ago, 30 progressive Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to President Joe Biden asking him to consider promoting negotiations. The party higher-ups were so incensed by their lack of party discipline that they came down on the progressives like a ton of bricks. Within 24 hours, the group had cried uncle and the letter. They have since all voted for money for Ukraine and have not uttered another word about negotiations.

So a Trump effort to cut funds to Ukraine could run up against a bipartisan congressional effort to keep the war going. And letā€™s not forget the efforts by European countries and NATO to keep the US in the fight. Still, Trump could stand up to all these forces and push for a rational policy that would restart the talking and stop the killing.

Netanyahu prepares for US support

The Middle East, however, is a trickier situation. In his first term, Trump showed his pro-Israel cards when he brokered the between several Arab countries and Israel; moved the US embassy to a location in Jerusalem that is partly on occupied land Israelā€™s internationally recognized borders and the occupied Golan Heights in Syria as part of Israel. Such unprecedented signals of unconditional US support for Israelā€™s illegal occupation and settlements helped set the stage for the current crisis.Ģż

Trump seems as unlikely as Biden to cut US weapons to Israel, despite public opinion favoring such a halt. Additionally, a recent UN human rights showed that 70% of the people killed by those US weapons are women and children.

Meanwhile, the wily Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is already busy getting ready for a second Trump presidency. On the very day of the US election, Netanyahu his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, who opposed a lasting Israeli military occupation of Gaza and had at times argued for prioritizing the lives of the Israeli hostages over killing more Palestinians.

Israel Katz, the new defense minister and former foreign minister, is more hawkish than Gallant. He has led a to falsely blame Iran for the smuggling of weapons from Jordan into the West Bank.

Other powerful voices, National Security Minister and Finance Minister , who is also a ā€œminister in the Defense Ministry,ā€ represent extreme Zionist parties that are publicly committed to territorial expansion, annexation and ethnic cleansing. They both live in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

So Netanyahu has deliberately surrounded himself with allies who back his ever-escalating war. They are surely developing a war plan to exploit Trumpā€™s support for Israel, but will first use the unique opportunity of the US transition of power to create facts on the ground that will limit Trumpā€™s options when he takes office.

A US war with Iran would be catastrophic

The Israelis will doubtless redouble their efforts to drive Palestinians out of as much of Gaza as possible. This will confront Trump with a horrific humanitarian crisis in which Gazaā€™s surviving population is crammed into an impossibly small area with next to no food, no shelter for many, disease running rampant and no access to needed medical care for tens of thousands of horribly wounded and dying people. The Israelis will count on Trump to accept whatever final solution they propose, most likely to drive Palestinians out of Gaza, into the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt and farther afield.

Israel threatened all along to do to Lebanon the same as they have done to Gaza. Israeli forces have met fierce resistance, taken heavy casualties and have not advanced far into Lebanon. But as in Gaza, they are using bombing and artillery to destroy villages and towns, kill or drive people north and hope to effectively annex the part of Lebanon south of the Litani river as a so-called ā€œbuffer zone.ā€ When Trump takes office, they may ask for greater US involvement to help them ā€œfinish the job.ā€

The big wild card is Iran. Trumpā€™s first term in office was marked by a policy of ā€œmaximum pressureā€ against Tehran. He unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal, imposed severe sanctions that devastated the economy and ordered the of the countryā€™s top general, Qassem Soleimani. Trump did not support a war on Iran in his first term, but had to be of attacking it in his final days in office by General Mark Milley and the Pentagon.

Colin Powellā€™s former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, recently to Chris Hedges just how catastrophic a war with Iran would be, based on US military wargames he was involved in. He predicts that such a war could last ten years, cost $10 trillion and still fail to conquer the country. Airstrikes alone would not destroy all of Iranā€™s civilian nuclear program and ballistic missile stockpiles. Once unleashed, the conflict would very likely escalate into a regime change war involving US ground forces in a country with three or four times the territory and population of Iraq, more mountainous terrain and a thousand-mile-long coastline bristling with missiles that can sink US warships.

But Netanyahu and his extreme Zionist allies believe that they must sooner or later fight an existential war with Iran if they are to realize their vision of a dominant Greater Israel. They believe that the destruction they have wreaked on the Palestinians in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the of their senior leaders, has given them a military advantage and a favorable opportunity for a showdown with Iran.

Biden could de-escalate the Middle Eastern conflict, but wonā€™tĢż

By November 10, Trump and Netanyahu had spoken by phone three times since the election, and Netanyahu said that they see ā€œeye to eye on the Iranian threat.ā€ Trump hired Iran hawk , who helped him sabotage the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018, to coordinate the formation of his foreign policy team.

So far, the team that Trump and Hook have assembled seems to offer hope for peace in Ukraine, but little to none for peace in the Middle East and a rising danger of a USā€“Israeli war on Iran.

Trumpā€™s expected National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is best known as a China hawk. He has voted against military aid to Ukraine in Congress, but he recently that Israel should bomb Iranā€™s nuclear and oil facilities. That would be the most certain path to a full-scale war.

Trumpā€™s new UN ambassador, Elise Stefanik, has led moves in Congress to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. She led the questioning of US university presidents at an antisemitism hearing in Congress, after which the presidents of Harvard and Penn resigned.

While Trump will have some advisors who support his desire to end the war in Ukraine, there will be few voices in his inner circle urging caution over Netanyahuā€™s genocidal ambitions in Palestine and his determination to cripple Iran.

If he wanted to, Biden could use his final two months in office to de-escalate the conflicts in the Middle East. He could impose an embargo on offensive weapons for Israel, push for serious ceasefire negotiations in both Gaza and Lebanon and work through US partners in the Gulf to de-escalate tensions with Iran.

But Biden is unlikely to do any of that. When his own administration sent a letter to Israel last month, threatening a cut in military aid if Israel did not allow a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza in the next 30 days, Israel responded by doing just the opposite: actually cutting the number of trucks allowed in. The State Department claimed Israel was taking ā€œsteps in the right directionā€ and Biden to take any action.

We will soon see if Trump is able to make progress in moving the war in Ukraine towards negotiations, potentially saving the lives of many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians. But between the catastrophe that Trump will inherit and the warhawks he is picking for his cabinet, peace in the Middle East seems more distant than ever.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Will Trump End or Escalate Bidenā€™s Wars? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

This state of crafted ambiguity would inevitably lead to growing instability among the Western governments united in a poorly and clearly failing designed mission, a process confirmed by recent events in France, Germany and, of course, the US. This was further confirmed by the return not only of Donald Trump to the White House, but of a Republican majority in the US Senate, the House and of course, the Supreme Court.

Whether itā€™s been a good year for democrats ā€” those who believe in the resilience of democracy ā€” is debatable. It has clearly been a good year for Republicans, even in unstable France, where President Emmanuel Macron nominated a øéĆ©±č³Ü²ś±ō¾±³¦²¹¾±²Ō prime minister, despite the fact that les øéĆ©±č³Ü²ś±ō¾±³¦²¹¾±²Ōs, formerly the dominant right wing party, were clear losers in this summerā€™s parliamentary elections, drawing a mere 5.7% of the vote. It was the left-wing coalition, Le Nouveau Front Populaire, that came out on top.

In the meantime, the German coalition government, in power since September 2021, has collapsed and Deutschland will hold a new general election in February 2025. It appears likely that the Christian Democrats (CDU), the party of Angela Merkel, will win that election. That may sound reassuring to some, who believe in bringing back formulas that seemed to work in the past, but Germanyā€™s voters appear increasingly defiant of the ruling elites of the present and past. Rather, they appear attracted by solutions coming from the far-right (Alternative fĆ¼r Deutschland) and the far-left (BĆ¼ndnis Sahra Wagenknecht). The sense of disillusionment and confusion related to Germanyā€™s policies concerning the Ukraine war have been aggravated by recent events in the US and in Europe itself.

In this context, of what took place at the BRICS+ summit in October 2024 in Kazan, Russia made that event and the order it adumbrates resemble a haven of peace and mutual understanding. A major outcome was the resolution to promote ā€œexpanding the use of local currencies to Promote Economic Stabilityā€ complemented by an expanding list of countries that will be associated with BRICS.

This may explain why the US Congress decided to act with the aim of ensuring that the public does not become seduced by such a harmonious approach to global affairs.

On November 4, Alex Gloy shared this bit of news with us, as he helpfully provided the link to a piece of bearing the ominous title: H.R.1157 – Countering the PRC Malign Influence Fund Authorization Act of 2023.

ā€œWho is paying for the music?ā€ Alex asked. He then provided the figures.

ā€œ$1.6 billion ($325 million for 5 years each) appropriated by US Congress to be distributed to journalists to ā€˜counter the Peopleā€™s Republic of China Malign Influenceā€™ and the ā€˜malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party and the Government of the Peopleā€™s Republic of China and entities acting on their behalf globally.ā€™ā€

George W. Bush launched his famous ā€œGlobal War on Terrorā€ primarily with military means in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Congress is launching what is beginning to look like a global war on malign influence. In this case the theater of war is journalism. This tells us something about how we should think about what we read in the media over the next five years.

Alex continued with these comments:

ā€œThis makes it easy to discard anything you read about China, Russia, and therefore the BRICS in traditional western media as propaganda. When you know what to look for, you see it everywhere. Western media reports on China used to be infatuated with pollution. Now that China is adding more solar capacity than the rest of the world combined ā€“ crickets. Chinaā€™s success in making affordable EVs is greeted with tariffs. Western countries exporting their wares to China are ā€˜export champions.ā€™ Chinese companies doing the same are ā€˜dumping overcapacities.ā€™

There is a Chinese high-speed train making the 1,600 km (1,000 miles) trip from Shanghai to Hong Kong in 8 hours. It took my daughter more than that to travel from NYC to Burlington, VT (300 miles).

Every economic report paints a dire picture of the Chinese economy, despite it having grown 5.2% in 2023, and GDP having expanded 17x over the past 25 years.

A rather hilarious example: WaPoā€™s ā€˜China ruined caviar for us.ā€™ā€

Before returning to the question of BRICS, which Congress certainly deems to be a vehicle for Chinaā€™s ā€œmalign influence,ā€ Alex notes that ā€œ$325m would have paid for 5,000 public school teachers.ā€ Disinformation is clearly more valuable and especially more urgently required than the information schools seek to instill.

Alex then added the following observations:

ā€œBut back to BRICS:

• Yes, the US threw the first stone by cutting Russia off. Russia used to be in the top 20 international holders of Treasury securities ($109 billion in 2017). Russia helped finance the US budget deficit, including the US defense budget!
• From the BRICS perspective the aim to reduce dependency on the US dollar is nothing but logical ā€“ it would be stupid to continue to finance the US and run the risk of confiscation.
• As long as the US runs a trade deficit, the external sector (non-US countries), in aggregate, will be forced to accumulate US dollars AND will be forced to keep sending goods and services to the US. As the US dollar is overvalued, this benefits US consumers to the detriment of other countriesā€™ consumers.
• From a US perspective, however, losing the ability to send digital dollars in exchange for real goods and services is, of course, a threat. Losing the status of the worldā€™s reserve currency would go hand in hand with losing the position of global hegemon. Hence the US correctly identifies any attempts to do so as hostile.
• The official reason for the by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) from the mBridge project that aimed at creating a multi-central bank digital currency (CBDC) platform, which had been developed to the MVP stage, was the fact that it would have meant working with a sanctioned country (Russia). But it is probably safe to assume there was heavy US pressure to do so.
• The BRICS countries will have to figure it out by themselves. One solution could be a supra-national currency, pegged to gold (but at a floating rate). National currencies will also have to float against the supra-national currency used for settlements; otherwise, imbalances pile up. Maybe a managed float, like the CNH (or the ECU before introduction of the Euro), to reduce volatility.
• A floating gold peg is, in reality, not a peg, but it helps build confidence.
• If a US person wanted to exchange dollars into gold, they can do so at $2,600 per ounce today. But few people take advantage of that possibility. However, once a currency rapidly loses value, people will line up to buy gold. So, you have to make sure the currency is somewhat stable. This means you need a stable banking system, and a credible lender of last resort (central bank). And some fiscal discipline. Which is hard, even for Germany. If itā€™s hard for Germany, with its currency account surplus, itā€™s even harder for emerging economies (strong growth usually leads to strong import growth leading to current account deficits).ā€

Since Alexā€™s contribution on November 4, the BIS rescinded its announced decision to scuttle mBridge and write off the investment. It has now agreed to leave it in the hands of central banks who wish to continue developing it and ultimately deploy it. Most observers agree that the likely candidates would be China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.

Alex has also noted an important point: that the election of Donald Trump has buried any ambition of a US CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) at least for the next four years. This offers an opportunity for other nations to leap ahead. Privately-issued Tether is filling the gap for now, but other nations might take advantage of this golden opportunity and benefit from first-mover advantage.

Concerning the BIS decision to drop mBridge, Josh Lipsky of the Atlantic Council ā€œthat while China could continue developing mBridge, Western central banks may turn their attention to alternative platforms such as Project AgorĆ”, a similar initiative backed by central banks in Europe, Japan, Korea, and the US.ā€

Will this be the face of a new currency cold war? The first Cold War famously pitted God-fearing capitalism against atheistic communism. This one is more likely to become a contest between ā€œbenign influenceā€ on one side and ā€œmalign influenceā€ on the other. Future observers will have to decide which one is which.

Join the debate

Money Mattersā€¦, is dedicated to developing this discussion and involving all interested parties.

We invite all of you who have something to contribute to send us your reflections at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We will integrate your insights into the ongoing debate. We will publish them as articles or as part of the ongoing dialogue.

*[51³Ō¹Ļā€™s ā€œCrucible of Collaborationā€ is meant to be a space in which multiple voices can be heard, comparing and contrasting their opinions and insights in the interest of deepening and broadening our understanding of complex topics.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post FOĀ° Crucible: Money Matters in a Multipolar World, Part 12 appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Tragically, the candidate who said that was not Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Kamala Harris, but Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Most voters have been persuaded that Stein cannot win the election, and many believe that voting for her in swing states will help elect Trump by siphoning voters from Harris. There are many other ā€œthird-partyā€ candidates for president, and many of them have good policy proposals for ending the genocidal USā€“Israeli massacre in Gaza. As the for Claudia de la Cruz, the presidential candidate for the Party of Socialism and Liberation, explains, ā€œOur tax dollars should be used to meet peopleā€™s needs — not pay for the bullets, bombs and missiles used in the massacre in Gaza.ā€

Many of the principles and policy proposals of ā€œthird-partyā€ and independent candidates are more in line with the views of most US citizens than those of Harris or Trump. This is hardly surprising given the widely-recognized of the US political system. Trump cynically flip-flops to appeal to both sides on many questions, and Harris generally avoids committing to policy specifics at all, especially regarding foreign policy. Regardless, most US citizens understand that they are both more beholden to the billionaires and corporate interests who fund their campaigns than to the well-being of working citizens or the future of the planet.

US militarism trumps peace

Michael Moore has published a titled, ā€œThis Is America.ā€ It shows that large majorities of US citizens support liberal positions on 18 different issues, from a ceasefire in Gaza to Medicare For All to getting money out of politics. Moore implies that this should be reassuring to Democrats and Harris supporters, and it would be if she was running on those positions. But, for the most part, she isnā€™t. On the other hand, many third-party and independent candidates for president are running on those positions, but the anti-democratic US political system ensures that they canā€™t win, even when most voters agree with them.

War and militarism are the most deadly and destructive forces in human society. They have real-world, everyday impacts that kill or maim people and destroy homes, communities and entire countries. So it is deeply disturbing that the US political system has been corrupted into bipartisan subservience to a military-industrial complex that wields precisely the ā€œunwarranted influenceā€ that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against 64 years ago. It uses its influence to drag us into wars that wreak death and destruction in country after country. Apart from brief wars in the 1980s and 1990s to recover small neocolonial outposts in , and , the US military has not won a war since 1945. It systematically fails on its own terms, while its nakedly lethal and destructive power only fills graveyards and leaves countries in ruins.

Far from being an effective vehicle to project US power, unleashing the brutality of the war machine has become the fastest, surest way to further undermine our international standing in the eyes of our neighbors. After so many wars under so many administrations of both parties, neither Republicans nor Democrats can claim to be a ā€œlesser evilā€ on questions of war and peace, let alone a ā€œpeace party.ā€

As with so many of the USā€™s problems, from the expansion of corporate and oligarchic power to the generational decline in living standards, the combined impact of decades of Democratic and Republican government is more dangerous, more lasting and more intractable than the policies of any single administration. On no question is this more obvious than that of war and peace.

For decades, there was a small but growing progressive wing in the Democratic Party that voted against record military spending and opposed US wars, occupations and coups. But when Bernie Sanders ran for president in 2016 and 2020 and millions of grassroots Democrats rallied around his progressive agenda, the Party leaders and their corporate, plutocratic backers to Bernie. They fought more aggressively there than they ever did to win elections against the Republicans or oppose the war on Iraq or tax cuts for the wealthy.

In August 2024, flush with from the Israel lobby, pro-Israel Democrats defeated two of the most progressive, public-spirited Democratic members of Congress, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman. In 2013, on the Republican side, in response to the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, the libertarian Republican member of Congress Ron Paul a small group of Republicans to join progressive Democrats in an informal bipartisan peace caucus in Congress. In recent years, however, the number of members of either party willing to take any kind of stand for peace has shrunk dramatically. So while there are now over 100 from the Candy Caucus to the Pickleball Caucus, there is still not an official one for peace; the closest we have is the , which treats it as just one of several topics.

After the neocons who provided the ideological fuel for Bushā€™s catastrophic wars reconvened around Hillary Clinton in 2016, President Trump to ā€œmake Americaā€™s military great againā€ by appointing retired generals to his cabinet and characteristically staking out positions all over the map. He tried everything, from a call to the families of ā€œterroristsā€ to a National Defense Strategy Russia and China as the ā€œcentral challenge to U.S. prosperity and security,ā€ to casting himself as a peacemaker by trying to a peace treaty with North Korea. Trump is now running against President Joe Bidenā€™s war in Ukraine and trying to have it both ways on Gaza, with undying support for Israel and a promise to end the war immediately.

Some Palestinian-Americans are supporting Trump for not being the VP for Genocide Joe, just as other people support Harris for not being Trump. But most US citizens know little about Trumpā€™s actual war policy as president. The unique value of a leader like Trump to the military-industrial complex is that he draws attention to himself and diverts attention away from US atrocities overseas.

Trump and Harris have blood on their hands

In 2017, Trumpā€™s first year in office, he oversaw the climax of President Barack Obamaā€™s war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which may have killed as many civilians as Israel has massacred in Gaza. In that year alone, the US and its allies dropped over 60,000 and missiles on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,Yemen, Libya, Pakistan and Somalia. That was the heaviest bombing since the first Gulf War in 1991, and double the destruction of the ā€œShock & Aweā€ bombing of Iraq in 2003.

Most chillingly, the Iraqi forces who defeated the last remnants of ISIS in Mosulā€™s Old City were ordered to kill all the survivors, fulfilling Trumpā€™s threat to ā€œtake out their families.ā€ ā€œWe killed them all,ā€ an Iraqi soldier Middle East Eye. ā€œDaesh, men, women and children. We killed everyone.ā€ If anyone is counting on Trump to save the people of Gaza from Netanyahu and Bidenā€™s genocide, that should be a reality check.

In other areas, Trumpā€™s back-pedaling on Obamaā€™s diplomatic achievements with Iran and Cuba have led to new crises for both those countries on the eve of this election. By moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, bribing Arab despots with and encouraging Netanyahuā€™s Greater Israel ambitions, Trump primed the powder keg for the genocide in Gaza and the new crisis in the Middle East under Biden.

On the other side, Harris for genocide, arguably the most serious international crime in the book. To make matters worse, she has connived in a grotesque scheme to provide for the genocide by pretending to be working toward a ceasefire that, as Stein and have said, the US could enforce ā€œin the blink of an eye, with a single phone callā€ if it really wanted to. As for the future, Harris has only committed to making the US military even more ā€œlethal.ā€

The movement for a Free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza has failed to win the support of the Republican or Democratic presidential campaigns. But this is not a failure on the part of the Palestinian-Americans we have listened to and worked with, who have engaged in brilliant organizing, gradually raised public awareness and more US citizens to their cause. They are leading the most successful anti-war organizing campaign in the US since the Iraq War.

We must stand for peace

The refusal of Trump or Harris to listen to the calls of US citizens whose families are being massacred in Gaza, and now in Lebanon too, is a failure on the part of the corrupt, anti-democratic political system of which Trump and Harris are figureheads. It is not a failure of activism or organizing.

Whomever we vote for in the presidential election, the campaign to end the genocide in Gaza will continue. We must grow stronger, smarter and more inclusive until politicians cannot ignore us, no matter how much money the Israel lobby and other corrupt interests throw at them, or at their political opponents.

The elephant in the room will still be US militarism and the violence and chaos it inflicts on the world. Whether Trump or Harris is president, the result will be more of the same, unless we do something to change it. As legendary Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu famously , ā€œIf you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.ā€

No US citizen should be condemned for voting for a candidate of their choice, however successfully the Democrats and Republicans have marginalized the very concept of multi-party democracy that the US claims to support in other countries. We must find a way to put peace back on this countryā€™s national agenda and make our collective voices heard in ways that cannot be drowned out by oligarchs with big bags of cash.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post A No-Win Dilemma for United States Peace Voters appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

In the decision, the majority , ā€œThe Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.ā€

The decision to overturn Chevron was split down partisan lines. The Courtā€™s three liberal justices dissented from the majority decision, calling it an act of judicial hubris.

The Courtā€™s overturning of 40 years of legal precedent will have far-reaching effects. While Democrats and Republicans blame each other for the coming storm, it is clear that the polarization surrounding the decision will overwhelm the legal system and lead to high-cost consequences for many businesses.

The beginning and end of Chevron

The logic behind the Chevron deference doctrine was to make regulation more effective and efficient. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act of 1972 to control water pollution, they could not define every pollutant and set safe levels for every one. So, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) creates the standards, policies and detailed regulations to fill the gaps.

In 1984, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) the EPAā€™s standards in Chevron. The DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the NRDC, but the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, inaugurating the deference doctrine. If the 1972 act was silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, the Supreme Court decided, judges should defer to the EPAā€™s interpretation of the statute. This precedent soon became a foundational principle, being cited thousands of times in the following years.

Later, however, the Supreme Court has been diluting the Chevron deference doctrine. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ā€œAt this point, all that remains of Chevron is a decaying husk with bold pretensions.ā€

In 2022, the court created the ā€œmajor questionsā€ in West Virginia v. EPA. Agencies asserting new authority with economic and political significance required a higher standard of ā€œclear congressional authorization.ā€ This put limits on the power Chevron gave to administrative agencies. The major questions doctrine was also the basis for down US President Joe Bidenā€™s policy to forgive $430 billion of student loan debt.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was the final nail in Chevronā€™s coffin. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a branch of the Department of Commerce, required Loper Bright Enterprises, a herring fishery, to have a third-party monitor on every boat to prevent overfishing. The government paid the salaries of the monitors. However, when the money ran out, the NMFS told Loper Bright Enterprises to pay the monitors.

The employees of Loper Bright then sued Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, claiming that the NMFSā€™ requirement was unconstitutional. Due to Chevron, the case was dismissed because the court deferred to the agencyā€™s interpretation. However, when Loper Bright appealed, the case made it to the Supreme Court where it found several conservative justices ready to overturn Chevron.

Businesses will be hit hard

Businesses operating in the US will be affected by the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, though the exact impact and timing are not yet clear. As judicial challenges to federal regulations proceed, compliance requirements for businesses will become less predictable.

Changes could occur in several areas, including in visa regulations, workplace health and safety, equal employment opportunities and the status of independent contractors. In the longer term, a patchwork of regulations may be upheld or canceled, leading to increased ambiguity and confusion for businesses. Most importantly, judges may rule in surprising ways and along partisan lines, causing a clash between ideologies.

A practical example illustrates why the 2024 judgment is extremely consequential for consumers, businesses and the economy. After the 1929 Wall Street Crash, Congress passed the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and created the Securities and Exchange Commission (). However, since the 1934 act, the economy and financial markets became increasingly complex. Standards that applied in 1934 may not apply in todayā€™s modern market.

Thus, legislative delegation to the SEC must sometimes be implicit, not explicit, to avoid overwhelming legislators. Chevron deference made this easier by giving the SEC the power to interpret the original act of 1934 without judicial interference. A court was not to substitute its own interpretation of the 1934 statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the SEC. However, with power to interpret taken away from the SEC, rulings on financial standards will vary from court to court.

Chevron caused ideological strife

The Courtā€™s three liberal judges argued giving courts the right to impose their judgment on the law was simply a power grab. Conservative judges, on the other hand, took the view that the Chevron deference doctrine gave administrators too much power and prevented judges from judging.

Republicans, conservative legal scholars and business leaders in the US also favor the new judgment. The right points to bureaucratic empire-building since the creation of the modern administrative state by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. They also claim agencies expanded their power beyond what the original legislation permitted. In 1952, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson even called the bureaucracy the ā€œveritable fourth branchā€ of government.

Republicans believe the new decision will check left-leaning bias in federal agencies. Republicans blame Democrats for deliberately passing vague laws to exercise federal power in the name of the Democratic agenda. Left-leaning, unelected bureaucrats impose unending red tape on businesses, causing costs and delays. As such, the US economy becomes less competitive. To Republicans, bureaucrats violate the principle of separation of powers. They act like the legislature by crafting regulations. They also act like the judiciary by interpreting those regulations in their favor.

Just as Republicans complain that Democrats dominate regulatory agencies, the latter complain about the former for politicizing the courts. Supreme Court conservatives adhere to conservative jurisprudence, which is fixated based on originalism and textualism. Originalism is the principle that the constitution should be interpreted to mean what it meant at the time it was written.

Textualism is the theory that the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text. No consideration is given to non-textual influences. Democrats see the recent originalist and textualist judgments of the Supreme Court as a result of decades of disciplined work by their Republican rivals to put conservatives on the court.

Democrats agonize about the Republican capture of the Supreme Court. After stuffing the Supreme Court with their partisan nominees, Republicans achieved major agenda itmes such as overturning Roe v. Wade (1973), putting the legality of abortion back in the hands of the states, and dismantling the US administrative state, causing ā€œhavoc in society.ā€

Democrats believe the 2024 Loper Bright decision created legal chaos and a crisis in governance. Democrats, administrative lawyers and legal scholars at the top US schools state that the US legal system will soon experience spectacular fireworks. On July 1, the Supreme Courtā€™s five-three in Corner Post v. Federal Reserve eliminated the statute of limitations for many challenges to administrative rules.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson warned of a ā€œtsunami of lawsuits.ā€ Justice Elena Kagan thought similarly regarding the 2024 decision. In her dissenting opinion, she wrote, ā€œIn one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issueā€”no matter how expertise-driven or policy-ladenā€”involving the meaning of regulatory law.ā€

The two decisions, Loper Bright and Corner Post, have the ability to come together to create a Brexit-style arrangement supporting conservative ideological fervor for rolling back the Rooseveltian state. The legal certainty that businesses enjoyed in the US is now threatened. Neither the bureaucracy nor the courts are prepared for the imminent tsunami of cases. In an extremely litigious society, the legal system could find itself overwhelmed.

[ and edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Chevron Overturn Signals Volatile Emerging Storm of Litigation appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Already the alacrity of US presidents to impose sanctions on anyone who fails to conform with US policies has persuaded many nations to seek an escape route from the tyranny of the US dollar in global trade. Are American politicians and their media not aware of the damage US foreign policy has wrought on American soft power, which has in the past played an important role in promoting a positive image of the US?ā€

Your observations highlight several important and interconnected issues regarding the perception of US foreign policy and its impact on international relations and American soft power. Hereā€™s a detailed examination of these points:

1. **Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress**: The enthusiastic reception of Benjamin Netanyahu in the US Congress, marked by numerous standing ovations, can indeed send a strong signal internationally. For many observers, particularly in regions like the Middle East and South Asia, it might reinforce the perception of the US being unconditionally supportive of Israeli policies, including those that are controversial or widely condemned, such as the treatment of Palestinians.
2. **US Wars in the Middle East**: The US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have left deep scars and a legacy of instability in the region. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 further damaged the USā€™s reputation, showing perceived failures in strategic planning and execution. These military actions have significantly influenced global perceptions, fostering skepticism and resentment towards American interventions.
3. **Support for Israel**: The strong and often unconditional support for Israel, particularly in the context of actions in Gaza and the West Bank, is a contentious issue. Many international bodies and observers have criticized Israelā€™s actions as human rights violations or even as potential war crimes. This unwavering US support can alienate other nations and peoples, contributing to a perception of bias and double standards in American foreign policy.
4. **Sanctions and International Reactions**: The USā€™s frequent use of economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy has prompted a backlash. Countries targeted by these sanctions often see them as coercive and unjust, leading to efforts to create alternatives to the US-dominated financial system. The BRICS nationsā€™ move towards creating mechanisms independent of the US dollar is a significant step in this direction, reflecting a desire to reduce dependency on US economic influence.
5. **Decline of American Soft Power**: Soft power, the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce, has been a cornerstone of American influence since the Cold War. Cultural appeal, democratic values, and the promise of economic opportunity have traditionally garnered international goodwill. However, recent foreign policy decisions, perceived as aggressive or unilateral, have eroded this soft power. Global opinion has been increasingly critical of US policies, from military interventions to economic sanctions and support for contentious allies.
6. **Media and Political Awareness**: Within the US, there is often a disconnect between domestic political narratives and international perceptions. American politicians and media might focus on domestic approval and political gain, sometimes at the expense of understanding or addressing the broader implications of their policies. This inward focus can lead to a lack of awareness or acknowledgment of the negative impact on global perceptions and relations.

In conclusion, the convergence of these factors indicates a significant challenge for US foreign policy. Restoring and maintaining American soft power requires a nuanced and empathetic approach, acknowledging global perspectives, and fostering international cooperation. Awareness and adjustment of strategies in response to these criticisms could help mitigate the damage and rebuild the trust and influence that the US has traditionally enjoyed.

ā€œMay I point out that of the six points you develop, the first five are simple reformulations of the points I made? The sixth is the only one that even acknowledges my question, but instead of seeking to provide an answer ā€“ for example in the form of insightful analysis of what motivates the politicians and media to persist in this blindness ā€“ you simply echo my own observations. You identify the problem as one of ā€˜inward focus.ā€™ That seems obvious. My question seeks to go further, to understand what in the composition of the US political and media system and the culture contributes to preventing open discussion about this basic problem of perception. By not broaching the question, it is impossible to find answers. Worse, the degree of alienation this produces across the globe appears to be reaching a tipping point that could presage open conflict. No one ā€“ except maybe the media ā€“ have anything to gain from open conflict. And yet the conditions that may spawn it are becoming aggravated by the day, as the Netanyahu episode illustrates. So, do you have any insight into why the political institutions, including Congress, and the media resist facing a truth that can only work to the detriment of the American people?ā€

Your concerns about the deeper structural and cultural reasons behind the US political and media systemsā€™ apparent resistance to addressing global perceptions of American foreign policy are valid and complex. Letā€™s delve into some possible factors that contribute to this issue:

1. **Political Incentives and Domestic Focus**:

• **Electoral Dynamics**: US politicians are primarily motivated by the need to secure votes and maintain political power. This often means catering to domestic audiences and interest groups that have significant influence on elections. Foreign policy decisions that might be unpopular domestically, even if they improve international relations, are often avoided.
• **Lobbying and Interest Groups**: Powerful lobbying groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), exert considerable influence over US foreign policy. Their ability to mobilize political and financial support means that many politicians align with their positions, sometimes at the expense of broader international considerations.

2. **Media Ecosystem**:

• **Corporate Ownership and Profit Motives**: Major media outlets in the US are often owned by large corporations with vested interests. Sensationalism, conflict, and stories that appeal to partisan audiences drive viewership and advertising revenue. This can lead to a narrow focus on issues that resonate with domestic audiences rather than nuanced international perspectives.
• **Echo Chambers and Partisan Divides**: The rise of social media and partisan news outlets has created echo chambers where audiences are exposed primarily to information that reinforces their existing beliefs. This limits the scope for critical discussion and understanding of complex international issues.

3. **Cultural and Historical Factors**:

• **Exceptionalism**: There is a deeply ingrained belief in American exceptionalism, the idea that the US has a unique role and moral duty to lead the world. This can foster a dismissive attitude towards international criticism and a reluctance to engage with perspectives that challenge this narrative.
• **Historical Context**: The legacy of the Cold War and the subsequent unipolar moment in the 1990s reinforced a sense of American dominance. Adjusting to a multipolar world where US actions are scrutinized and challenged is a difficult transition for both political leaders and the public.

4. **Structural and Institutional Constraints**:

• **Bureaucratic Inertia**: Institutions like the Department of State and Department of Defense have established ways of operating that can be resistant to change. Policies and attitudes formed during previous administrations can persist, limiting the flexibility to adapt to new international realities.
• **Checks and Balances**: The US political system, with its multiple layers of checks and balances, can slow down policy changes. Even when there is recognition of the need for a shift in foreign policy, implementing these changes can be a protracted process.

5. **Educational and Informational Gaps**:

• **Lack of Global Awareness**: The American education system and media often do not prioritize international education or perspectives, leading to a populace that may be less informed about global issues and the impact of US foreign policy.
• **Narrative Control**: Government and media narratives can shape public understanding and discourse. When these narratives focus on national security and patriotic themes, critical discussions about foreign policy are sidelined.

Understanding these factors helps to illuminate why there is resistance to facing certain truths about US foreign policy and its global repercussions. Addressing these issues would require a concerted effort to reform political incentives, diversify media ownership and content, promote global awareness, and foster a culture of critical engagement with international perspectives. Without such changes, the conditions that exacerbate global alienation and potential conflict are likely to persist.

If I were grading a student, Iā€™d give ChatGPT an A+ for this answer. This should demonstrate that to get anything substantial and formally reasoned from AI requires two things: precision and patience. It means asking the right questions, not once but multiple times by patiently reformulating them. We need to understand that if AI has a strategy as the participant in a dialogue, its goal isnā€™t accuracy. Instead, it aims at creating the impression of being well-informed.

To coax ChatGPT to the point that it can prove genuinely helpful in producing an answer to a question, the interrogator must repeat and reformulate that question, possibly multiple times. More often than not, AI will tell you what you already know, while adding a few facts and complementary arguments. Now, that might sound like a trivial outcome, but it points to a way in which AI can be a wonderfully constructive aid to education.

Thatā€™s a topic of major importance we intend to address in future columns.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyoneā€™s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At 51³Ō¹Ļ, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Outside the Box: The Hardening Truth About Soft Power appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Perhaps one way to assess the question of election stability and security in 2024 is to ask: How different is this election from earlier tumultuous ones in American history? What, if any, lessons can we draw from the past? Or are we in genuinely uncharted territory today? 

In truth, when it comes to presidential elections, this country has faced some frightening moments in its history, ones that touch on a number of the fears that confront us today. We may never have faced the likes of Donald Trump, but we have experienced disputed vote tallies, Supreme Court interference, threats of violence, voting rights restrictions and a lack of confidence in the process itself.

Contested elections

Trump has made no bones about it. Should he lose the coming election, he reserves the ā€œrightā€ to to accept the results. In 2020, his denial of the results led to a violent attempt to block Congress from certifying the vote on the following January 6. To date, any accountability for his past actions has been minimal. Found guilty last month of falsifying business records to conceal election law violations in 2016, he has yet to be sentenced and may well appeal all the way up to a sympathetic Supreme Court. Moreover, he hasnā€™t been tried yet in Georgia and in federal court in Washington, DC on significantly more serious criminal charges about ways he and his followers tried to subvert the results of the 2020 election ā€” and heā€™s to be before the November elections.Ģż

Most Republicans have remained at his side. Indeed, election denialism has become a rallying point rather than a mark of shame. As a result, the former president continues to engage in implied threats to the democratic political process with unwavering partisan support. And were he to disappear from the political scene thanks to a decisive defeat in 2024, others could follow him in exploiting the democratic system for political gain.

While there have been a handful of disputed presidential election results since the countryā€™s founding, two stand out. In the of 1876, Republican Rutherford B Hayes lost the popular and electoral vote to Samuel Tilden. The Republicans protested that, in three states, the results were uncertain. To resolve the issue, Congress created a bipartisan panel, including House and Senate representatives and five Supreme Court justices. That panel then granted Hayes all 20 disputed electoral votes, giving him a one-point electoral margin over Tilden, and so making him president. Ultimately, the country found a way forward.

More than a century later, in the 2000 election between Republican George W Bush and Democrat Al Gore, the results again lay in dispute. Gore had won the popular vote, but the electoral vote was too close to call. All eyes focused on Florida where the results would determine the outcome. Although the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount, the Supreme Court it and, in doing so, made Bush president.

In neither post-election resolution did the losing candidate contest the results, though Tilden waited four months before conceding. The day after the Supreme Courtā€™s decision, Gore , saying, ā€œI accept the finality of this outcomeā€ ā€” a stark contrast to Trump who still refuses to concede that the 2020 election result was legitimate.

Itā€™s worth mentioning that both elections had major consequences. Hayesā€™s win, the result of a brokered deal, also ended the post-Civil War Reconstruction era and led to the withdrawal of US troops from the South. That election would prove an integral part of efforts to undo the biggest push the nation ever had to achieve racial justice.

The Bush administration, in turn, failed to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001. It then launched a multi decade-long ā€œwar on terrorā€ that would destabilize parts of the globe from South Asia to the Middle East and . According to the Costs of War , it led to the deaths of over 7,000 American service members and over 177,000 allied military and police in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq and Syria. Thatā€™s not even mentioning the deaths of over 430,000 .

Along with the knowledge that uncertainty can accompany election results, Americans sense as well that violence could indeed loom in as yet unknown ways, thanks to the 2024 election.

Violence before, during and after an election

Itā€™s not that Americans have never experienced the threat of violence around elections. The Civil War years saw numerous outbreaks of violence. In 1861, a mob of Confederate supporters tried to gather to Congress to stop the certification of Abraham Lincoln as president. There was no violence only because General Winfield Scott, a southerner, made sure the Capitol was protected.

So, too, in 1868, in the runup to the first election of the Reconstruction era between Ulysses S Grant and Horatio Seymour, Ku Klux Klan violence led to thousands of murders in Georgia, Kansas and Louisiana. Threats of violence kept voters away from the polls in droves. In the 1876 Tilden-Hayes election in which four states submitted multiple slates of electors to Congress, one popular slogan was ā€œTilden or Blood.ā€ Expecting violence, President Grant secured the Capitol with troops and prepared to deploy them elsewhere as well.

And then (as now), race and violence were a distinct issue. In 1873, white mobs a courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana to remove pro-Reconstruction Republican officials. In 1898, a horde of white North Carolinians conducted a coup against the fusionist government of the city of Wilmington to empower reactionary southern Democrats.

During the last part of the 19th and early 20th centuries, southern Jim Crow laws imposed in response to Reconstruction produced literacy tests and poll taxes that disenfranchised Black voters. And in the twentieth century, racially motivated violence aimed at suppressing the vote became a regular part of election politics.

During ā€œā€ in 1964, three civil rights workers ā€” James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Mickey Schwerner ā€” were killed by white terrorists for participating in Black voter registration initiatives in Mississippi. When police and white mobs assaulted demonstrators on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama during a nonviolent march on March 7, 1965 in support of voting rights legislation, the nation witnessed just how much brutality then existed for those seeking to fulfill the nationā€™s democratic promise.

Challenges in the 21st century

Experts anticipate a surge of violence at the polls this year. A Brennan Center found that, since 2020, ā€œ38 percent of local election officials experienced threats, harassment, or abuse for doing their jobs.ā€ To counter this, the federal government and individual states have already mounted efforts intended to protect both voters and officials. Since 2020, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and Congress have ponied up an extra for election protection.

And yet, as the Brennan Center points out, a growing fear of violence and harassment has led to ā€œan exodus from the fieldā€ of election work. Not surprisingly, a recent Ipsos/Reuters reported that two out of three Americans are concerned about the prospect of election violence in 2024 and fear the possibility of a worse version of the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

Violence at the polls has elections throughout the nationā€™s history, as Steven Hahn recounts in his new book, . The Voting Rights Act of 1965 proved to be fragile indeed, as red states continued to put voting restrictions in place based on false allegations of voter fraud.

Worse yet are the already emanating from former President Trump and Republicans close to him. The embrace of such anti-democratic sentiment by such a potentially powerful figure and his party at a time when global anti-democratic are on the rise has already created an historically rare level of instability in this country.

And keep in mind that not all the dangers of this moment have a footprint in the American past. There are new challenges that face the nation today. Disinformation is a case in point. While false information has always been a part of politics ā€” smears against were, for instance, a staple of the early Cold War years ā€” the Internet has proven a game-changer when it comes to facilitating false narratives that could lead to both voter suppression and a deep mistrust of election results.

The scale and scope of disinformation in the modern age has no precedent. Without editorial control and given the ease of disseminating misinformation, guardrails have crumbled. Experts that the massive communications infrastructure that transmits bad information could undermine confidence in election results in ways never before seen. Worse yet, artificial intelligence is likely to prove a particularly dangerous mechanism for producing electoral deep fakes.

Additionally, foreign interference seems now to have become a permanent feature of American elections, although to what end remains in question. As the 2019 report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller demonstrated, Russiaā€™s attempts to interfere with the 2016 election, including conducting ā€œinformation warfareā€ and attacking voter databases, proved ā€œsweeping and systematic.ā€

Where are we today?

When it comes to elections, despite Trump, itā€™s not been all downhill. In 2021, the Department of Justice an Election Threat Task Force aimed at individuals who posed threats to election workers. To date, 17 people have been . Significantly, in 2022, Congress the Electoral Count Reform Act, an attempt to update the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and improve the process of certifying the vote, ensuring a smooth transition period between election day and inauguration day. Additionally, that same year Congress passed legislation to a Foreign Malign Influence Center to counter disinformation from overseas generally, not just in elections.

The federal courts have also proven to be barriers against electoral subversion. In the wake of the 2020 election, they repeatedly denied Trump success in his efforts to overturn the results. Yet even this source of democratic protection has been limited, while the present all too conservative Supreme Court, which in 2013 the Voting Rights Act, has continued to voter protections.

The question then remains: What do the lessons of history and recent reforms tell us about our current moment? On the one hand, history suggests that election dysfunction has been overcome time and again. Whether weā€™re talking about contested results, challenges to voter suppression, outbreaks of violence or presidents elected without national majorities, such situations have been resolved reasonably successfully in the past. Meanwhile, new measures have been put in place for the security of election workers, the certification of the vote and the deterrence of voter suppression in new ways. In other words, American democracy has continued despite deeply rooted problems.

And yet, itā€™s also clear that past negative experiences have, in our moment, been twisted into newly dangerous configurations. In place of contested elections, there is now outright election . In addition to racially motivated violence, thereā€™s growing extremist aimed at the institution of voting itself. In place of partisan campaign rhetoric, weā€™re experiencing the spread of hate speech based on race, ethnicity, gender or simply opposition to democracy itself.

Instead of support for the outlawing of post-election violence, we now live with references to the imprisoned offenders of the January 6 riot as ā€œ.ā€ And just because this country has survived challenging times in the past doesnā€™t mean it will do so again, particularly as against democratic norms ramps up globally.

Many would blame such election instability on Trump alone. Thereā€™s no question that he has a profound knack for manipulating public discourse and threatening to upend election laws, not to speak of the rules, norms and processes that underlie election legitimacy. However significant, though, heā€™s not the only factor that warrants attention in this election year.

The largest threats to our elections now come not from weaponized technology, or a tone-deaf Congress or Supreme Court, or even perhaps from Trump himself (though dangerous he may be). The biggest challenge may lie in the absence of any long-term focus on the need for fundamental structural changes in how our elections are run. For centuries, we as a nation have made incremental changes in response to moments of election-related crisis. But far more is needed if we are to escape a future where we routinely question the legitimacy of the electoral process and whether the results will be accepted.

Our democratic system seems increasingly frail. To face the future with confidence in the most elemental building block of our democracy, we need a longer-term perspective. The elimination of the Electoral College, greater accountability for violence in and around elections, tools for curbing disinformation and improving election administration, a vast increase in funding for public education about polling sites and candidate platforms, strict accountability for attempted voter suppression and heightened efforts to secure voting rights for all are badly needed.

In other words, rather than facing a continual nip and tuck of problems as they appear, what we really need is a commission that will offer a full-scale rethinking of election security in the 21st century. The commission also needs to focus on getting Congress to move toward developing a comprehensive new strategy to deal with it. Even if we get through the 2024 election cycle intact and violence-free, the task of election reform remains both essential and, sadly, all too ignored.

Perhaps, however, there could be a silver lining in our unnerving moment if our ongoing election troubles lead us to conclude that the time for keeping our fingers crossed should end and the time for wholesale reform begin.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Trump Could Destroy Democracy. For Security, We Need Reform. appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Washington, DC, is treated essentially as a colony by our federal government. The people here have no voting representation in the federal legislature. Congress has allowed it to establish a local government. However, because DC is entirely federal land, the legislature can and regularly does our local laws. In fact, Congress could completely abolish DCā€™s local government at any time if it wanted to. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has for that if he wins the election this .

What Washington is currently enduring is taxation without representation. This is exactly what our founding fathers fought a revolution to end. There are almost 700,000 tax-paying in our nationā€™s capital, all of whom are denied the right to vote in federal elections. That is more than the voting populations of or and about the same as that of .

This lack of voting rights is a grave injustice. And it is not just an abstract democratic concern. There are real consequences to Washingtoniansā€™ everyday lives due to our colonial status, including to public safety, marijuana regulation and abortion services.

DCā€™s colonial status increases our crime rate

The most visible consequence is DCā€™s high crime rate compared to many other large cities. Because we are a district and not a state, we do not control our criminal justice system. All adult felonies ā€” which are the vast majority of serious crimes committed in DC ā€” are by the federal US Attorney for the District of Columbia. The head of that office is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. DC residents have no control over this official. All local crimes are brought before judges also appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. DC only our police department and the prosecution of adult misdemeanors and juvenile crimes.

Because our chief prosecutor ā€” currently Matthew Graves ā€” is not accountable to the people, there is little pressure on him to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Maybe that is why he only 33% of arrestees in 2022 with crimes. In any other jurisdiction, a chief prosecutor who did this during a crime spike would have been kicked from office at the next election or fired by a mayor who was worried about her own job. Alas, we do not have that option in DC.

Perhaps Graves deserves some leeway, though, because he is not working under a system designed for success. Having the prosecutor answer to the president and the police department answer to the mayor is a recipe for poor coordination. That is exactly what weā€™ve concocted.

Graves insists that the low charging rate is at least partly due to the DC policeā€™s to legally secure admissible evidence, thus preventing the prosecutor from proving arrestees guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The police respond that the prosecutor is using this as an excuse to avoid doing his job. Regardless of who is correct, the two sides clearly do not work well together. If both were working under the same government, there would be far fewer coordination challenges.

In addition to this failure, there is a long-running judicial vacancy occurring in DC. Confirming judges for the local court is the Senateā€™s last priority, regardless of which party controls it. We have gone years at a time without being able to fill vacancies. In 2022, this issue became so severe that DCā€™s local court wrote a to the Senate urging the confirmation of more judges, lest the system completely break down.

While things have improved slightly since then, DC still has a vast number of vacancies. As a result, trials take to complete here than in any other jurisdiction in the country. When Washingtonians complain that suspects are arrested but rarely face consequences, this is often what they are seeing: criminal suspects being released pending trial while their case waits years for a trial date.

All of this drives DCā€™s high crime rate. If criminals know they may be arrested but are not likely to be prosecuted, it stands to reason that they will be more likely to commit crimes. Hundreds of people are in homicide cases every year, and countless more are injured and traumatized.

If DC became a state, we would get full control of our criminal justice system and could eliminate these inefficiencies and structural problems. We could better address this problem if only our government had that kind of autonomy.

Marijuana unregulated and abortions unsubsidized

DCā€™s colonial status has impacted peoplesā€™ everyday lives in other ways. For one, in 2014, Congress DC from legalizing the sale of marijuana after voters passed a ballot measure for its legalization. Because Congress could not stop DC from legalizing the possession or use of it, we now see abundant ā€œgiftingā€ around the city. These retailers ā€œgiftā€ marijuana to customers after they buy another item.

These shops are unregulated, so buyers do not know what they are going to get from their purchase. They sometimes end up with a much stronger product than they expected. Further, because of their gray market status the government cannot issue proper safety regulations for these shops, which have become that impacts the whole community. Finally, because marijuana is treated like a free commodity and not taxed, our local government loses out on the millions of dollars that could come from district-wide sales.

In another consequence of colonialism, since 2011, Congress has DC from using own local tax dollars to subsidize abortions for low-income women. A 2013 report by the Guttmacher Institute estimates that of pregnancies here are unintended. Without access to government support for low-income women receiving abortions, thousands of unwanted pregnancies persist.

Ending Americaā€™s last mainland colony

The list of injustices goes on. To rectify these and improve the quality of life for Washingtonians, we need statehood. This is not a radical or unprecedented demand. Every other democracy in the world has had to consider what status its capitalā€™s residents should have. Nearly every one has granted voting rights in both the regional and national legislature to those citizens. If other countries have made these rights for residents of their capital city work, there is no reason America could not.

Fortunately, this problem has a relatively easy solution: Congress could pass a bill making Washington DC an official state, and the president should then sign it into law. This would not involve abolishing the federal district. Congress would simply restrict the federal district to a much smaller area, while creating a new state out of the federal land where the vast majority of Washingtonians live ā€” something that is perfectly within its ordinary power to do. No constitutional amendment would be ; just a regular bill, like the legislature passes dozens of times each year.

This is currently under consideration in Congress. It carves out the National Mall area plus a few blocks surrounding it and keeps that zone under the federal governmentā€™s control. So the federal government would still exercise full control over the Capitol, the White House, the national memorials, many offices for federal workers and almost every Smithsonian Museum. The rest of our current District of Columbia would become the state of ā€œWashington, Douglass Commonwealth,ā€ named after famous abolitionist and DC resident .

DC residents deserve the same representation as any American. These are inalienable rights, something the Declaration of Independence insists we all share ā€” for ā€œall men are created equal.ā€ And though many Americans have not truly enjoyed identical rights across our nationā€™s history, our story is one of continual progress toward the realization of this ideal.

The colonial status of our capital city is one of the most glaring areas where our nation still fails to live up to its founding creed. We must continue the fundamentally American task of closing the gaps between reality and equality by granting statehood and full voting rights to the almost 700,000 residents living here. We must end colonial injustice, allowing Washingtonians to claim their proper representation and become Americaā€™s 51st state.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Heart of America Must Now Become an Official State appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Every English speaker understands that languages are living tools not regulated by governments, but created by the mass of people who speak and write the language. Professional lexicographers define words at the behest of editors seeking to sell dictionaries on the free market. The job of a dictionary is to help citizens understand how other people use the words of the language. No honest person needs an agency appointed by the government to decide what words mean. As a warning of what might come if that principle was ever forgotten, George Orwell wrote a book in 1948 describing that ignominious process: 1984!

In the context of protests on United States college campuses against Israelā€™s war on Gaza, The Interceptā€™s Natasha Lennard reported information revealed by Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, concerning Columbia Universityā€™s task force on antisemitism. Lennard readers ā€œthat a definition of antisemitism will be put forward ā€” and it will include anti-Zionism.ā€  More specifically, the task forceā€™s brief ā€œis expected to determine that statements calling for the destruction and death of Israel and Zionism can be considered antisemitic.ā€

ā€œThis definition is designed to inform faculty and students about what can offend Jewish people and which types of statements can cause pain and discomfort,ā€ Haaretz stated.

This exceptional initiative to co-opt the task of professional lexicographers should impel us to think deeply not just about what the definition of ā€œantisemitismā€ might be, but far more radically, about what the definition of ā€œdefinitionā€ should be.

°Õ“Ē»å²¹²āā€™s Weekly Devilā€™s Dictionary definition:

Definition:

An always partial, limited, incomplete and sometimes distorted formulation found in dictionaries for the purpose of giving an idea of the sense or rather association of meaning that competent speakers of a language recognize as one of the designations that is frequently ā€” though not necessarily ā€” shared by other competent speakers of the language.

Contextual note

My proposed ā€œdefinitionā€ seeks to be precise by being vague, which is to say, as inclusive as possible in its account of the general publicā€™s perception of the word. Formal dictionary definitions do not attempt to be inclusive. To be truly inclusive, every definition would require a lengthy essay.

Dictionary.com offers this of definition: ā€œthe formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries.ā€ Note that the author of this definition felt obliged to include an essential allusion to context: ā€œas found in dictionaries.ā€ Itā€™s a way of saying: ā€œIā€™m only talking about that convention used in the kind of book we all identify as a dictionary.ā€ The author acknowledges that in different contexts the same word will have a very different signification.

My ā€œShorter Oxford Dictionaryā€ published in 1967 contains five different definitions of definition. The first dating from 1483 states: ā€œThe setting of bounds; limitation (rare).ā€ Itā€™s only the fourth entry that points us towards the practice of dictionaries, and it is divided into two meanings: ā€œA precise statement of the essential nature of a thingā€ and ā€œA of the signification of a word or phrase.ā€

We should note this important point: A dictionary definition focuses on ā€œthe essential nature of a thing.ā€ In the case of antisemitism, everyone spontaneously understands that what is essential is the reference to the Jewish religion or Jewish people. The attitude towards a particular national government or its policies at a moment in time is unequivocally non-essential.

Lennard acknowledges the task forceā€™s action is limited to a specific context of use: the development of a ā€œmandatory antisemitism orientation.ā€ This specification of context is important, but rather than offering some useful precision about the meaning of words, the fact that it will be mandatory instruction makes the fait accompli of a definition artificially imposed even more troubling. A mandatory program that seeks to redefine a culturally loaded word with the objective of judging or constraining the freedom of thought and expression of others falls into the category of unmitigated authoritarianism. This is the contrary of the spirit of a liberal education.

The Intercept article explains that the pretext for this redefinition has nothing to do with homing in on the actual use of the word in authentic linguistic contexts. Rather, it has everything to do with anecdotal reports of the ā€œdiscomfortā€ felt by certain individuals when exposed to other peopleā€™s speech. The whole point of branding those forms of speech ā€œantisemitismā€ is to ostracize and therefore limit the way other people speak when unconstrained by official rules.

The ultimate absurdity is that to accomplish this goal of general censure requires a prestigious educational institution such as Columbia University to stretch the meaning of antisemitism to include a notion associated with a different word that remains undefined: anti-Zionism. The task force might have better spent its time defining anti-Zionism. But that would have required examining a century and a half of history, something the task force prefers to avoid. It runs the risk of getting people to think and express themselves freely.

Defenders of the task forceā€™s imitative insist that they arenā€™t trying to modify the dictionary, but simply give some precision to the points made in the mandatory instruction. ā€œEven if the only use of the definition is during mandatory orientations on antisemitism,ā€ Lennard points out, ā€œits deployment inscribes the dangerous antisemitism/anti-Zionism conflation into campus culture. Views of Palestinians, anti-Zionist Jews, and the many others in the community who express criticism of Israel are bound to be delegitimized.ā€

Historical note

The US has consistently celebrated its commitment to free speech. Just as consistently it has found ways, official and unofficial, to suppress it. A mere decade after ratifying the constitutionā€™s Bill of Rights that enshrined the basic freedoms, Congress, fearing a war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts. The second of these acts ā€œbanned the publishing of false or malicious writings against the government and the inciting of opposition to any act of Congress or the president.ā€

When the war with France failed to materialize, those acts were allowed to expire or were repealed. That was not the case with the much more drastic Espionage of 1917, passed during World War I. It is still in vigor to this day and has been used, with surreal effect, against government whistleblowers , and others. Despite the obvious contradiction with the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, Americans easily tolerate acts that restrict speech whenever they are convinced there is a threat from a foreign enemy. Consequently, politicians set about trying to convince citizens there is a threat, even if none exists.

What made some kind of sense in World War I is difficult to understand today. The idea that the US should bend its commitment to its own basic rights in the interest of Israel, a foreign power credibly accused of genocide, stretches beyond any patriotic reasoning the logic of ā€œnational security.ā€ But contemporary US presidents and Congress demonstrate an incorrigible knack for prioritizing the interests of an extremist government in Israel over enforcing the basic freedoms enshrined in the constitution for its own citizens. Congress is nearly unanimous in its weaponizing of the notion of antisemitism.

is common in times of war. In 1917, sauerkraut was rechristened ā€œliberty cabbage.ā€ Even the quintessential US dish, the hamburger, became a ā€œliberty steak.ā€ Orchestras refused to perform Beethoven. In 2003, George W Bush French fries ā€œfreedom friesā€ to spite the French who had the audacity to disbelieve the manufactured lie that Saddam Hussein was threatening the Western world with weapons of mass destruction. The tradition of redefining or even renaming words to please political interests long ago earned its title of nobility in US culture.

The real lesson we should draw from the ā€œliberty cabbageā€ episode is that people in times of war twist language as a way of affirming their authority and stirring hatred against critics. When protesters today say ā€œFree Palestine from the river to the seaā€ they are not attacking Jews, they are expressing their frustration with the historic policies of successive Israeli governments. They are protesting very visible war crimes being carried out before their very eyes.

Anti-Zionism is simply NOT antisemitism!

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devilā€™s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51³Ō¹Ļ Devilā€™s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.
[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Do Zionists Know the Definition of Definition? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

After working inside this countryā€™s doomsday machinery, even drafting nuclear war plans for the Pentagon during President John F Kennedyā€™s administration, Dan Ellsberg had gained intricate perspectives on what greased the bureaucratic wheels, personal ambitions and political messaging of the warfare state. Deceptions about arranging for the ultimate violence of thermonuclear were of a piece with routine falsehoods about American war-making. It was easy enough to get away with lying, he told me: ā€œHow difficult is it to deceive the public? I would say, as a former insider, one becomes aware: itā€™s not difficult to deceive them. First of all, youā€™re often telling them what they would like to believe ā€” that weā€™re better than other people, weā€™re superior in our morality and our perceptions of the world.ā€

Dan had made history in 1971 by revealing the top-secret , exposing the constant litany of official lies that accompanied the US escalation of the Vietnam War. In response, the government used the blunderbuss of the World War I-era Espionage Act to prosecute him. At age 41, he faced a possible prison sentence of more than 100 years. But his trial ended abruptly with all charges dismissed when the Nixon administrationā€™s in the case came to light in mid-1972. Five decades later, he : ā€œLooking back, the chance that I would get out of 12 felony counts from Richard Nixon was close to zero. It was a miracle.ā€

That miracle enabled Dan to keep on speaking, writing, researching and protesting for the rest of his life. (In those five decades, he averaged nearly two arrests per year for civil disobedience.) He worked tirelessly to prevent and oppose a succession of new American wars. And he consistently gave eloquent public support as well as warm personal solidarity to heroic whistleblowers ā€” , , , , , , , , and others ā€” who sacrificed much to challenge deadly patterns of official deceit.

Unauthorized freedom of speech

Dan often spoke out for freeing WikiLeaks publisher , whose work had revealed devastating secret US documents on Americaā€™s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the end of a visit in June 2015, when they said goodbye inside Ecuadorā€™s embassy in London, I saw that both men were on the verge of tears. At that point, Assange was three years into his asylum at that embassy, with no end in sight.

Secretly indicted in the United States, Assange remained in the Ecuadorian embassy for nearly four more years until London police him off to prison. Hours later, in a radio interview, Dan : ā€œJulian Assange is the first journalist to be indicted. If he is extradited to the US and convicted, he will not be the last. The First Amendment is a pillar of our democracy and this is an assault on it. If freedom of speech is violated to this extent, our republic is in danger. Unauthorized disclosures are the lifeblood of the republic.ā€

Unauthorized disclosures were the essence of what WikiLeaks had and what Dan had provided with the Pentagon Papers. Similarly, countless exposĆ©s about US government became possible due to the courage of Chelsea Manning, and profuse front-page news about the governmentā€™s systematic of the resulted from Edward Snowdenā€™s bravery. While gladly publishing some of their revelations, major American newspapers largely to defend their rights.

Such dynamics were all too familiar to Dan. He told me that the attitude toward him of the New York Times, which won a Pulitzer Prize with its huge Pentagon Papers scoop, was akin to a district attorneyā€™s view of a ā€œsnitchā€ ā€” useful but distasteful.

In recent times, Dan detested the smug media paradigm of ā€œEllsberg good, Snowden bad.ā€ So, he pushed back against the as by New Yorker staff writer Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote a lengthy along those lines in late 2016. Dan quickly responded with a letter to the editor, which never appeared.

The New Yorker certainly could have found room to print Danā€™s , which said: ā€œI couldnā€™t disagree more with Gladwellā€™s overall account.ā€ The letter was just under 300 words; the Gladwell piece had run more than 5,000. While promoting the ā€œEllsberg good, Snowden badā€ trope, the New Yorker did not let readers know that Ellsberg himself completely rejected it:

ā€œEach of us, having earned privileged access to secret information, saw unconstitutional, dangerously wrong policies ongoing by our government. (In Snowdenā€™s case, he discovered blatantly criminal violations of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, on a scale that threatens our democracy.) We found our superiors, up to the presidents, were deeply complicit and clearly unwilling either to expose, reform or end the wrongdoing.

ā€œEach of us chose to sacrifice careers, and possibly a lifetimeā€™s freedom, to reveal to the public, Congress, and the courts what had long been going on in secret from them. We hoped, each with some success, to allow our democratic system to bring about desperately needed change.

ā€œThe truth is there are no whistleblowers, in fact no one on earth, with whom I identify more closely than with Edward Snowden.

ā€œHere is one difference between us that is deeply real to me: Edward Snowden, when he was 30 years old, did what I could and should have done ā€” what I profoundly wish I had done ā€” when I was his age, instead of 10 years later.ā€

As he encouraged whistleblowing, Dan often expressed regret that he hadnā€™t engaged in it sooner. During the summer of 2014, a was on display at bus stops in Washington, DC, featuring a quote from Dan ā€” with big letters at the top saying ā€œDONā€™T DO WHAT I DID. DONā€™T WAIT,ā€ followed by ā€œuntil a new war has started, donā€™t wait until thousands more have died, before you tell the truth with documents that reveal lies or crimes or internal projections of costs and dangers. You might save a warā€™s worth of lives.ā€ Two whistleblowers who had been US diplomats, Matthew Hoh and Ann Wright, the billboard at a bus stop near the State Department.

A grotesque situation of existential danger

Above all, Daniel Ellsberg was preoccupied with opposing policies that could lead to nuclear war. ā€œNo policies in human history have more deserved to be recognized as immoral. Or insane,ā€ he wrote in The Doomsday Machine. ā€œThe story of how this calamitous predicament came about and how and why it has persisted for over half a century is a chronicle of human madness.ā€

Itā€™s fitting that the events set for Daniel Ellsberg (ending on June 16, the first anniversary of when Dan passed away) will include at least one at a Northrop Grumman facility. That company has a $13.3 billion to develop a of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which ā€” as Dan frequently ā€” is the most dangerous of all nuclear weapons. He was eager to awaken Congress to scientific data about ā€œā€ and the imperative of shutting down ICBMs to reduce the risks of nuclear war.

Five years ago, several of us from the Institute for Public Accuracy hand-delivered paperbacks of The Doomsday Machine ā€” with a personalized letter from Dan to each member of the House and Senate ā€” to all 535 congressional offices on Capitol Hill. ā€œI am concerned that the public, most members of Congress, and possibly even high members of the Executive branch have remained in the dark, or in a state of denial, about the implications of rigorous studies by environmental scientists over the last dozen years,ā€ Dan wrote near the top of his two-page . Those studies ā€œconfirm that using even a large fraction of the existing U.S. or Russian nuclear weapons that are on high alert would bring about nuclear winter, leading to global famine and near extinction of humanity.ā€

Danā€™s letter singled out the urgency of one ā€œimmediate stepā€ in particular: ā€œto eliminate entirely our redundant, vulnerable, and destabilizing land-based ICBM force.ā€ Unlike air-launched and sea-based nuclear weapons, which are not vulnerable to attack, the ICBMs are vulnerable to a preemptive strike and so are ā€œpoised to launchā€ on the basis of ā€œten-minute warning signals that may be ā€” and have been, on both sides ā€” false alarms, which press leadership to ā€˜use them or lose them.ā€™ā€

As Dan pointed out, ā€œIt is in the power of Congress to decouple the hair-trigger on our system by defunding and dismantling the current land-based Minuteman missiles and rejecting funding for their proposed replacements. The same holds for lower-yield weapons for first use against Russia, on submarines or in Europe, which are detonators for escalation to nuclear winter.ā€

In essence, Dan was telling members of Congress to do their job, with the fate of the earth and its inhabitants hanging in the balance:

ā€œThis grotesque situation of existential danger has evolved in secret in the almost total absence of congressional oversight, investigations, or hearings. It is time for Congress to remedy this by preparing for first-ever hearings on current nuclear doctrine and ā€˜options,ā€™ and by demanding objective, authoritative scientific studies of their full consequences including fire, smoke, nuclear winter, and famine. Classified studies of nuclear winter using actual details of existing attack plans, never yet done by the Pentagon but necessarily involving its directed cooperation, could be done by the National Academy of Sciences, requested and funded by Congress.ā€

But Danā€™s letter was distinctly out of sync with Congress. Few in office then ā€” or now ā€” have publicly acknowledged that such a ā€œgrotesque situation of existential dangerā€ really exists. And even fewer have been willing to break from the current Cold War that continues to fuel the rush to global annihilation. On matters of foreign policy and nuclear weapons, the Congressional Record is mainly a compendium of arrogance and delusion, in sharp contrast to the treasure trove of Danā€™s profound insights preserved at .

Humanism and realism to remember

Clear as he was about the overarching scourge of militarism embraced by the leaders of both major parties, Dan was emphatic about not equating the two parties at election time. He understood that efforts like Green Party presidential campaigns are misguided at best. But, as he said dryly, he did favor third parties ā€” on the right (ā€œthe more the betterā€). He knew what some self-described progressives have failed to recognize as the usual reality of the US electoral system: right-wing third parties help the left, and left-wing third parties help the right.

Several weeks before the 2020 election, Dan addressed voters in the swing state of Michigan via an article he wrote for the Detroit Metro Times. Appearing under a no less relevant today ā€” ā€œTrump Is an Enemy of the Constitution and Must Be Defeatedā€ ā€” the piece said that ā€œitā€™s now of transcendent importance to prevent him from gaining a second term.ā€ Dan warned that ā€œweā€™re facing an authoritarian threat to our democratic system of a kind weā€™ve never seen before,ā€ making votes for Joe Biden in swing states crucial.

Danā€™s mix of deep humanism and realism was in harmony with his aversion to contorting logic to suit rigid ideology. Bad as current realities were, he said, it was manifestly untrue that things couldnā€™t get worse. He had no intention of ignoring the very real dangers of nuclear war or fascism.

During the last few months of his life, after disclosing a diagnosis of inoperable pancreatic cancer, Dan reached many millions of people with an intensive schedule of interviews. Journalists were mostly eager to ask him about events related to the Pentagon Papers. While he said many important things in response to such questions, Dan most wanted to talk about the unhinged momentum of the nuclear arms race and the ominous US frenzy of antagonism toward Russia and China lacking any sense of genuine diplomacy.

While he can no longer speak to the world about the latest developments, Dan Ellsberg will continue to speak directly to hearts and minds about the extreme evils of our time ā€” and the potential for overcoming them with love in action.

A free documentary premiering now, ā€œA Common Insanity: A Conversation with Daniel Ellsberg About Nuclear Weapons,ā€ concludes with these words from Dan as he looks straight at us: ā€œCan humanity survive the nuclear era? We donā€™t know. I choose to act as if we have a chance.ā€

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Daniel Ellsberg: A Fearless Revolutionary Whose Causes Endure Now appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Modeled after Great Britainā€™s Westminster system, India is a parliamentary democracy. After all, Westminster ruled India for nearly two centuries ā€” indirectly through the East India Company from 1757 to 1858 and then directly from 1858 to 1947 when India achieved its independence. This year, from May to June, citizens will vote for members of parliament (MPs) in the lower house, called the Lok Sabha. Parties are contesting 543 seats, and the leader who commands 272 MPs (a 50% + 1 majority) will become prime minister. The results are set to be announced on June 4.

Electoral map of India. Via ExactlyIndeed on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Who are the key players in the Indian elections?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been in office since 2014 and is likely to win a historic third term. The BJP is a right-leaning nationalist party which opponents call Hindi fascists or Hindu supremacists. These critics allege, often with much exaggeration, how minorities feel threatened in India. In particular, Muslims are said to be under siege. Notably, Modi is Indiaā€™s first backward-class prime minister ā€” a set of communities deemed to be historically disadvantaged because of Indiaā€™s inequitable caste system ā€” and is popular both amongst Indiaā€™s middle class and its poor.

Even opponents praise Modi for targeted welfare programs. He has distributed free food grains to a staggering people. His government gives low-income women a monthly stipend of 1,200.50 rupees (approximately $16) and also provides cheap sanitary napkins for better menstrual health. The Modi government has built sanitation systems, provided piped clean water and delivered cooking gas cylinders throughout India. Naturally, poor women tend to vote for the Modi-led BJP.

Related Reading

Why Women Support Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Modiā€™s main contender is the left-leaning Indian National Congress (INC), which once led the freedom struggle. The INC has a rich history and was once democratic but now has become a dynastic fiefdom of the Nehru dynasty. Jawaharlal Nehru was Indiaā€™s first prime minister and the son of a famous INC leader Motilal Nehru. He was a Fabian socialist who looked up to the Soviet Union but kept his distance from Moscow. Nehruā€™s daughter Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) jumped enthusiastically into bed with the Soviets and amended the constitution to declare India a socialist country. Indiraā€™s grandson Rahul now is the leader of the INC, and he is running on a populist leftist platform, promising freebies to the public such as monthly cash transfers, increased subsidies, more government jobs and generous pensions.

There are other opposition parties in addition to the INC. They are often regional parties, but they tend to be more dynamic than the INC. The new Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) rules Punjab and Delhi. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, which elects 39 MPs to the Lok Sabha, the established Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is in power led by M.K. Stalin (who is neither a love child nor relative of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin).

The border state of West Bengal elects 42 MPs to the Lok Sabha. This state is the western half of the historical Bengal, which was partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1947. (East Bengal eventually declared independence 1971 and became Bangladesh.) Today, Mamata Banerjee, who left the INC when the Nehru family failed to give this regional satrap her due, rules West Bengal.

What are their records and what lies ahead?

The Modi government has done a great job building infrastructure. They are constructing roads, ports and railway lines day and night. Nitin Gadkari has been an exceptional minister of road transport and highways. Many middle-class Indians want him, instead of Modi, to be prime minister.

The Modi government has also built digital infrastructure. It has reduced the infamous leakage in government welfare programs. Rajiv Gandhi, Rahulā€™s father, once that only 15% of the disbursed amount reached the intended beneficiaries. By implementing a national identity card scheme, opening bank accounts for hundreds of millions and delivering benefits directly to their accounts, the Modi-led BJP government has reduced theft dramatically. Hence, Modi has a reputation for competence and the BJP has replaced the INC as the dominant party in Indian politics.

Yet Modi has made some wrong calls too. In 2016, he imposed demonetization ā€” withdrawal of high-denomination currency notes ā€” with no notice. This destroyed small businesses around the country and, in part, caused the unemployment crisis that India is suffering today. He practices what one of the two authors has called Modiā€™s policies Sanatan socialism.

Related Reading

India Enters the Era of Sanatan Socialism

Modi has made business and entrepreneurship a lot easier in this historically socialist economy. However, he still relies heavily on the bureaucracy, particularly the colonial, corrupt and spectacularly incompetent Indian Administrative Service (IAS). Policymaking continues to be haphazard, and the IAS still remains arbitrary. Businesses suffer because of a lack of policy certainty as well excessive regulation.

In fact, even members of the BJP and its parent organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), complain about Modiā€™s excessive centralization of power. Some BJP and RSS leaders go so far as to say that Modi is Indira Gandhi ā€œtrue sonā€ because of his absolutist tendencies. They even complain that Modi runs an IAS government with mere outside support from the BJP and the RSS.

Related Reading

Narendra Modi Is the New Indira Gandhi, Only Much Worse

For all his faults, Modi is still more free-market than opposition party leaders. The INC is promising Latin American-style populism to voters, which would derail growth and could even bankrupt the government. So, Modi is benefiting from what Indian political analysts the ā€œthere is no alternativeā€ (TINA) factor.

[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post FOĀ° Exclusive: Indian Elections ā€” Mammoth and Unparalleled appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Indira was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indiaā€™s first prime minister from 1966. Note, she was not related to Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Indian nation. Conveniently, many of the hundreds of millions of illiterate Indian voters and ignorant foreigners never realized that fact. Indira destroyed internal democracy within the Congress Party, centralized all power in her hands and designated her sons as her anointed successors.

Infamously, Indira ruled India as a de facto dictator for 21 months from June 25, 1975. During this period, she locked up journalists, political opponents and even eminent Gandhians (the Mahatmaā€™s followers) who had participated in Indiaā€™s freedom struggle. Indira did not even spare the elderly Jayaprakash Narayan, the most eminent living Gandhian in the 1970s, packing him off to prison just like the British once did. Her son Sanjay forced millions of men to go through , anticipating the fixation of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with population control.

In 1977, Indira called for elections, which she thought would result in a massive victory. Instead, voters booted her out and opted for a ramshackle opposition coalition. This was the first time the grand old Congress Party lost power in New Delhi. Since then, India avoided another brush with Indira-style authoritarianism for decades.

Sadly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has changed that since he was voted into power in 2014. He has been particularly overbearing since winning a second term in 2019. Millions in India now argue that we are living through a second emergency and for good reason.

Modiā€™s measures have made him an Indira-like figure

Modi has engaged in a power grab of historic proportions. It is an open secret in Delhi that the Prime Ministerā€™s Office (PMO) rules the country with an iron hand. Even ministers in Modiā€™s cabinet have no real power. Favored Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers, largely from Gujarat (Modiā€™s home state), are the new barons and dukes who rule in the name of the prime minister.

Just as Indira weakened the Congress Party, Modi has undermined the BJP. Home Minister Amit Shah is the only one with any real power. Members of the BJP and its parent organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) refer to Modi and Shah as ā€œRanga and Billa,ā€ two ill-famed criminals who kidnapped and killed two siblings in 1978. Their argument is that Modi and Shah have kidnapped the BJP and the RSS, and their absolutism might kill both these organizations, which have historically been grassroots-driven organizations.

Just as Modi has sidelined the BJP and the RSS, so too has he undermined the institutions of the Indian state. Democratic principles of decentralization, accountability and separation of powers no longer matter in Modiā€™s India. Everyone in the government has to dance to his masterā€™s voice.

Modi has used the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to persecute anyone who does not toe his line. The Modi government has used the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to hound business leaders, journalists and political opponents. Before the Supreme Court of India on March 21, 2024, those accused under the PMLA did not even have the right to get bail. Selective use of UAPA, PMLA and other legislation has created a culture where rule by law, not rule of law, dominates. Simply put, the government uses the law to lock up or harass individuals it does not like.

Institutions are now Modiā€™s instruments to target his opponents. In March, the government the bank accounts of the Congress Party for failure to pay outstanding taxes. Authorities also Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), on corruption and money laundering charges. Even many BJP/RSS leaders admit that the ED and CBI are now hounds who hunt hares for Modi and Shah. After Indira, India is once again in the grip of a climate of fear.

Freedom of the press has cratered. Modi has not given a single press conference since becoming prime minister. The Adani Group, his financial backers, has New Delhi Television (NDTV), the anglicized television channel that opposed Modi most. Former NDTV stars now ply their trade on YouTube or on Al Jazeera. No local television station is hiring them.

Print media is completely under the thumb of the Modi government, and social media bends to its will. After all, Twitter and Facebook make big money in India and are loath to antagonize the Modi government, which could and would hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the Modi government has a sophisticated social media operation that disseminates propaganda, misinformation and even fake news.

Modiā€™s dangerous lies and anti-Muslim propaganda campaign

Modiā€™s social media team has WhatsApp with stories that Nehruā€™s grandfather was a Muslim. According to these stories, this grandfather was born in a red-light district ā€” that part of an Indian town where prostitutes live ā€” and the family remains closet Muslims to this day. The campaign paints Nehru to be a lover of beef, alcohol and nubile young women. As per this narrative, Nehru was a man of moral turpitude unfit to lead pious Hindus.

Numerous analysts have pointed out how the Modi-led BJP has imposed Hindu fascism in India. Note that Modi has never once expressed regret, leave aside apologized, for the 2002 Gujarat riots. These happened under his watch when he was chief minister and the US State Department barred Modi from entering the US for his suspected involvement in these brutal riots.

This year, Modi has a temple to the Hindu god Ram on the site of a medieval mosque, which was allegedly built on a previous Hindu religious site. Modi participated in an elaborate religious ceremony personally in a blatant religious appeal for votes.

The Modi government plans to implement the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) offering Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Indiaā€™s neighboring countries. Opponents question why Parsis or Muslim sects such as Ahmadis are not included in the CAA. The answer is simple: Modi is mobilizing Hindu votes and weakening the secular fabric of the Indian republic.Ģż

For good reason, the BBC has just a story of Indiaā€™s 200 million Muslims becoming invisible in their own country. Hindu vigilantes have lynched Muslims suspected of consuming beef. Mosques are increasingly under threat. Talk of ā€œlove jihadā€ ā€” Muslim men marrying Hindu women and converting them to Islam ā€” is rife. Anti-Muslim hate speech has , especially in states ruled by the BJP.

This victimization of minorities makes India more like Pakistan. Indiaā€™s secular democracy has been a beacon of hope to countries around the world as a shining example of how different religions and diverse communities can coexist. The Modi-led BJP government and the RSS have been slow dripping poison into the veins of Indian society. If this continues, India would make Yugoslavia look like a firecracker. By deepening and widening the Hinduā€“Muslim divide, Modi threatens the very idea of India.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Narendra Modi Is the New Indira Gandhi, Only Much Worse appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

ā€œWe talk about the danger of disinformation, but what about an equally serious danger of presenting non-information as information. To justify his change of position, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who, as by The New York Times, said: ā€˜I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed.ā€™ This statement is true to the extent that itā€™s possible to think anything, including total nonsense. But it becomes meaningless when one realizes that Putin would never be ‘allowed.’

This raises a serious question. Isn’t there a problem when both politicians and the media express themselves in this way? They use their authority to create the impression that something not only imaginary but utterly fanciful might be true and that on that basis we must take sometimes lethal and massively destructive action to prevent it from happening. In the case of Ukraine, Johnson and others seem comforted by the fact itā€™s Ukrainians and not Americans who are dying. But doesn’t that make the problem even worse from a moral point of view?

Just to be precise, Johnson declares what he ā€˜thinksā€™ without citing any evidence… largely because there is none. I think you will agree that mere suppositions about another person’s intentions have no value. And yet everyone in the West seems to understand Putinā€™s undeclared intentions.

Then there is the question of the absurdity of citing the condition, ā€˜if allowed.ā€™ In a responsible democratic society, shouldn’t politicians stick to facts and the press reporting on what politicians say be careful to call their readersā€™ attention to what is factual and what is fanciful?ā€

ā€œYou raise a thought-provoking concern about the danger of non-information masquerading as factual statements. Let’s delve into this issue.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, in response to reports about the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, made a statement that Vladimir Putin is a vicious dictator and likely directly responsible for Navalny’s sudden demise in a Russian prison. Johnson further emphasized that Putin’s actions are emblematic of a global pattern of silencing critics and eliminating opponents out of fear of dissent. While Johnson’s assertion may resonate with some, it’s essential to critically examine the implications of such statements.

1. The Power of Authority and Perception:

–       Politicians and media figures wield significant authority. When they express opinions or hypotheses, their words can shape public perception and influence policy decisions.

–       Johnson’s statement, suggesting that Putin would continue to march through Europe if allowed, creates an impression of imminent danger. It implies that decisive action is necessary to prevent catastrophe.

–       However, as you rightly point out, the phrase ā€˜if allowedā€™ renders the statement ambiguous. It lacks specificity and fails to address the complex geopolitical realities that constrain any leader’s actions.

2. The Moral Dilemma:

–       The consequences of such statements extend beyond rhetoric. When leaders evoke scenarios of aggression and destruction, they contribute to an atmosphere of tension and fear.

–       While Johnson’s words may not directly cause harm, they contribute to a broader narrative. The real-world impact is felt by those affected by geopolitical conflicts, including civilians caught in the crossfire.

–       The moral dilemma lies in the disconnect between the rhetoric and the actual suffering. Others pay the price for decisions made based on these statements.

3. Evidence and Responsibility:

–       Johnson’s use of the phrase “I think” acknowledges the speculative nature of his statement. However, the absence of evidence weakens its credibility.

–       Responsible democratic discourse demands that politicians substantiate their claims with evidence. Without it, statements become mere conjecture.

–       The media, in reporting such statements, should emphasize the distinction between informed analysis and speculative assertions. Fact-checking and context are crucial.

4. Factual Reporting vs. Fanciful Narratives:

–       In a responsible democratic society, politicians should indeed stick to facts. The press plays a critical role in holding them accountable.

–       Journalists must remind readers of what is factual and what is speculative. They should provide context, historical background, and alternative viewpoints.

–       The challenge lies in balancing the need for informed analysis with the responsibility to avoid fearmongering or sensationalism.

In conclusion, the danger of non-information lies not only in its potential to mislead but also in its impact on decision-making. As citizens, we must critically evaluate statements, demand evidence, and hold leaders accountable for their words. Responsible discourse requires a commitment to truth, empathy, and a nuanced understanding of complex issues.ā€

What should we take from ChatGPTā€™s answer? The first thing to notice is a non-sequitur due probably to the fact that it had failed to identify the source of the quote. Instead, it dug up another quote from Johnson about Putin. An honest human being in a real conversation would have asked about the origin of the quote.

The rest of its response consists of vapid reformulation of the points I made, basically agreeing with everything I said. It nevertheless found a way to hedge its bets when it explained that ā€œthe phrase ā€˜if allowedā€™ renders the statement ambiguousā€ There is nothing ambiguous about Johnsonā€™s statement. His meaning is clear and it is equally clear that his hypothesis is fanciful. His  assertions are disconnected from reality. And The New York Times simply doesnā€™t notice or rather chooses not to.

By now everyone should know that The New York Times will never contest statements, however absurd, that correlate with its editorial bias. To explore this further, I turned to an example from another media, CNN. I asked the chatbot the following question.

ā€œIn a CNN interview with Erin Burnett, Mike Johnson complained that pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University “denied” that ā€œinfants were cooked in ovens.ā€ That claim was long ago debunked. In such a case, it would be appropriate for a politician to congratulate the students for denying a lie. But Burnett chooses not to call Johnson out on that. Shouldn’t journalists themselves call out obvious lies especially when a politician complains about someone denying that a lie is true?ā€

Oddly, ChatGPT ignored the claim about babies cooked in ovens and chose to single out a different contestable statement by Johnson.

ā€œDuring this exchange, Johnson made a controversial statement regarding Hamas and their alleged actions:

If you’re getting endorsed by Hamas, that’s not a good look.”

This statement implies that some protesters are receiving support from Hamas, a group that has been accused of violence and human rights violations. However, it’s essential to critically examine the context and implications of such claims.

1. The Allegation:

–       Johnson’s assertion that protesters are “endorsed by Hamas” is a serious accusation.

–       It suggests a direct link between the protesters and a designated terrorist organization.

–       Without specific evidence, this claim remains speculative.

2. The Role of Journalists:

–       Journalists play a crucial role in holding public figures accountable.

–       When politicians make statements that are misleading, false, or lack evidence, journalists have a responsibility to fact-check and challenge them.

–       Erin Burnett’s decision not to directly confront Johnson on this specific claim raises questions about journalistic rigor.

3. Balancing Objectivity and Accountability:

–       Journalists must strike a delicate balance between objectivity and accountability.

–       While it’s essential to allow politicians to express their views, journalists should also challenge statements that are demonstrably false or lack substantiation.

–       In this case, the allegation about Hamas and babies in ovens could have been addressed more directly.

4. The Complexity of Reporting:

–       Reporting on sensitive topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires nuance.

–       Journalists must navigate competing narratives, historical context, and the emotional impact of events.

–       However, factual accuracy remains paramount.

In conclusion, journalists have a critical role in ensuring that public discourse is grounded in truth. While it’s challenging to strike the right balance, holding politicians accountable for their statements is essential for an informed citizenry.ā€

In this instance, we fully agree on principles, but I couldnā€™t help but notice ChatGPTā€™s usual rhetorical tactic of moving quickly away from any specific issue to blather about universal moral principles. Forget the real, focus on the ideal. ChatGPT functions like a machine to draw conclusions that have no direct relationship with reality and even less impact on it. Some call that ā€œvirtue signalling.ā€

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyoneā€™s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At 51³Ō¹Ļ, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Outside the Box: Mike Johnson, Mispeaker of the House? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

In Indian elections, a diverse set of regional interests coalesces around the states. Thus, a large number of regional and national parties that oppose the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came together to form the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) in July 2023.

Across the various states, there are four different kinds of challenges that the opposition faces:

1. In some states, the BJP and more broadly the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) are not a serious contender, namely, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Punjab. 
2. In some states, the Indian National Congress (INC), as the main political party in INDIA, takes on the BJP directly, namely, Telangana, Karnataka, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Assam. 
3. In a third group of states, INDIA faces off with the BJP, but led by parties other than the INC or even non-INDIA parties. These states are West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Delhi. 
4. In the last group of states, regional non-INDIA parties face the BJP, or the the BJP is a junior partner in an alliance. These states include Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. 

INDIA should take into consideration the varied political dynamics across these four groups if it is to have any hope of competing with the BJP at the national level. 

For the sake of brevity, this piece will examine each of these four groups by using a few large states as examples.

States where the BJP is not a serious contender

The three states where the BJP is not a serious contender are the South Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and the Western Indian state of Punjab. 

In the case of Tamil Nadu, significant shifts have the political landscape due to the All India Anna Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)ā€™s decision to end its alliance with the BJP. Among other factors, BJP state leader Kuppuswamy Annamalaiā€™s vociferous of AIADMK leadership led to the split. Significant efforts by the BJP national leadership to maintain the alliance did not succeed.

For the AIADMK, the move may be an attempt to reclaim its independent political identity. For the BJP, the split makes building its presence in the state an uphill battle.

In contrast, INDIA in Tamil Nadu, led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has seat-sharing talks with its alliance partners. INDIA has been undertaking a vigorous political campaign against national governmentā€™s the economic agenda, including the implementation of many . The DMK, for its part, has also strongly critiqued the overall performance of the Modi government. 

There is a strong possibility that the AIADMKā€“BJP split will favor INDIA. As a result, alliance is likely to perform strongly in the 39 Lok Sabha seats of the state.

In the state of Kerala, the principal contest is between the INC-led United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Left Democratic Front (LDF) to the UDFā€™s left. Although both the UDF and the LDF are part of INDIA, they do not have seat-sharing arrangements for the national elections.

The Kerala BJP, on the other hand, is its focus on six of the total 20 Lok Sabha seats in the state. This approach involves assigning national government ministers to oversee these constituencies directly.

In recent years, the INC has compromised with certain BJP policies, such as the Citizenship Amendment , 2019 (CAA), that have been perceived as disfavorable to religious minorities. This has enabled the BJP to attempt to polarize the electorate along sectarian lines. Though the effort has not completely succeeded, the BJP has gained an opening to exploit in the state.

The political opening comes at a time when LDF, which is in government in Kerala, enjoys popularity due to its defense of the welfare system. Thus, the INC will likely have to share seats with LDF in this state. Despite its efforts, the BJP will at best emerge as a distant third.

Finally, in Punjab, the INC is in opposition to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Although both parties are part of INDIA on the national level, have not formed an alliance at the state level. There was about a possible alliance between the BJP and Punjabā€™s third party, Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), but disagreements over seat-sharing have any electoral understanding.

Punjab remains the of the peasant upsurge that forced the BJP national government to overturn three farm laws that were seen as enabling corporate encroachment into agriculture. Thus, it is unlikely that the BJP will be able to make much headway in the state.

Related Reading

Indian Farmer Protests Explained

A brief glance into the political dynamics in the three states reveals the various reasons the BJP has a marginal presence. As a result, INDIA is in a position to exploit the BJPā€™s weakness to maximize its seat tally.

States where the INC faces the BJP directly

The states where the INC faces the BJP directly are Telangana and Karnataka, which belong to South India, as well as Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Assam, which belong to the eastern, central and western parts of India.

In the last two Lok Sabha elections, held in 2014 and 2019, it was these states that helped the BJP attain a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha rule the nation for ten years. A close look at the dynamics in these states in this group may provide an clue about whether this may happen a third time.

In Telangana, the INC leads both INDIA and the state government. While the has been able to achieve a seat-sharing arrangement with the Communist Party of India (CPI) there is no such arrangement with the CPI(M). Both leftist parties have a long of popular support in the state, so an incomplete seat-sharing arrangement may not be optimal for INDIA.

The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) which is the principal opponent of the INC in Telangana, has a significant presence, and so does the BJP. The defeat of the in the state assembly elections late last year has weakened the party to an extent. Factors responsible for the defeat include neglect of education, unemployment and rising autocratic tendencies of the BRS leadership. The electoral prospects of the INC and BJP depend on which of these two parties will emerge as the principal beneficiary of the weakening of the BRS.

In Karnataka, the political landscape ahead of the 2024 elections has witnessed, with the BJP and the Karnataka-based Janata Dal (Secular) (JD(S)) forming an alliance. As a result, the JD(S) has been four out of 28 Lok Sabha seats. Despite the challenges this alliance poses, INDIA has some reasons to be hopeful.

Sections of the JD(S) have broken away to gravitate towards INDIA. The BJP has recognized the diminished political stature of the JD(S). Perhaps this is why the party has been allotted such a number of seats. Moreover, as the governing party in the state, the INC has restored some degree of welfare policies to push the electorate towards it.

In order to consolidate its position, INDIA may need to aim for the widest possible unity of non-BJP parties in the state, articulate alternative, non-neoliberal policies that challenge the BJP and where necessary focus on a selected number of seats in order to try to be victorious.

Related Reading

How to Beat the BJP by Overcoming the INCā€™s Organizational Challenges

Haryana as well has seen a change in political alliances with respect to the previous election. The alliance between the BJP and the Jannayak Janta Party (JJP) has . Meanwhile, the INC and AAP have come together as part of INDIA. The AAP has been allotted one out of the 10 seats in the state.

INDIA may choose to politically challenge the BJP on a number of issues including the promise of guaranteed minimum support price for crops. INDIA could also if required selectively target some seats in the state.

The electoral contest in Rajasthan involves some novel developments. In a break with past practice, the INC has entered into seat-sharing agreements with the Rashtriya Loktantrik Party (RLP) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) as part of INDIA. Furthermore, the INC has entered into an alliance with the Bharatiya Adivasi Party (BAP).

The INC has also recently formed a with the Bharatiya Adivasi Party (BAP), which espouses issues of tribal people and is influential in a few districts in southern Rajasthan. The collaboration aims to consolidate tribal votes, which is pivotal in these regions. However, there is internal resistance within INC to the alliance due to fears that BAPā€™s rise might undermine INC electoral prospects in future elections.

The BJP in Rajasthan is afflicted by some, with Vasundhara Raje, who was the most important in the state level, seeming to have been sidelined by the party. 

To enhance its electoral prospects, INDIA may need to consider the possibility of forging alliances with the widest possible number non-BJP forces and also politically challenge the BJP on livelihood issues such as a guaranteed minimum support price for crops and conduct of a caste census in the state. 

In Madhya Pradesh, the INC, as part of INDIA has entered into an alliance with the Samajwadi Party. However, factionalism has severely impacted the state party, with reported differences between Kamal Nath and Digvijay Singh, the two most important leaders of the INC in the state.

In general, the BJP has performed strongly in the past few elections. Hindutva ideology is popular here, providing a strong platform for the BJP. The Madhya Pradesh INC must avoid the temptation to turn to in order to win votes. The state party should instead focus on livelihood issues, thus decisively challenging the BJP politically while seeking to deal with problems of internal factionalism. Where required, INDIA could seek to selectively target some seats to try and increase its seat tally in the state.

Gujarat will see direct competition between the INC and BJP in all 26 Lok Sabha seats. A BJP political stronghold, Gujarat gave the party all 26 seats in both the 2014 and 2019 general elections. In the state assembly elections of 2022, the BJP retained power with a commanding majority, winning 156 out of 182 seats.

However, the INC and the AAP have entered into a seat-sharing pact for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, with AAP contesting from the seats of Bharuch and Bhavnagar and the INC fielding candidates for the remaining 24 seats. This move aims to consolidate opposition votes and challenge the BJP stronghold, hopefully thereby preventing a repeat of the previous elections. INDIA may seek to concentrate resources on selected seats and focus on livelihood issues in order to try and deal with the organizational cum political strength of the BJP.

In Chhattisgarh, the BJP has indirectly sidelined its top state leader, Dr. Raman Singh, by getting him elected as the speaker of the state assembly.

The Chhattisgarh INC faces , though to a lesser extent than in Madhya Pradesh. The state party is seeking to improve its electoral prospects by nominating prominent state-level leaders as candidates. The INC may seek to challenge the BJP by focusing on livelihood issues while being open to building a wider alliance with non-BJP parties.

In Assam the INC is a coalition of 16 political parties called the United Opposition Forum, which behaves like the state-level INDIA alliance. The alliance has agreed on common candidates in all the 14 Lok Sabha seats.

A principal challenge confronting INDIA is the CAA. For decades, Assam has received many migrants from neighboring Muslim-majority Bangladesh. Issues of religious identity, and intertwine, making the CAA a particularly divisive issue in the state. The United Opposition Forum may seek to politically challenge the BJP on the CAA while also focusing the political debate on livelihood issues.

In the present group of states, the fundamental challenges faced by INDIA are threefold. One is the organizational weakness of the INC. The second is the political weakness of the INC in the battle of ideas, with the party struggling to formulate an alternative to the BJPā€™s neoliberal and Hindutva policies. The third is the lack of opposition unity. With the exception of Telangana, the states in the current group are those where the BJP had established an overwhelming dominance in the Lok Sabha elections of both 2014 and 2019. Unless INDIA finds a coherent strategy to challenge BJP in the present group of states, a majority in the parliament may be out of reach for the alliance.

States where parties in INDIA other than the INC face the BJP

The states where parties in INDIA other than the INC face the BJP are the eastern states of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, the Western Indian state of Maharashtra and the Northern Indian state of Delhi.

The results may depend on the way in which both the NDA and INDIA deal with the multiple political parties in their midst.

Bihar is the third-most populous state in India. It has seen Chief Minister Nitish Kumar quit INDIA to rejoin the NDA. Likewise, Chirag Paswanā€™s Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) has rejoined the NDA, while the BJP has marginalized another party led by his uncle Pasupathi Paras within the NDA. Seat-sharing talks in the NDA are .

Seat-sharing talks within INDIA are also complete, as the opposition through a press conference in March. The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) lead INDIA in Bihar. The INC, the CPI, the CPI(M), and the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist Liberation) also form part of the alliance.

The principal political issues that INDIA could touch upon include the inequities that were documented in the recent state-level caste census, the extension of the rural employment guarantee scheme to urban areas and guaranteed minimum support prices for agricultural products.

In Jharkhand, the (JMM) has already finalized its seat-sharing plan with the INC as part of INDIA. The RJD and the CPI(M) also form part of the alliance in this state. However, the exit of the CPI is a setback.

The NDA in Jharkhand principally consists of the BJP and JD(U). The of former Chief Minister Hemant Soren (belonging to the JMM) by the national government has raised questions as to whether the arrest of a sitting chief minister so close to elections politically motivated. However, INDIA may need to foreground livelihood issues to effectively combat the NDA.

Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state of India and thus elects the largest number of Lok Sabha seats. In the last few months, the NDA has added a number of small parties as its allies, notably including the Rashtriya Lok Dal, many of whose voters supported the 2020 farmer protests. INDIA in the state consists of the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the INC.

Another party is the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), whose support base seems to be in persistent decline. However, the decline of the BSP is not the only issue that the opposition needs to worry about in Uttar Pradesh. Competition for the same key voter groups between INDIA, the BSP and alliances like the may the electorate. The broader political fragmentation might impact the oppositionā€™s functioning as the non-INDIA parties behave as in certain areas rather than as substantial contenders.

There are three circumstances under which the opposition has a chance to challenge the BJP: (1) The SP successfully consolidates the electoral support of oppressed communities who were formerly BSP voters; (2) A broad opposition coalition is able to bring all parties together against the BJP; (3) INDIA runs a campaign grounded on livelihood issues such as employment and raising the guaranteed minimum support price for crops.

Maharashtra is the second-most populous state of India. Here, INDIA principally consists of the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Bal Thackeray) (SS(UBT)), the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) (NCP(SP)) and the INC. At the state level, INDIA is known by the name Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). However, the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) which was one of the partners within INDIA in Maharashtra could not be within INDIA.

The MVA, which includes Shiv Sena (UBT), the INC and the NCP, finalized a deal for the Lok Sabha elections, with Shiv Sena (UBT) deciding to contest 21 seats, Congress 17, and NCP (SP) 10 respectively.

The NDA in the state consists of the BJP, Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) (SS(ES)) and the Nationalist Congress Party (Ajit Pawar) (NCP(AP)).

The schism of Shiv Sena has resulted in a situation where the bulk of its activists and support base remains with the SS(UBT) while the bulk of its legislators are with the SS(ES). The Nationalist Congress Party split has resulted in the bulk of junior leaders supporting the NCP(AP) while the support base of the party is relatively more committed to the NCP(SP). This is reflected in the use of Sharad Pawarā€™s portraits by the NCP(AP) during the election campaign which the NCP(SP) halted through judicial .

The principal issues in the state revolve around livelihood. INDIA may try to stitch together the broadest possible unity of non-BJP forces in order to achieve significant electoral success.

In Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the INC, as part of INDIA, have into a seat-sharing agreement. A principal issue that is confronting the state is the sudden of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by e central government.

Other issues confronting the state include the persistent efforts by the central government to stymie the Delhi government and livelihood issues such as employment. For INDIA to be competitive in Delhi, it needs to challenge the BJP on the ideological plane.

In West Bengal, INDIA has not been able to at a seat-sharing agreement. The Trinamool Congress (TMC), which is the ruling party in the state, has announced its own for the Lok Sabha elections, but the leftist parties (led by CPI(M)) and the INC have entered into an electoral agreement.

The BJP is facing a setback due to internal divisions. The key political issues in the state revolve around the CAA and livelihood issues. If possible rise in the vote share of INDIA impacts the BJP more than the TMC, then the BJP is unlikely to achieve a meaningful advance in the state.

For INDIA to challenge the BJP in this group of states, it may need to resolve a few issues. One issue is the absence of broad-based opposition unity in Uttar Pradesh. More generally, the issue is whether the opposition will be unite to challenge the BJP in all of these states. These issues may well determine the results of the elections.

States where non-INDIA parties face the BJP

The states where non-INDIA parties face the BJP are the southern state of Andhra Pradesh and the eastern state of Odisha.

In Andhra Pradesh, the alliance of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Jana Sena Party (JSP) with the BJP has resurrected the NDA. The parties have a seat-sharing agreement for the upcoming elections.

This alliance faces the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) which is heading the government in Andhra Pradesh. INDIA is the third coalition, which has a seat-sharing agreement. The principal issues in the state revolve around livelihood and the resource crunch confronting the state after the bifurcation of united Andhra Pradesh into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

In Odisha, there was a serious possibility of electoral unity between the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) (the party in government in the state) and the BJP (that is the principal opposition party in the state). However, this did not due to lack of agreement on seat-sharing. The INC is the third alternative in the state.

The BJP may try to weaponize the advancing age of beloved Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik (of the BJD) to further its prospects in the state. The INC can only confront this effort by re-centering the political debate in the state around livelihood issues.

The YSRCP, TDP and BJD may unexpectedly reorient themselves after the elections in the case of a close outcome where neither the BJP nor INDIA achieves a clear majority.

A myriad of regional dynamics, strategic alliances and ideological battles will shape Indiaā€™s 2024 elections. The formation of INDIA marked a significant attempt by opposition parties to consolidate their collective voter bases in order to challenge the BJP, which won two supermajorities in 2014 and 2019. If the opposition is able to function as a unit, deftly navigate state specific political issues and present a substantial ideological and policy challenge to the BJP, it has a solid chance of success.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Indian Opposition Now Faces Modi State by State appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Everything you learned in high school civics class about how the US government operates is wrong. Maybe Schoolhouse Rock!, Scholastic Books and your teacher meant well. Maybe they were already commandeered and didnā€™t even know it. Or maybe they were maliciously trying to get you to buy into a smokescreen. Whatever the case, they were wrong.

Our government has three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Technically speaking, the legislative branch is supposed to be supreme. Congress writes all the laws, and the other branches just apply them. The legislature is where the power is supposed to be. But is it? No.

Our governmentā€™s power really resides in the hands of the career bureaucrats who administer the application of the law throughout the various agencies of the executive branch. Many otherwise intelligent, powerful people not to know that this bureaucracy is part of the executive branch. They seem to believe it is its own branch.

The simple explanation is that power actually resides here because it matters much more who decides how the law is applied than how it is written. Police let speeders off with warnings despite them breaking traffic laws. District attorneys choose whether or not to prosecute depending on political goals instead of what the law explicitly says. It matters who decides how the law is applied and executed.

Unpunishable federal lethargy

Seven years ago, it was our priestly casteā€™s dogma that the deep state . Four years ago, they it to exist but said it was inconsequential. Last month, they it as the greatest thing. This is called ā€œcelebration parallax.ā€ It is where a phenomenon is first denied, then acknowledged but asserted to be unimportant, then celebrated as an ever-present, beneficial force.

The administrative state reveals itself in how the vast majority of the leaders running our supposedly democratic republic are completely unelected. They are accountable to no one but themselves and have interests diametrically contrary to its people. The departments, agencies and sub-agencies of the executive branch employ roughly 4 million people. Almost none of their jobs are dependent on who won the last election.Ģż

Proponents of the administrative state believe this is ideal. The administration trudges along, processing peopleā€™s paperwork all day, every day. However, many federal employees have a ā€œā€ in their jobs ā€” their very employment is considered to be like property. Property cannot be taken by the government without due process. Since these workers are often unionized, and unions seek to keep their members employed, it is notoriously difficult for even the most despicable federal employee to be fired.

This all contributes to a do-nothing inertia, whereby the worker has every incentive to drag their feet on a task, and faces minimal chance of consequences for incompetence. The bureaucratsā€™ financial and political interests are different from ours ā€” theirs rely on our continuing to be productive, while they have no incentive to be productive themselves. Thatā€™s the mindset of a farmer and his cows.

Itā€™s abhorrent that millions hold these cushy government sinecures. As a competent, accomplished professional with a select set of skills, Iā€™m revolted that my tax dollars pay an entire class of parasites to check a box on a form and then move it to a drawer. Itā€™s maddening that we have to wait for them to sluggishly finish this process before we can achieve our own goals. I personally say the current administrative state ā€” consisting of both the federal bureaucracy and the 50 parallel state ones ā€” is uniquely oppressive compared to every government that has come before it. The Department of Motor Vehicles exercises more control over citizens, and in the most mind-numbing ways, than Nero ever couldā€™ve over the Roman Empire.

How the total state conquered us

Only part of my problem with the administrative state is bloat and graft. This is more of a symptom than a root cause. The administrative state is terrible because it is a . The total state cannot tolerate competition ā€” it must ā€œred light, green lightā€ everything within its jurisdiction. It does not grant that any other power has jurisdiction. The 438 executive agencies, departments and sub-departments administrate ever more of our lives. The number of life events that donā€™t involve the governmentā€™s permission or acknowledgment is rapidly shrinking. Family, business, religion, medicine, building, landscaping, hunting, et cetera have been ensnared in red tape. Tragedy of the commons or not, the total state cannot allow any of these parts of human living to go on as usual without administering them in some way.

How did this happen? It started with mere laziness on the part of Congress and the perennial truth that the government ever expands. The constitution tasks the executive branch with enforcing and executing the laws Congress makes. But the document provides precious little guidance about how itā€™s supposed to do that. The judicial branch helps some, but the ā€œcase or controversyā€ severely limits the federal judiciaryā€™s proactivity. The judiciary can tell someone when they have done wrong but cannot warn them when they are about to do wrong. The constitution Congress from delegating its ā€œessential legislative functionsā€ to anyone else, and as much as itā€™d like to, it canā€™t put a hall monitor in everyoneā€™s homes.

This left the executive branch with skeletons of tasks, no knowledge of how it’s supposed to execute them and no way to know itā€™s succeeded until after the fact. So the executive branch needed to enforce the law without being able to know how to do that, but could not take the authority to make public changes where Congress didnā€™t foresee how to do things. Their ad-hoc solution: rule-making!

Any time the government realized it needed to perpetuate itself into some new area of banal tyranny, it asked Congress to create a new department or agency. That agency then decided ā€œrulesā€ and interpreted and enforced them with its own agents and administrative law judges. This way, it could announce it was complying with the law.

What is the difference between a law and a rule here? Donā€™t ask questions.

No court battle can fix the problem

The other parts of the government are inordinately deferential to the administrative agencies thanks to the verdict of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837. This established the doctrine of ā€œ.ā€ In brief, this 1984 Supreme Court ruling deterred the judiciary from prying into an executive agencyā€™s actions unless absolutely necessary. Iā€™m hopeful but unconvinced that the pending of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will upend Chevron Deference. Even if it does, it would make little difference; the inertia would remain.

No court case will undo the hackneyed despotism the agencies get up to every day. It could not without those agencies agreeing to kneecap themselves, which will never happen. The judiciary has no men at arms and no ability to enforce its judgments, even when it tells the executive it has gone too far. In the immortal of Andrew Jackson, ā€œ[Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.ā€

Letā€™s presume that Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch successfully overturns Chevron Deference. An order is eventually issued saying all the sinecures are unconstitutional and hereby disestablished. No one from the Supreme Court will make the clerks and sub-vice-deputy-acting-director of whatever leave their cubicles, as there is no one to enforce it. Unlike previous Chief Justices, Chief Justice John Roberts is as a brave man who tangles with the other government branches. No, he prefers to guard the Courtā€™s ā€œlegitimacyā€ by angering everyone equally rather than executing a particular vision of jurisprudence. These people wonā€™t clean this mess.

The administrative stateā€™s ludicrous bureaucracy sees the average person three unwitting felonies a day. If we are to be freed from this legal nightmare, more direct and assertive action needs to occur. We can look to Argentinian President Javier Milei for inspiration. When he took power in December 2023, he pink slips to half of Argentinaā€™s government, collapsed agencies and departments and damned the consequences. This didnā€™t solve the countryā€™s problems overnight, but sometimes ripping off the proverbial bandage is a critical step.Ģż

The United Statesā€™s wound is much larger than Argentinaā€™s. Implementing a radical reform on par with Mileiā€™s would be painful. But it should be done, because the situation will only worsen with time. Government is neither solid nor liquid, but a gas ā€” it expands to fill the available space. The administrative state will expand and administrate more and more available space, creating more absurd agencies and dystopian policies. How would you feel if someday a hypothetical Department of Respiration texted you, claiming youā€™ve exceeded your allotted breaths for the day and your taxes will reflect the increased carbon credits youā€™re using?

This farce needs to end. Any pain we suffer now is worthwhile if it helps us avoid that dystopian future. Who will pick up the crown laying in the gutter and gut the administrative state?

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post America Is a Bureaucratic Nightmare. We Need to Break Free. appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Yes, international terrorism and the threat of such groups persist, but the narrative of American policy as a response to 9/11 seems to have faded away. Two and a half years ago, the Biden administrationā€™s chaotic withdrawal from the 20-year-long Afghanistan War proved to be a last gasp (followed the next summer by the killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, successor as al-Qaedaā€™s leader after Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011).

But Guantanamo, a prison that, from its founding, has violated US codes of due process, fair treatment and the promise of justice writ large isnā€™t the only unnerving legacy of the ā€œwarā€ on terror that still persists. If indefinite detention at Guantanamo was a key pillar of that war, defying longstanding American laws and norms, it was just one of the steps beyond those norms that still persist today.

In the days, weeks and even years following the attacks of September 11, the US government took action to create new powers in the name of keeping the nation safe. Two of them, more than two decades after those attacks, are now rife with calls for change. Congress created the first just a week after 9/11 (with but a single no vote). It authorized unchecked and unending presidentially driven war powers that could be used without specified geographical limits ā€” and, strangely enough, that power still remains in place, despite recent congressional efforts to curtail its authority. The second, the expansive use of secret surveillance powers on Americans, is currently under heated debate.

War powers

The very first new authority created in the name of the war on terror was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or , passed by Congress one week after the 9/11 attacks. It gave the president the power ā€œto use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.ā€

Unlike past declarations of war or authorizations for war in American history, it was staggeringly vague. It named no actual enemy or geographical locations. It made no reference to what conditions would end the hostilities and the power of that authorization. It was in essence ā€œa ā€ for presidential war powers, as Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), the single member of Congress to vote no on its passage, warned at the time and has reiterated over the years.

It was also a game-changing authorization. Not only did it lack specifics, but it stripped Congress of its constitutionally authorized power to declare war. In the war on terror, Congress would defer to the president who could decide on his own when and where to launch attacks.

Over the course of the last two-plus decades, that 2001 AUMF has been used repeatedly to do exactly what Barbara Lee feared ā€” namely, broaden the presidentā€™s power to commit acts of war against not just the terrorist groups who conspired in the 9/11 attacks, but groups in countries far and wide. to the Costs of War Project at Brown Universityā€™s Watson Institute, as of 2021, it had been used in at least 22 countries, including Afghanistan, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Niger, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia and Yemen.

Twenty-two-and-a-half years later, in April 2023, Congressman Gregory Meeks, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that the 2001 AUMF had indeed become, in the words of fellow Democrat Annie Kuster, ā€œa blank check for presidents from both parties to wage war around the world.ā€

There have been for the repeal of that AUMF over the years, including from ā€” you undoubtedly wonā€™t be surprised to learn ā€” Lee (). This past fall, several such bills were introduced in both the House and Senate, including a bipartisan by Senator Rand Paul.

In the spring of 2023, Meeks submitted his to replace the 2001 AUMF with a new one. In doing so, he sought to reestablish Congressā€™s constitutionally granted power to declare war, emphasized the statutory obligation of the president to brief Congress after launching any attack and added that the president must brief Congress on a regular basis as to the uses of the AUMF.

In addition, he inserted language aimed at curtailing the actā€™s expansiveness, including a requirement that the enemies to whom it could be applied be specifically named. He suggested three: the original al-Qaeda; the Islamic State Khorasan, based in Afghanistan and known as IS-K; and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. Moreover, his bill called for an annual reconsideration of those enemies and added provisions designed to end the presidentā€™s right to authorize the AUMFā€™s use for new groups by claiming they were just extensions of, or forces associated with, the already named groups.

Furthermore, his bill prohibited its use against any unnamed enemy, ā€œwhether or not the entity is involved in an armed conflict against a force of a United States ally or partner or is an affiliate, associated force or successor entity of an entity described in such subsection.ā€ To further constrain the broadness of that 2001 authorization, Meeks included a sunset clause at the end of four years unless it was reauthorized by Congress.

In a world where wars have broken out in Ukraine and now the Middle East, and where additional hostilities are simmering when it comes to the US, Iran, China and Russia, such language would ensure that a separate congressional declaration of war would have to be approved for any enemy the US decided to attack. In these many ways, the new version of the AUMF would rein in the aberration of those war powers that came into being in the aftermath of 9/11.

And yet the time to redesign the authority of presidential war powers, as created more than 22 years ago by the war on terror, has still not arrived. , like , gained remarkably little traction. Likewise, a bill from those relatively few congressional representatives calling for a full repeal of that AUMF rather than a replacement of it to make it to a vote.

Surveillance

In addition to indefinite detention at Guantanamo and the authorization of endless, expansive war-making, ever more expansive intelligence collection, at home as well as abroad, has been a foundational pillar of the war on terror ā€” and, like the AUMF, bringing it under some control has been mired in debate and controversy in recent months. In 2023, some members of Congress tried to put limits on part of a controversial law, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, passed in the summer of 2008 in the waning months of George W. Bushā€™s presidency. It authorized the collection and sharing of foreign intelligence for the purpose of deterring national security threats.

The problem was not the stated purpose of Section 702 ā€” to acquire information on foreigners abroad who might pose a threat to the United States ā€” but the domestic uses to which itā€™s been put. The act allows foreigners abroad to be surveilled without a warrant. But since its inception, itā€™s also been used for warrantless investigations of Americans whose communications have been caught up in sweeping searches of the communications of foreigners ā€” investigations that have become known as ā€œback-door searches.ā€

Constitutional scholars and civil liberties advocates have fought against Section 702 from its inception, arguing that such searches violate the Fourth Amendmentā€™s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant based on probable cause of criminal activity. As of the Brennan Center for Justice explains, ā€œSection 702 lets the government collect the communications of non-Americans located abroad without a warrant. But because Americans talk to people outside the country, the surveillance inevitably sweeps in our private phone calls, emails and text messages, too ā€” information that the government would normally need a warrant to access.ā€

In addition, experts note that, over time, the broad authority to collect the communications of Americans has been abused in alarming ways by the authorities. Gotein points out that 702-based warrantless searches have scrutinized the ā€œcommunications of Black Lives Matter protesters, members of Congress, a local political party, a state court judge, journalists and in one case, more than 19,000 contributors to a congressional campaign.ā€ For their part, intelligence officials seeking a continuation of Section 702 point out that recent have led to more responsible use of the authority.

Now, for the third time since its passage, Section 702 is up for renewal. December 31, 2023, was the legal deadline for a vote on it. Unlike the two prior times, however, the renewal date came and went without a vote. Instead, substantial opposition by legal experts and others led to several competing calling for Section 702ā€™s reform.

One of the proposed , the Government Surveillance Reform Act, introduced by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, as well as representatives Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in the House, that a warrant requirement be added to the search requirements when looking at the location data of Americans, web browsing and search records, vehicle data, and the like. In Leeā€™s version, any queries about the communications collected in a 702 search would, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, require a warrant for material involving Americans. The new bill would amount, in Goteinā€™s words, to closing ā€œthe backdoor search loophole.ā€

The Biden administration has, however, taken a notably aggressive stance against changes to the law, especially when it comes to the introduction of the warrant requirement. Numerous high-ranking officials have spoken out publicly, insisting that the warrant requirement would imperil their ability to keep the nation safe. In his written testimony before Congress, FBI Director Chris Wray insisted that it was ā€œan ā€ in the counterterrorism toolbox.

In fact, he told Congress, it was potentially ā€œthe that allows us to identify the intended target or build out the network of attackers so we can stop them before they strike and kill Americans.ā€ , acting director of the FBI after Donald Trump fired Director Jim Comey, put it even more starkly in a podcast devoted to the issue, labeling Section 702 ā€œarguably the most significant national security tool in the intelligence community.ā€ He then insisted that the requirement for a warrant was ā€œcompletely unworkable.ā€

So fraught was the congressional loggerhead over Section 702 that the deadline for a decision proved unworkable. Instead, Congress inserted an extension to 2024 in this yearā€™s defense spending bill, by President Biden three days before Christmas.

Itā€™s likely that, as with the 2001 AUMF, the attempt to change Section 702 will fail. Powers once given, it seems, only prove ever harder to relinquish and, all too sadly, the overreach engendered by the war on terror has by now become an accepted part of the American (and congressional) way of life.

Guantanamo

And then thereā€™s the most glaring symbol of the never-ending, often extralegal legacy of the war on terror, the continued existence of that grim prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 22 years ago, the Bush administration set up that offshore detention facility for war-on-terror detainees, placing it beyond the reach of military, federal, or international law. Since then, on numerous occasions, new protections for the rights of prisoners there have been put into place, but none of them have addressed one fundamental wrong ā€” namely, the decision that the federal court system was incapable of prosecuting those accused of engaging in terrorism against the United States, including those who conspired in the 9/11 attacks.

Despite candidate Bidenā€™s that, unlike Donald Trump, he would support the closure of Guantanamo, his of a special representative to oversee the transfer of its prisoners to federal prisons, and the actual transfer of , substantial efforts to finally shut down the prison have been noticeably absent. Once a facility that held captured in the war on terror, it now holds 30 individuals, 16 of whom have been cleared for transfer elsewhere, pending appropriate security arrangements. Another 10 are scheduled for trial by military commissions but their trials are not to begin anytime soon.

Whether itā€™s an endlessly expansive authorization for eternally conducting war around the world, the redefinition of surveillance powers to include Americans under the guise of a foreign threat, or the seemingly lackadaisical acceptance of Guantanamo as an institution, there is certainly one lasting lesson from the war on terror. Once powers previously outlawed or at least restrained in the name of fair, just and responsible laws and norms become codified and implemented, the road back to normalcy is tantamount to impossible.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that wiser heads will prevail in the days to come. It is, however, a terrifyingly fragile approach, given the outlook for the 2024 election.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post 9/11-Era Laws Remain Stubbornly on the Books appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Governments and the media appear to have adopted a new mission: to skew the meaning of words as a means of limiting citizensā€™ ability to think for themselves. The US House of Representatives a stirring example of the trend. I decided to ask ChatGPT this compelling question.

ā€œNow, with a war going on in Gaza in which both sides appear guilty of atrocities, it has become utterly abusive to characterize any criticism of Israel, its politics and the action of its military as anti-Semitism. But that is exactly whatā€™s happening. There have been examples in the recent past of shaming any pointed criticism of what is clearly an aggressive nation in its region that has put in place a regime and a set of laws in contradiction with the principles associated with democratic liberalism. But does it make any sense in any of our democracies to shame and censor criticism of a political entity? Isnā€™t that the opposite of the kind of vibrant debate without which democracy cannot function?ā€

Here was AIā€™s level-headed answer.

ā€œIt is true that the ongoing conflict in Gaza has been a contentious issue, with both sides being accused of atrocities. However, it is important to note that criticism of Israelā€™s policies and military actions is not inherently anti-Semitic. In fact, many Jewish people themselves have been critical of Israelā€™s actions in the region.

It is important to have open and honest discussions about political entities and their actions, as this is a cornerstone of democracy. Censoring or shaming criticism of a political entity is not conducive to a healthy debate and can lead to a lack of accountability.

It is also worth noting that there have been instances where criticism of Israel has been met with backlash, including accusations of anti-Semitism. However, it is important to distinguish between legitimate criticism and hate speech.

In conclusion, it is important to have open and honest discussions about political entities and their actions, without resorting to censorship or shaming. This is essential for a healthy democracy and for holding those in power accountable.

Why is AI so unfailingly preachy?

When dialoguing with ChatGPT, itā€™s difficult not to be distracted by what is clearly a feature of its algorithm: never ending an analysis without some moralizing sentiment usually introduced by ā€œit is important toā€¦ā€. In this case, the locution appeared in two successive sentences. Apparently, AI coders feel that a language model must be empowered to instruct users about what is good or bad, rather than allow them to discover such distinctions on their own. In this case, I happened to agree, which should have been obvious anyway.

I went on to give some specific historical context.

ā€œCongress, nevertheless, passed a law declaring that ā€˜anti-Zionism is antisemitism.ā€™ All but one Republican and more than half of Democrats supported it. Is this a sign that the political class dominated by two parties no longer sees the basic principles of democracy, to say nothing of the first amendment, as necessary to the exercise of government in the US? Does it also mean that rational thought and critical thinking are being suppressed?ā€

ChatGPT provided me with some solid context before weighing in on my concerns.

ā€œThe US House of Representatives recently passed a resolution that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The resolution was introduced by two Jewish Republicans in the House, Max Miller of Ohio and David Kustoff of Tennessee, and was supported by all but one Republican and a substantial minority of Democrats.

It is important to note that this resolution is non-binding and does not carry the force of law. However, it has been criticized by lawmakers, advocates for Palestinians and progressive Jewish groups, who say the measure could restrict free speech rights in the country.

It is concerning if the political class is suppressing rational thought and critical thinking, as these are essential components of a healthy democracy. However, it is important to note that the resolution is not a law and does not have the force of law. It is also worth noting that criticism of Israelā€™s policies and military actions is not inherently anti-Semitic, and many Jewish people themselves have been critical of Israelā€™s actions in the region.

In conclusion, while the resolution passed by the US House of Representatives is concerning, it is important to distinguish between legitimate criticism and hate speech. It is also important to have open and honest discussions about political entities and their actions, without resorting to censorship or shaming. This is essential for a healthy democracy and for holding those in power accountable.

I couldnā€™t help feeling that ChatGPT was trying to reassure me with a kind of ā€œboys will be boysā€ argument concerning the deliberations in Congress, dismissing their importance because they donā€™t have the force of law. I continued with another question.

What then does this say about the values of the elected political class in the US? Does it tell us they are more interested in power and lobbyistsā€™ support than in democracy itself?

ā€œThe recent resolution passed by the US House of Representatives that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism has been criticized by lawmakers, advocates for Palestinians and progressive Jewish groups, who say the measure could restrict free speech rights in the country. While it is concerning if the political class is suppressing rational thought and critical thinking, it is important to note that the resolution is non-binding and does not carry the force of law.

It is important to have open and honest discussions about political entities and their actions, without resorting to censorship or shaming. This is essential for a healthy democracy and for holding those in power accountable. The United States of America is founded on the principles of liberty, equality and democracy, which are the three most common political values shared by all Americans. These values establish the freedom of our actions, but only if those actions are not detrimental to the freedom of other people. No two people are the same, but they should always be treated equally in the light of the law.

It is important to remember that the political class is not a monolithic entity, and there are many lawmakers who are committed to upholding the principles of democracy and free speech. However, it is also true that the political class is influenced by powerful lobbies and special interest groups, which can sometimes lead to policies that are not in the best interests of the people.

In conclusion, while the recent resolution passed by the US House of Representatives is concerning, it is important to distinguish between legitimate criticism and hate speech. It is also important to have open and honest discussions about political entities and their actions, without resorting to censorship or shaming. This is essential for a healthy democracy and for holding those in power accountable. The values of liberty, equality and democracy are the cornerstone of American political culture, and it is important to uphold these values in all aspects of governance.

Here we can see that AI has no qualms about endlessly repeating itself, especially its moralizing passages, something rational humans tend to avoid when they sense that it may get on the nerves of their interlocutor. I see this as an example of ChatGPT failing the Turing test. It sounds human but doesnā€™t act human. It never seems to call into question its own conclusions. Itā€™s true a lot of people do the same thing, but not those who take rationality seriously.

It seems to me that the commercial model of AI we may now access contains at its core an instruction worth debating: that its discourse be designed for the specific purpose of telling people what they should think about the issues they appear curious about.

That means that todayā€™s AI is built for a certain kind of soft propaganda. This should worry us. In this particular case, I was happy to see ChatGPT resonate with my own reasoning. But is that just a matter of chance? It convinces me that Iā€™m right. But what if Iā€™m wrong? AIā€™s conclusions appear designed to shut down, rather than expand, my own critical inquiry.

Can we begin to imagine a generation of AI imbued with the intellectual humility that might allow it to express its agreement or disagreement without claiming to possess the authoritative truth and repeating it endlessly?

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyoneā€™s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At 51³Ō¹Ļ, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Outside the Box: Can Congress Legislate on the Meaning of Words? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The leading Republican candidate for the 2024 presidential race, Donald Trump, faces four criminal indictments. The leading Democratic candidate, President Joe Biden, has favorability ratings. The presidential race has so far generated as much positive enthusiasm as a barroom brawl between two old duffers, which in a certain sense it is.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Congress was deadlocked for three weeks in October because the Republican Party couldnā€™t decide on a new Speaker of the House. Finally, the party chose the far-right politician Mike Johnson, whose was his greatest asset, because he hadnā€™t made enough enemies among his colleagues to sink his candidacy. Obscurity also translates into precious little deal-making experience, which is not a good sign when the federal government faces a shutdown in just a few months, despite a , if the two major parties canā€™t agree on a spending bill.

President Bidenā€™s spending woes

With a year left before Americans go to the polls in yet another supremely consequential election, President Biden is eager to keep the economy on an even keel and demonstrate resolve in the field of foreign policy. The latter has been sorely tested. Not only has the administration attempted to maintain support for Ukraine in its battle against Russian occupation forces, it is now trying to increase military assistance to Israel in its fight against Hamas.

Toward that end, the administration has proposed a $105 billion that bundles together military aid to Ukraine and Israel along with funding for Taiwan, increased security at the USā€“Mexico border, and some humanitarian assistance for Palestinians.

In typical DC style, the bill contains something for nearly everyone. And yet, it still manages to piss off nearly everyone.

Most of the money earmarked for Ukraine and Israel would go to the Pentagon to replenish its stocks of weaponry to send to those countries. Congressional supporters of military spending, who make up the vast majority of lawmakers, should be delighted that, of the $61 billion slated for Ukraine, $44 billion would go to the Pentagon, while $10 billion of the $14 billion for Israel would also go to the military-industrial complex. China hawks will rejoice at the money for Taiwan while MAGA Republicans should be happy about the $13 billion for ā€œborder security.ā€ The bill also includes some of the humanitarian aid to Palestinians that progressives have been urging.

Bundling is a traditional tactic for building consensus in a divided Congress. But it might not work this time, not only because the House is divided but because the Republican Party itself is a house divided.

Splits within the Republican party

On the issue of Ukraine, Republicans come in three flavors.

Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell heads up the plain vanilla faction. He supports Ukraine because he doesnā€™t like Russia, believes the United States is still locked in a cold war with this evil-ish empire and was horrified by Trumpā€™s pro-Putin statements over the years. McConnell is no friend of Bidenā€™s, but he buys the administrationā€™s frankly distasteful argument that the West is engaged in a civilizational struggle against a common enemy. For these reasons, McConnell has to support the bundled funding in the Senate, though with some important caveats.

Over in the House, Mike Johnson straddles the vanilla faction and the Rocky Road crew: heā€™s a scoop of vanilla with some nuts sprinkled on top. Like McConnell, he is no friend of Russia. ā€œWe canā€™t allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine, because I donā€™t believe it would stop there, and it would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan,ā€ Johnson Fox News. ā€œWe have these concerns. Weā€™re not going to abandon them.ā€

But Johnson has also adopted most of the positions of the nut-filled MAGA faction, from its unmitigated support for Trump to its diehard opposition to abortion. So, despite his aversion to Putin, Johnson has a bill to divide the funding for Israel from the money for Ukraine, presumably so that the far right can register its disapproval of the latter without compromising its approval of the former.

Johnsonā€™s colleagues have various problems with the bill. J. D. Vance the small amount of humanitarian aid for Palestinians. Other Republicans have taken aim at the measure that was included precisely to curry their favor ā€” money for border security ā€” because suddenly they donā€™t care about money but insist instead on a change in administration policy.

Johnson is a budget-cutter, and he knows that of Republicans believe that the value of aid to Ukraine is not worth the cost (compared to a mere 29% of Democrats). Reducing government spending is a perennial favorite of the Republicans going into an election (as opposed to after they win an election, when they go on a spending spree). As a result, Johnson supports the crowd-pleasing (but budget-busting) tactic of funds for the Internal Revenue Service to pay for the military assistance.

But the leading criticism of the bill, from the far right, concerns Ukraine. Why the skepticism? Vance about ā€œan endless conflict with no plan from the Biden administration.ā€ But Vance and friends are not anti-war, anti-intervention or anti-militarist. The signers of a congressional in September to the Biden administration vowing to oppose any further aid to Ukraine, aside from the libertarian Rand Paul, have no problem preparing for ā€œan endless conflictā€ with China.

In fact, many of these fixtures of Trumpā€™s political universe have a residual affection for Vladimir Putin. In many ways, heā€™s their ideal politician: anti-LGBT, pro-Church, anti-liberal, pro-sovereignty, anti-woke. Heā€™s also the leader of a predominantly white country that has many in white supremacist circles in the West. Finally, Vladimir was one of Donaldā€™s best buds. Republican Senate nominee Lauren Witzke summed up the MAGA position when she back in April 2022 that anyone who supports Ukraine is ā€œeither transgender, a Satanist, or a straight-up Nazi.ā€ Methinks that Witzke doth project too much.

But itā€™s not just failed politicians who make these arguments. ā€œNATO has been supplying the neo-Nazis in Ukraine with powerful weapons and extensive training on how to use them,ā€ Marjorie Taylor-Greene back in March 2022. Paul Gosar in May 2022 when he said that ā€œUkraine is not our ally. Russia is not our enemy.ā€ More recently, Tommy Tuberville that Democrats ā€œcreatedā€ the war in Ukraine. Who needs Twitter trolls when US lawmakers indulge in such fictions?

Making the wrong link

Itā€™s one thing to link aid to Ukraine and Israel as a political tactic. Itā€™s quite another to make the larger argument that the money goes toward fighting the ā€œsame enemy.ā€ Putin and Hamas have almost nothing in common beyond their militant illiberalism. Putin has turned Russia into an imperial power that has attacked its neighbors, occupied Ukraine, and attempted to establish an international network of illiberal states. Hamas is a reactionary entity that has enough power to commit atrocities but not enough power to occupy territoryā€”not even its ā€œownā€ territory of Gaza as the current Israeli invasion demonstrates.

If there are any comparisons to be made between the two regions, Russiaā€™s counterpart is not Hamas but Israel, an increasingly far-right polity with messianic dreams that has been steadily expanding its control within the already Occupied Territories.

Unfortunately, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also bought into this civilizational discourse, coming out in strong support of Israel. His statements, however much they reflect his personal outrage at Hamasā€™s attacks, are largely directed at US audiences. The Israelis have already indicated, by an offer from Zelensky to visit in solidarity after the Hamas attacks, that there wonā€™t be a quid pro quo in terms of boosting their support for Ukraine. So, Zelenskyā€™s real goal is to help advance the $105 billion bill in Congress.

Thereā€™s a definite downside to this strategy. Zelenskyā€™s attempts over the last year to woo Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, are taking a hit from his defense of Israel. In August, Saudi Arabia hosted a meeting in Jeddah to consolidate support for Ukraineā€™s ten-point peace plan. Now, all of that patient diplomacy is at risk. A of key countries, such as China, Egypt and the UAE, didnā€™t attend a follow-up meeting last weekend in Malta, and Saudi support seems to have as well.

Putin didnā€™t plan Hamasā€™s deadly intervention in Israel, but he must be pleased at the geopolitical . On the other hand, being lumped together with Hamas, conceptually and budget-wise, doesnā€™t do Russia any favors. Ukraineā€™s image, at least among a certain class of wavering Republicans, might benefit from the faulty comparison.

Looking toward 2024

The US economy is in relatively good shape, at least according to the conventional indicators: low unemployment, modest growth, tamed inflation. Despite the usual link between pocketbook issues and political favorability, Joe Bidenā€™s approval ratings remain in the dumps.

On certain foreign policy issues, however, Biden is doing better. His approval rating on Ukraine is a few points than his overall polling. When it comes to US policy toward Israel and Hamas, the gap is in Bidenā€™s favor.

At this point in the campaign, at least, Biden is building the case that he is the more competent candidate when it comes to global issues. Itā€™s not clear, though, whether American voters will care a year from now that Americaā€™s reputation is considerably higher around the world under Biden than it was under Trump. Being a competent statesman with an agile secretary of state would certainly guarantee Biden a presidential victory ā€” if everyone in the world voted in the US election.

For better or worse, however, only Americans will go to the polls next November. Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee, will claim that he is the ā€œpeace candidate,ā€ didnā€™t start any wars when he was president, ā€œgot us out of Afghanistan,ā€ and would have restrained the adventurism of both Putin and Netanyahu. All of this is , but elections rarely bring out the rational side of an electorate.

With the latest supplemental funding bill, the Biden administration hopes that it can help Ukraine win the war and somehow contain the damage of the Israel-Hamas conflict. This is a pipe dream, since US influence is limited. But this ā€œnew and improvedā€ mission to fight a civilizational war, however false the narrative, might prove sufficiently convincing to speed passage of the supplemental funding bill and, in appealing to plain-vanilla conservatives and a few independents, perhaps win a presidential election as well.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

Peace in Their Time: No Appeasement for Putin

The Military-Industrial Complex Is Now Scarily Huge

The US Isnā€™t as Powerful as We Like to Hope

The post Congress Divided on the Funding for Ukraine and Israel appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

This is no small point. It is the rule of law and the attendant consent of the governed to be bound by it that provides the foundation for effective governance. At last check, humans have not come up with a better organizational plan. Good government requires functioning institutions and infrastructure, with some measure of public acceptance of outcomes determined within a predetermined, procedural framework. That framework is the foundation for the rule of law in any well-governed society.

Trump fanatics undermine Americaā€™s institutions

As always, America is confronted with serious challenges at home and abroad. Yet breathless, breaking news routinely unfolds in a definitional vacuum. Information is provided before an acceptable vocabulary has been developed. As an ongoing example, most Republican Party voters and a pandering party leadership as if former President Donald Trump was the legitimate victor in a presidential election decided three years ago. An audience of sycophants at the initial Republican Party presidential debate booed the notion of public accountability for wrongdoing. Meanwhile, the candidates on stage declared fealty to the lucky guy with 91 felony charges to his name.

A significant portion of the population seems to think that he is currently the legitimate President of the United States under siege from a venal pretender. So any effort to promote understanding of ongoing developments in Trumpā€™s political, social, legal and financial saga is doomed to failure. The unfolding political and social morass must be addressed without any expectation that our self-touted governmental institutions are prepared to define and enforce an upstanding rule of law grounded in a moral and ethical consensus. There simply is no consensus. This void critically undermines institutional integrity and societal cohesion.

The governmentā€™s broken branches

Another current millstone around Americaā€™s collective neck is the US Supreme Court. It is a historically flawed but previously respected institution, now reduced to a predictable cesspool of white Christian nationalist orthodoxy. Then, just to make sure that the underprivileged and marginalized fully get the message, there is a palpable overlay of that orthodoxy with old school privilege-begets-privilege rationale. To say the least, the Supreme Court majority of recent years seems purposefully designed to provide legal cover for the worst that America can be.

This is morally dispiriting and makes a mockery of a rule of law that requires aspirational public acceptance to survive. Added to the Courtā€™s decay is an unsuitable ethos, one which greatly resembles an ethos that abounds in the private sector but should never hold sway in the public sphere. Privilege has thrived as a cancer within. Instead of running like the highest court in the land empowered as one of three separate governmental branches, the Supreme Court today operates more like a runaway corporate board of directors. So there will not be much help there.

Yet the Supreme Court is but one failing branch of government. Congressional dysfunction and the poisonous role of corporate, religious and cultural influence peddling in the halls of Congress has only to the degrading impact of the Courtā€™s recent rulings and its ethical void. You end up with two branches of the government now hopelessly compromised and openly operating outside the confines of a rule of law that should be at the core of their mission. This further erodes the realization of a national moral and ethical consensus.

Amendments are corrupted

The current disconnect between justice fortified by a rule of law and the moral and ethical consensus necessary to give it vitality has profoundly contributed to wildly divergent ā€œmoral and ethicalā€ perspectives. This is well illustrated in the national response to the gun carnage that is all around us every day. It makes a mockery of common sense that in 1791, Americaā€™s Founding Fathers would have enshrined in the Constitution an amendment that foreshadowed modern issues. They did not envision the armaments of today, the avarice of the arms merchants and the utterly insane thought that the nationā€™s security would best be protected by an obscene stockpile of firearms in civilian hands.

But here we are, stuck with an institutional void incapable of defining and driving a national moral and ethical consensus to end the carnage. Never mind the constitutionally-enshrined right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is being . There is no Supreme Court, judicial system or Congress to pull us out of it. And even if there were an executive branch with a moral and ethical compass ā€” and there may be ā€” the institutional dysfunction of the judicial and legislative branches is routinely undermining the executive capacity of the nation. Add to this the systemic absence of transparent and fair accountability for almost anything, and it should be no surprise that societal discord will fill the void.

Using gun carnage fueled by some morally-bankrupt interpretation of ancient text as an illustration requires little imagination. It poses well the consequences of the nationā€™s institutional failure to respond. Now fast-forward for a moment. A nation paralyzed by the Second Amendment is about to be further paralyzed by the First Amendment and its ā€œfree speechā€ guarantees.

Again, the fundamental rule of law will be the loser. Already the cherished but ill-defined right to free speech is being bastardized by those seeking to ban for others what they wish to exploit for themselves. Legally, you cannot shout ā€œfireā€ in a crowded theater and then cover yourself with First Amendment free speech guarantees to avoid responsibility for the resulting damage. However, in todayā€™s America, the retrograde right is fostering the notion that you can publicly shout venal lies to move a crowd to violence while under cover of that ever-popular First Amendment protection.

One bastardized amendment is already killing tens of thousands of our citizens a year, so just imagine the harm that the bastardization of another key amendment could do. And then line up the Fourteenth Amendment and its panoply of due process guarantees, and it is easy to envision an America in which fundamental legal principles are turned on their heads to ensure a dark national future. We never seem to learn.

I would like to end this with some charming homily of hope, but I will leave that to the flag-bearers. The rest of us must accept the challenge of defining for the future a moral and ethical foundation for the present. Without this foundation, there can be no rule of law. Without the rule of law, there can be no nation worth defending.

[ first published this piece.]
[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post America’s Important Rule of Law is Floundering appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Election denial?

Republicans are not the only ones who are confused. Diplomats from some of Americaā€™s Western allies have expressed concerns over the choice of a speaker who denies the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.

Schell explains that Mike Johnson is not as simplistic as heā€™s been made out to be by the media ā€” a sort of one-dimensional conspiracy theorist. His concerns are a little more subtle than that. 

At the time of Texas v. Pennsylvania, one of the most notable Supreme Court cases that dealt with the validity of the elections in 2020, Johnson filed an amicus curiae brief with the Court. The primary concern that he expressed in the brief was that local governments were making decisions about voting procedures with little or no legislative oversight. This lack of legal process created the bad appearance of illegitimacy, even if no outright tampering occurred ā€” something which Johnson did not claim.

So, the anxiety about Johnson being an ā€œelection denierā€ is somewhat overblown. He did not endorse conspiracy theories about election tampering. He did question the legal legitimacy of some results, although he has even walked that position back somewhat. As far as the near future is concerned, in Schellā€™s opinion, American democracy is not in peril.

Other diplomats, hailing from the Global South, talk about the optics of Johnsonā€™s speakership. How does the United States look, holding the Summit for Democracy in March and then choosing an election denier for a speaker in October?

Schell responds that this is not a material concern. This summit was inaugurated by President Joe Biden and is not longstanding US policy. Furthermore, the House of Representatives has very little to do with US diplomacy. So, President Joe Biden can hold his summits without worrying about who is sitting at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The unstable Republican speakership

Johnsonā€™s predecessor as speaker, Kevin McCarthy, had struggled to attain his nomination. It took him an unheard-of 15 ballots to finally win a majority in January 2023. He was only able to do so by making deep concessions to his partyā€™s right wing. In particular, he agreed that a single member could initiate a ā€œmotion to vacateā€ and potentially oust him from his office.

The US at the time was about to reach its debt ceiling, and the House, which has the power of the purse, needed to authorize further borrowing. McCarthy was forced to compromise with House Democrats in order to pass a deal to allow this. Because of that compromise, Representative Matt Gaetz exercised the right to initiate a motion to vacate. On October 2, in a historic first, Republicans threw their own speaker out.

No clear successor was waiting in the wings. Without a leader in the House, Republicans had no one to gather around and form consensus for bills. So, the Republican-controlled House was adrift. If Republicans had not elected another speaker by tha ( deadline of November 17, they probably could not have avoided a government shutdown. This would have been a disaster for the party, as every news source would have called it a Republican-led shutdown. Not only that, but Congress would not have been able to take any other action, such as authorizing more aid for Ukraine or Israel.

So, with such a high cost to not electing a speaker, is it true that anyone would have been better than no one? One hesitates to say yes, but it is true that nearly anyone who could pull off the job, at least temporarily, would be a sheer necessity given the circumstances.

So who is Mike Johnson, anyway?

Mike Johnson may not be the most notable man on Capitol Hill, but he is not just anyone, either. So, who is he? Where does he come from, and what does he believe?

A Louisiana native, Johnson studied business administration at Louisiana State University and earned his law degree there, too. An evangelical Baptist, he spent the better part of his legal career defending religious causes.

Johnson represents the 4th district in the stateā€™s west. Steve Scalise, the House Majority Leader, also hails from Louisiana, representing the 1st district, which covers New Orleansā€™s suburbs. The Republican caucus considered but passed over Scalise for speaker, judging him to be too much of an insider. They similarly considered and rejected Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan. Tom Emmer, from Minnesota, lasted two hours before dropping out. Finally, Johnson became the caucusā€™ fourth nominee and won.

Unlike fellow Louisianan Scalise, who is more moderate, Johnson is firmly on the right wing. He is a staunch religious conservative and a pro-lifer. While he has strong convictions, he is not a strident, talking-point ideologue; in fact, he is something of a policy wonk.

Quite popular, Johnson ran unopposed in his last election and received unanimous support from his own party in the speakership vote. This is notable, given the shaky support behind the previous candidates for speaker.

Johnson does not always follow the party line. The adoptive father of a black child, he forcefully condemned the killing of George Floyd at the hands of police as ā€œan act of murder.ā€ This statement caused some consternation among his fellow party members, who viewed it as a liberal narrative.

Immediately after becoming speaker, Johnson declared war on the nationā€™s debt. He has made addressing the solvency of the federal governmentā€™s entitlement programs ā€” chiefly Social Security and Medicare ā€” a key part of his policy.

Johnson has little to no experience running a legislative agenda, which is an asset for him as Republicans did not want an insider. He is not exactly a newbie, as he is on his fourth term, and he previously chaired the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. As far as insider connections and personal Capitol Hill loyalties go, though, Johnson is beholden to no one and is thus an unknown quantity.

Significance of a Trump-supporting speaker

Let us turn now to the broader significance that Johnsonā€™s election has for broader American political culture. Donald Trump, the previous president, is now undergoing no less than four felony trials. Yet, the new speaker is an election doubter and a firm Trump supporter. In many other countries, politicians would not tolerate even a whiff of criminality surrounding their allies. So do Republicans tolerate Trump and his friends?

Schell is not sounding the alarm bells yet. It would be a bigger problem, perhaps, if Johnson had supported Trump out of personal loyalty. But his concerns about the election were principled, not personal. So they are no evidence that corruption is seeping into the House.

Likewise, many point to the fiasco of McCarthyā€™s ouster and the subsequent scramble for a new speaker as a sign of growing chaos in the Republican party. But in Schellā€™s view, this was the doing of eight radicals, not of the party. Notably, Gaetz and the other members who helped to oust McCarthy were not rewarded with the speakership themselves. Indeed, most House Republicans are furious with them. So they should not be taken as representative of the party as a whole.

So, while the razor-thin Republican majority empowered some Republicans to punch above their weight, the institutions themselves have not been subverted. And they can even be strengthened. Hopefully, Republicans will get rid of the single-member motion to vacate and perhaps add a new rule to allow for an ousted speaker to continue until his replacement has been found. In any case, Republicans now have a speaker who is more popular and thus in a surer position than McCarthy was ten months ago.

Where do we go from here?

Johnson is likely to push for a stopgap measure to keep the government funded for a few months. This will buy his party time to negotiate the traditional annual budget, which is passed as twelve separate bills to allow for greater legislative scrutiny. This avoids cramming the entire budget into a single omnibus bill, which Republicans wish to avoid as such a process makes scrutiny more difficult and thus encourages overspending.

Johnson is a strong supporter of aid to Israel but opposes further aid to Ukraine. There are some signs, however, that he is willing to negotiate on the latter point. Democrats may persuade him to package aid to Israel and Ukraine together in a single bill.

Democrats may perhaps be displeased that they can no longer lambast ā€œRepublican chaosā€ in the House. Some are taking the opportunity to portray Johnson as the far-right speaker of a far-right party. But, in truth, it is too early to tell whether or not Johnson will be a man that Democrats can work with. His values are known, but his legislative style is not. Will he be a fighter, or a negotiator? We will just have to wait and see.
[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Who Is the New US House Speaker, Mike Johnson? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Republicans, who control the majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, have shown themselves unable to elect a Speaker of the House in an orderly fashion. Their ability to swat down nominees is far greater than their ability to pick one. After House Republicans ousted sitting Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the party caucus raised up Tom Emmer to take his place, only to drop him the next day. Now they have settled upon Mike Johnson, a rookie member who until his nomination was a political non-entity. This is no way to run a country.

As per Carle, the Republicansā€™ lack of ability to govern with seriousness raises deep concerns about the party. Since at least 2016, we have watched the grand old party (GOP), as it is called, largely jettison its commitment to legality and even to democracy. President Donald Trump dismissed the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, in which he was ousted, and numerous party members, including Johnson, scrambled to repeat his claims. What we have is a potent combination of distrust in institutions together with exaltation of both ā€œthe peopleā€ and a charismatic leader. This pattern does not merely resemble, but is, fascism.

Make no mistake: Republicans arenā€™t just undergoing some ordinary political shenanigans. Their inability to select a speaker is a symptom of their fascistic tendency to demonize processes and institutions. Johnson was selected for loyalty to the party, not tenure, experience, political credibility or personal integrity.

Trouble ahead for the not-so-united United States

We are now less than a month away from a government shutdown. This occurs when Congress (both the Senate and the House of Representatives), is unable to authorize spending to fund the US governmentā€™s activities. If the House cannot get its act together, this will occur. A significant proportion of the federal governmentā€™s four million employees will be furloughed and unable to provide services.

Further, a deadlocked Congress will not be able to authorize support to Ukraine or to Israel. If Congress is not effective, America cannot effectively discharge its role as the hegemonic power that guarantees a stable international system. And no one wants to live in a chaotic world. If the international system cannot look to the US, it will look for another guarantor, like China.

Historically, Americans have been united not by common ethnic or religious identity but by loyalty to a certain set of values and institutions, which are enshrined in the US constitution. Now, that common allegiance is crumbling, and with it, Americansā€™ ability to work together, find a common purpose and compromise on party interests in order to make decisions concerning necessities.

A political community cannot survive without a common narrative that tells people what their goals are and why they should work together. If America is losing its constitutional and democratic narrative, what will replace it? For Republicans, the replacement seems to be populism. We no longer trust decisions arrived at by rational consensus and compromise forged within institutions. Instead, Republican policy is increasingly based on values, which range from noble ideals to bigoted prejudices to outright conspiracy theories.

Republicans are resorting to populism because voters are lashing out. They feel disenfranchised. It is true that institutions have degraded. Congressmen and Senators spend most of their time raising money. They seem to be more willing to listen to lobbyists and campaign donors than to ordinary Americans and their own constituents. So the government has become detached from the people. Also, the branches of government have become detached from each other. Political dysfunction reigns. The result is that no one feels that they can trust the government or that they have any moral reason to support it.

If American institutions are unable to build consensus, the same is true for American culture. Americans can no longer agree on what is their mission in the world or even on who Americans are as the debates on immigration demonstrate. Technology is partly to blame: These days, everyone feels they have the right to play the expert on Twitter, TikTok or Truth Social with an opinion on everything from public health to nuclear policy. Americans have always been individualistic, but the current brand of hyper-individualistic discourse is dissolving whatever consensus Americans have on anything and, thus, the American ability to act effectively in the world.

[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post FOĀ° Exclusive: New Nonstop Drama in the US Congres appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The controversial policy is the public debt. The United Statesā€™ national debt reached of GDP, prompting Congress to suspend its debt ceiling months ago. Last month, Congress failed to reach an agreement for the annual budget. Ultras in the Republican party wanted to scrap certain expenses, in particular those regarding the supply of weapons and aid to Ukraine.

A avoided shutdown for a few weeks, but the wacky little wing of the Republican caucus accused Speaker McCarthy of betraying the party and triggered a motion to remove him. The episode is not completely new, as the past three Republican speakers of the House were pestered by their own side and resigned or retired before being ousted. But this is the first time in history that theyā€™ve succeeded in actually firing the Speaker.

A conflict over policy

The policy conflict should not be dismissed as simply the result of acrimony. Bipartisanship and cooperation in Congress flourished during several decades of foreign tension through World War II and the Cold War as external existential threats triggered national unity. But when the mortal external risk became paltry, it looked like there were no limits to internal confrontation.

Over the last thirty years, the public agenda of controversial issues has grown enormously. With just a little exaggeration, one could say that the international Cold War was replaced with a domestic political war. Right now, it is not coincidental that the most aggressive Republicans spurn US aid to Ukraine. A focus on external conflict would reduce the space for domestic policy and make internal confrontation less easy. The new war in Israel may increase their malaise.

A conflict caused by institutions

The institutional flaw is that the framework based on the separation of powers with only two parties incentivizes and exacerbates political animosity. With pervasive partisan antagonism, the filters and ā€œchecks” between the House, the Senate and the presidency do not produce fair balances as expected. Actually, mutual checks between institutions boost partiesā€™ hostilities and preclude effective governance.

The two major political parties in the US encompass a range of policy proposals and ideological orientations comparable to the typical European system with multiple parties: There are liberals and socialists within the Democratic Party, conservatives and populists within the Republican Party, and the minor Greens and Libertarians flanking each side. The system has produced factional candidacies and long disputes within each party to select its candidates. There is ideological plurality , but not at the level of competitive bidding for public office. This forces political polarization, as I analyze in my , Constitutional Polarization: A Critical Review of the U.S. Political System.

An additional factor is the system of primary elections to select candidates. In traditional closed-party primaries, low participation heavily skews the vote toward extreme positions on issues with no social or political consensus. The participants in primaries are typically the most active and ideologically motivated people in the entire electorate, so they often favor candidates prone to foster antagonism.

In congressional primaries, only about of eligible voters tend to participate. On many occasions, the winner in a primary for an open seat, which tends to attract multiple candidates, wins only a plurality of the vote. Thus, many candidates for House seats have been selected by less than a tenth of their party voters. Closed-party primaries can select minority-supported candidates that might not be most preferred by the general public. This is how the House of Representatives is formed and why some of its members sometimes behave like firebrands.

It may be significant that none of the eight Republicans who voted to overthrow McCarthy were elected in any of the five states that select their representatives by top-two open primaries or by ranked-choice voting, alternative systems to closed party primaries that favor more moderate and consensual winners (Louisiana, Washington, California, Alaska, and Maine). 

The immediate consequence of the current calamity is the blockage of legislation for the next few weeks. Yet even if the House resumes its activity soon, the threat of a government shutdown in November remains on the horizon.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Why Is Congress So Polarized? Itā€™s the Institutions appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Section 554, entitled ā€œCommunity college Enlisted Training Corps demonstration program,ā€ is unlikely to raise the heart-beat. Thereā€™s passing acknowledgment of our contemporary gender sensitivities in section 583, entitled ā€œProhibition on requiring listing of gender or pronouns in official correspondence,ā€ but Iā€™m afraid that is not going to be the subject of this article. 

Interesting little quirks pepper the legislation: ongoing claims relating to waste from the Manhattan Project can be found in section 1099AA, no doubt essential reading for anyone whoā€™s just come back from the cinema after watching Oppenheimer.  Section 581 extends deadlines for the review of World War 1 valor medals. Who would have thought that this was something we were still figuring out and spending money on?

Persevere through the text, though, and it becomes very clear that something very, very interesting is about to happen. This just could be the most important piece of legislation ever drafted in human history, with incendiary consequences. It will potentially answer, once and for all, whether or not we are alone in the universe. 

Metaphorical echoes of Coplandā€™s Fanfare for the Common Man start to resonate when we get to ā€œDivision G ā€“ UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA DISCLOSURE.ā€ When you see it, your scrolling immediately pauses, with first thoughts of, Wait a minute, did I read that correctly? The division in question is described as the ā€œUnidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023.ā€ 

So what does the Unidentified Anomalous Disclosure Act of 2023 actually say? There are no prizes for guessing what it might be associated with following recent sworn by David Grusch, David Fravor and Ryan Graves before Congress earlier this summer on the subject of strange goings on in the skies, crashed craft from other worlds and ā€œbiologicsā€ described as ā€œnon-humanā€ in origin. 

Evidently, members of Congress have followed up on Gruschā€™s multiple responses along the lines of, I canā€™t answer that now in public, but can do so behind closed doors. Those meetings appear to have taken place, and those few members of Congress who are security-cleared to attend those meetings must have reached some astonishing conclusions.

The introductory sections of the act hit you like an express train. Section 9002(a)(4) states that: ā€œLegislation is necessary because credible evidence and testimony indicates that Federal Government unidentified anomalous phenomena records exist and have not been declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review.ā€

The act provides for the disclosure of ā€œtechnologies of unknown originā€ and evidence of ā€œnon-human intelligenceā€. Just pause for a minute: if Congress legislated for hobgoblins, dwarves, hobbits, dragons and orcs, you would think that it had lost the plot, right? By inference, it must have seen evidence in relation to the existence of those hobgoblins, dwarves, hobbits, dragons and orcs, or why legislate in detail in relation to them? Can you see where this is heading?

To emphasize the point, word searches for ā€œunidentified anomalous phenomenaā€ tally 169 counts in the billā€™s text and references to ā€œnon-humanā€ tally 26. On the other hand, ā€œtinfoil hatā€ (in whatever spelling) appears nowhere, and neither does ā€œconspiracyā€ or ā€œalien,ā€ except in the unrelated legal senses of those terms. This is serious business. Evidently, Congress is not concerned with crackpots and sci-fi enthusiasts, but with extraterrestrial intelligence and technology themselves.

So just what evidence does Congress think might be out there? We can glean some insight from the disclosure procedures, from the exceptions to those procedures that Congress has carved out and from how the bill describes the information and artifacts concerned.

Disclosure?

Section 9004 of the act sets up a record collection in the National Archive of all records that the government may have on the subject of unidentified anomalous phenomena. Thatā€™s great, you might think, but it might wind up empty if government departments claim that they have absolutely nothing in their records to contribute. 

In that regard, section 9005 is quite interesting. Each government office would have to identify and organize their records on the subject and prepare such records for inclusion in the National Archive, with an additional provision preventing their destruction, alteration or mutilation in any way. 

But what about the really sensitive stuff? Thereā€™s a further catch in the provision referring to ā€œrecords pending review,ā€ which seems to suggest that whatever data dumps might occur are likely to be very benign, with the more serious stuff being constantly queued with mysterious reasons for delay.

Still, section 9005(c) does say that, within 300 days of the date of enactment of the act, the head of each government department has to review, identify and organize each record of anomalous phenomena for disclosure to the public, review by a board created by the act and transmission to the National Archive. 

But disclosure doesnā€™t just apply to government records. The act defines a ā€œclose observerā€ as anyone who has come into close proximity to unidentified anomalous phenomena or non-human intelligence, and a ā€œControlling Authorityā€ means any federal, state or local government department (presumably including the Sheriffā€™s office in Roswell), commercial company, academic institution or private sector entity in physical possession of technologies of unknown origin or biological evidence of non-human intelligence.  

These are quite wide-ranging definitions and will no doubt spook private-sector entities who have been alleged to have such materials in their possession, though the inclusion of ā€œphysicalā€ in the definition of ā€œControlling Authorityā€ also makes it quite narrow. If a corporation had such material, an astute lawyer would advise its transfer to an off-shore shell company in order to argue that they donā€™t possess it, avoiding difficult questions about how they got it. The definition should perhaps be expanded to include records relating to such material (which will inevitably run the risk of destruction) and possession by entities in foreign jurisdictions over which American companies exercise control.

Preventing disclosure?

Aside from these possible loopholes, sections of the act address the possibility that some material may remain concealed.  

In that regard, paragraph (D)(i) of section 9005(c) is a critical provision. When deciding to disclose, the head of each government department shall determine whether the unidentified anomalous phenomenon records are covered by the standards for postponement of public disclosure. The act establishes a board to review such cases. Naturally, in these circumstances, you can easily imagine that the files would be carted off to the board and never actually see the light of day. 

Section 9006 basically says that disclosure can be postponed if thereā€™s clear and convincing evidence that the threat to military defense, intelligence operations or conduct of foreign relations posed by the public disclosure of anomalous phenomena record is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest of disclosure. 

This is the logical paradox we continue to find ourselves in when we talk about little green men and flying saucers. If itā€™s real, then itā€™s obviously a national security issue; and canā€™t be disclosed. If it canā€™t be disclosed, then by inference, it is real; and if it canā€™t be disclosed, then the very evidence that proves that they exist is withheld from public scrutiny.

The review board itself will make the contentious determination of whether disclosure needs to be postponed. Section 9007, which governs the process, is a very dense piece of drafting and requires multiple readings to see the wood and not the trees. Essentially, we can summarize it as follows: the boardā€™s nine members are appointed by none other than the President of the United States (with the advice and consent of the Senate) and shall be suitably qualified, security-cleared and without conflict of interest.

Whether the review board reaches decisions by majority or unanimity is not abundantly clear, but who those nine members may be is obviously going to be fundamental to the decision-making they might be capable (or incapable) of. Depending on the background of the appointees selected, their views may naturally align with, or potentially oppose, embedded positions within the Department of Defense or the Pentagon.

Irrespective of the decision of the review board, ultimately, under section 9009(C)(4)(B), the review board has to give the President contemporaneous notice of its determination; and the President has the sole ability to require the disclosure (or even the postponement of disclosure) of records. The buck stops with the President, it would appear. 

Alien technology and bodies?

Of course, we donā€™t know what kind of material the act, if passed, might uncover. But we can infer some quite extraordinary things from the actā€™s provisions and definitions.

To get all closet Roswell conspiracy theorists excited, the act refers to ā€œLegacy Programs,ā€ meaning all federal, state and local government, commercial industry and private sector endeavors to collect, exploit or reverse engineer ā€œtechnologies of unknown originā€ or examine biological evidence of living or deceased ā€œnon-human intelligenceā€ that predate the act. And, of course, the term ā€œUnidentified Anomalous Phenomenaā€ includes what we would historically call flying saucers or UFOs. 

If the earlier parts of the act arenā€™t jaw-dropping enough, then section 9010 will have your eyeballs on stalks. The provision begins with the statement that the Federal Government ā€œshall exercise eminent domain over any and all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities in the interests of the public good.ā€ All such material, presuming it exists, shall be made available to the review board for examination. Following such examination, the review board shall determine whether it constitutes technology of an unknown origin or biological evidence of non-human intelligence and whether it qualifies for postponement of disclosure. 

That the provision stops there begs further questions. Itā€™s not clear what ā€œeminent domainā€ means, and itā€™s not clear whether private persons or entities are to be construed to include legal persons like corporations. Itā€™s an extraordinary provision, potentially suggesting a nationalization or expropriation of such technologies and biological evidence by the Federal Government. If so, the obvious question is how a private company or entity came into possession of such material in the first place; and it is worth underlining that  ā€œcontrolling entitiesā€ in possession of technologies of unknown origin or biological evidence of non-human intelligence, as defined in the act, include the private sector. 

Is this tacit acknowledgment that the government has off-loaded crash retrieval material to the private sector for the purpose of reverse engineering? If so, then it begs the question as to who actually owns the material in question and any derivative products from it. Does documentation account for the transfer of ownership or conditions attached to it? What intellectual property rights have arisen from that material? Have they been registered? By whom? 

A further point for reflection. The act assumes that potential possession of biological evidence of non-human intelligence is in fact, dead. But what if it were alive? On what legal basis does the detention of non-human intelligence rest? And with what oversight conditions and by whom? What legal rights should it have? One could suggest that if contact was benign, then treatment parallel to diplomatic representatives would be intuitively appropriate. If the contact was malevolent, then treatment in accordance with applicable criminal law on detention would be the intuitive parallel. Essentially, the act does not contemplate a scenario (and the consequences) where non-human intelligence is found alive and the pandoraā€™s box that it opens.

A historic document?

ā€œWow!ā€ to astronomer Jerry Ehman, scrawling in red pen on the data printout recording the famous radio signal anomaly received by the Ohio State Universityā€™s radio telescope in 1977.

Is this another ā€œWow!ā€ moment? For the first time in history, we are seeing a piece of legislation that is likely going to become law (with no doubt, last-minute revisions to potentially water down the consequences of it) that tacitly assumes at its starting point that, far from us being alone in the universe, parts of that universe may already have been (and continue to be) here. 

By analogy to hobgoblins, dwarves, hobbits, dragons and orcs, itā€™s absolutely inconceivable that Congress would legislate about a subject in the absence of evidence to suggest that its subject matter requires regulation. To say that the act is ā€œout of this worldā€ is a metaphor that just also happens, for perhaps the first time ever, to relate to its subject matter. 

Though the congressional hearings of July 2023 have obviously catalyzed the timing of it, the act must have been in the drafting pipeline for some considerable time. You canā€™t just magically conjure up something of this detail and complexity without a substantial lead time, with review and commentary by relevant stakeholders. 

Even though the structured processes within the act will be fairly familiar for any constitutional lawyer, its subject matter is evidently not; perhaps the closest analogy for private law is that of how we deal with confidential information and to whom it can be disclosed. 

On that analogous note, the mechanics of any determination by the review board are going to be absolutely critical. If it discloses, then who knows what the consequences might be. If it fails to disclose, we implicitly infer that the only reason for blocking disclosure is the very fear of what those consequences will be. 

It is on that note ā€” what the consequences might be ā€” that we should further reflect. The purpose of the act might very well be to establish the truth about a subject that has long been ridiculed, but the reality of what we may discover will have its own ineluctable consequences. Who of us are ready for that? 

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post UFO Disclosure: The Most Significant Law in Human History? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The of Indiaā€™s economy has slowed and has risen along with poverty and . India faced an unprecedented public health setback during the Covid-19 pandemic, with up to 5 million , although the national government has only officially acknowledged a tenth of that figure. Meanwhile, two well known are said to be the principal beneficiaries of the post-2014 trajectory of economic growth, which, if true, would result in the majority of Indian businesses and millions of people effectively being left behind.

Indiaā€™s political landscape has been reshaped by the coalition government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Religious prejudice, casteism, patriarchy and other signs of social inequity have been unleashed to an unprecedented degree. It is scarcely deniable that these trends have taken hold of the public sphere in the country.

BJP takeover of Indian institutions and the opposition response

There has been a wide-ranging on the democratic rights of the people that has principally taken two forms. Firstly, the state has subjected dissenters to arbitrary arrest, employing extended pre-trial incarceration in (deliberately engineered) harsh conditions as a means of deterring public ā€œdisaffectionā€ towards the current order. Convictions in almost all such cases are never attained. Vigilante groups affiliated in varying extents with political leaders have used violence to silence opposition as well.

Secondly, the administration has employed political whereby other political parties are often either coerced into compliance or re-carved up as acolytes of the BJP.  The most recent episode of political re-engineering was the recent splitting of the Nationalist Congress Party into two segments headed respectively by the party president Sharad Pawar and the other headed by his nephew Ajit Pawar. Ajit Pawarā€™s segment of the Nationalist Congress Party has joined the BJP-dominated Ekanath Shinde government in Maharashtra state with ministerial portfolios.

However, unlike in the case of the political re-engineering of the Shiv Sena (another large party in Maharashtra) where there has been an acrimonious split, there have been some (seemingly inconclusive) between the leaders of both segments of the Nationalist Congress Party. The implications of these meetings between the two segments of the Nationalist Congress Party are possibly difficult to discern at present. We argue that these meetings are vitally connected to the functioning of the current political system in India.

As the Lok Sabha (parliament) elections loom in 2024, there has been a move towards a fledgling alliance of opposition parties. Many opposition parties in Indiaā€”including the Aam Aadmi Party, All India Trinamul Congress, Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist Liberation), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Janata Dal (United). Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, National Conference, Nationalist Congress Party, Peopleā€™s Democratic Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party and Shiv Sena (Uddhav Bal Thackeray)ā€”met in the city of Patna on June 23, 2023. This was followed by another of 26 opposition parties in Bengaluru on July 18, 2023 where they constituted themselves into the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance.

However, some other parties such as the Bahujan Samaj Party, Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party, Telugu Desam Party, Biju Janata Dal, Janata Dal (Secular) and Bharat Rashtra Samithi absent from both of these meetings. The non-attendance or non-invitation of these parties are at least partly the result of the political re-engineering process.

Those parties who did attend the meetings on June 23, 2023 and July 18, 2023 have decided to meet again to try and take this process of opposition unity forward. Seemingly in response to this process of consolidation of opposition unity, the BJP organized a of its acolyte parties, but this is unlikely to have the same political impact as the coming together of opposition parties.

Feasability of an opposition alliance

Lok Sabha elections in India are based on the first-past-the-post voting system, with 543 available seats. Since India is possibly the most diverse among the large countries of the world, the Lok Sabha elections tend to be influenced decisively (but not exclusively) by state-specific factors, especially outside the Hindi belt. 

In terms of electoral dynamics, the various states of India may be classified into these four types:

1. States involving, more or less, a straight contest between the BJP
and the Indian National Congress (Congress). These states
include: Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. The total number of Lok
Sabha seats involved in these states is 100.

2. States involving a contest between two coalitions involving,
namely the BJP and Congress. These states include: Assam,
Tripura, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Karnataka, Maharashtra,
Bihar and Jharkhand. The total number of Lok Sabha seats
involved in these states is 186.

3. States involving a contest between the BJP and a non-Congress
opposition party (or coalition). These states include Odisha,
Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. The total number of Lok
Sabha seats involved in these states is 143.

4. States where the BJP is not a significant contender (either by itself
or in a coalition) and therefore the principal contest is between
two (or more) other parties (or coalitions). These states
include Punjab, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The
total number of Lok Sabha seats involved in these states is 75.

Each of these four types of states require a different strategy if the objective of the opposition parties is to minimize the seat tally of the BJP.

In type 1 states, the BJP made a virtually clean sweep in both the 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The near total capitulation of Congress in these 100 seats is the foundation of the BJPā€™s recent electoral strength. In order to make a dent in the dominance of the BJP in these type 1 states, Congress would firstly need to mount a political challenge to the BJP. This has utterly failed to happen in these states, especially in Gujarat. Secondly, Congress would need to advance an alternative policy platform, but in most respects the economic policies of Congress and the BJP tend to converge; thirdly, it would need to achieve a working unity of the party organization on the basis of the first two points; fourthly, it would need to work towards an accommodation with other (usually electorally smaller) non-BJP parties in these states. 

Many type 2 states have seen political realignments since the last Lok Sabha election in 2019. The scope for a unity of opposition parties is possibly unmatched here compared to elsewhere. For instance, in both Bihar and Maharashtra parties that were previously aligned with the BJPā€”namely the Shiv Sena and Janata Dal (United)ā€”have gone on to join the ranks of the opposition, resulting in formidable alliances in both states. It may be noted here that the fraction of Shiv Sena that is allied with the BJP may currently have the majority of the legislators of the undivided Shiv Sena, but it may not have the support of the majority of the partyā€™s base. Opposition parties need to be alert regarding the political consequences of recent moves by the BJP to ā€œreconnectā€ with previously estranged acolyte parties in states such as . 

In Assam, Tripura, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Jharkhand, there are already alliances of opposition parties of varying degrees of cohesion and significance. In the state of Karnataka, Congress won the recent assembly elections in a triangular contest. However, the opposition should be alert to the possibility of a tie-up between the BJP and the Janata Dal (Secular) before the Lok Sabha elections in 2024. In fact, in Karnataka and all type 2 states, Congress would further opposition unity if it did not try to irrationally maximize the number of seats it could contest. Rather, adopting an accommodative stance towards other parties in these type 2 states could maximize the number of seats Congress could win. For instance, Congress would gain from adopting an accommodative stance towards actual allies, such as the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Bal Thackeray), and the Sharad Pawar segment of the Nationalist Congress Party in Maharashtra and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha in Jharkhand), or potential allies such as the Janata Dal (Secular) in Karnataka.

It is self-evident that no matter how rationally accommodating the posture of Congress is towards seat adjustments, no other opposition party is capable of singly exceeding the number of seats that Congress is likely to obtain in the next Lok Sabha elections. Unless the seat tally of Congress exceeds 100 (with possibly a third being from type 1 states), the BJP (alone or as part of a coalition) will end up forming government in 2024.  

Type 3 states are those where Congress has a limited role. In Uttar Pradesh, the principal rival of the BJP is the Samajwadi Party, while in Odisha, the Biju Janata Dal plays the same role. In West Bengal, the BJP is pitted against the All India Trinamool Congress and the Left Front. In these states, the principal task confronting the opposition is twofold: firstly, articulation of an alternative policy platform to the BJP; secondly, rationally broad-basing the opposition coalition to the BJP. The parties of the opposition need to be alert regarding efforts by the BJP to consolidate newer acolyte parties in states such as .

In type 4 states, there are other types of challenges to the opposition. In Andhra Pradesh, the possibility of the BJP entering into an electoral adjustment with the Telugu Desam Party cannot be ruled out. Likewise, in Kerala, sections of the state leadership of Congress are not above conniving with the BJP and the broader phalanx of related organizations in order to try and politically counter the Left Democratic Front. These moves may lay the foundations of future growth of the BJP in these states and are evidently detrimental to opposition unity.

Lessons from past experiences and the example of Tamil Nadu.

In its quest for unity, the opposition could draw some lessons from the experience of the opposition alliance in Tamil Nadu. Though the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is the leading component of this alliance, it has made an effort on its part to accommodate other parties in the coalition. This accommodation spans both political-organizational and electoral domains. It is noteworthy that the electoral domain spans elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly and local bodies. 

However, it remains undeniable that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam drives a ā€œhard bargainā€ in accommodation measures (possibly due to apprehensions about possible political re-engineering) and also at least partially reneges on its pre-election acquiescence in the concession of leadership positions in particular local bodies. The state government of Tamil Nadu that is led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam has not hesitated to institute policies adopted from the neoliberal playbook, but it is also known to have pulled back some of these measures when faced with from its own coalition partner parties. 

An important reason why the alliance has held together in Tamil Nadu until now is the convergence among all its constituents, by and large, in adopting a posture which puts their mutual opposition to the politics of the BJP at the forefront. This posture is both a cause and effect of their joint efforts to combat the BJP, both in terms of popular movements as well as the quotidian battle of ideas. 

Any unity among the opposition parties can turn out to be politically significant only if the parties act accommodatingly with respect to each other in terms of political-organizational and electoral considerations. Instead of trying to maximize the number of contested seats per party, it would be more rational to maximize the number of seats won by all of the parties through the widest possible span of the opposition alliance within each Indian state and therefore across the country.

The emphasis on state-focused electoral strategies does not imply that political policy issues are in any way less significant than political-organizational matters. The opposition parties in their meeting on July 18, 2023 have decided to set up a coordination committee of 11 members in their next meeting in Mumbai. Along with this, a central secretariat will also be set up for handling tasks such as campaign management, joint rallies et cetera.

The opposition parties have put out a that they will fight against attacks on ā€œfoundational pillars of the Indian Constitutionā€”secular democracy, economic sovereignty, social justice and federalism.ā€ But the crystallization of such principles in a common minimum program will be politically relevant only if there are participative mass movements presently instituted for their eventual political realization after the displacement of the BJP-led union government in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

[ and edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post How to Make an Alliance That Can Beat the BJP appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

TenochtitlƔn. Thursday, January 23, 1519.

Mayan fishermen have been reporting unidentified floating objects (UFOs) for quite some time now. These mysterious objects, often with pointed protrusions and white, flexible material have been spotted with increasing frequency by coastal dwellers on the eastern seaboard ever since the early part of 1493.

ā€œWe donā€™t know what they are, but they appear, often on the horizon for some time,ā€ Ixpiyacoc, a fisherman from a small coastal town on the YucatĆ”n peninsula told our reporter. ā€œThen they disappear, like magic.ā€

ā€œBut itā€™s the stories of white men coming ashore with metal hats that really strike fear of the unknown into our hearts,ā€ he continued, looking visibly shaken. 

Back in the empire, the Aztec government takes a very different view on the matter and denies the reports. ā€œUnidentified floating objects are just a figment of peopleā€™s imagination,ā€ said a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense in the capital, TenochtitlĆ”n.

ā€œThese UFOs are total nonsense,ā€ a leading scientist employed by the Ministry of Technology was quoted as saying. ā€œWe are alone on this planet, and itā€™s flat,ā€ he continued.

But others are more troubled by the possibility that there could be life elsewhere on the earth and that it may be hostile. They have cautioned about the possibility of contact with other forms of intelligent life.

ā€œTwenty years ago, we cast out a message in a clay pot from the shores of our land,ā€ said Camaxtli, head of the Aztec Search for Terrestrial Intelligence. ā€œWho knows whether it will ever be found by intelligent life? We just donā€™t know how vast the ocean is, and whatā€™s at the other end of it,ā€ he continued. ā€œWhether itā€™s endless and stretches to infinity, weā€™ll just never know.ā€ 

But just what did that pot contain? ā€œWe spent a lot of time thinking what to write on the parchment and whether other forms of intelligent life would understand our phonetic glyphs,ā€ Camxtli explained. ā€œSo we settled with pictograms of who we are and where we come from and the stars that we can see in the sky.ā€ 

However, there are those that are deeply concerned about the consequences of the pot-throwing act. 

ā€œImagine, if someone finds it: they come; they might want our gold, our women, our men, our natural resources, our livestock. We could be enslaved,ā€ said a wise old man who spoke to us anonymously. ā€œI think it was a pretty stupid thing to do, and who knows who might pick up the message?ā€ 

But the mystery doesnā€™t stop there. Mayan conspiracy theorists from the YucatĆ”n peninsula talk openly about a recent meeting between their leaders and ā€œthem.ā€ Some Aztecs have reported similar happenings.

ā€œThere are some who say that Aztec ruler, Moctezuma has already met with the strangers from elsewhere,ā€ said an official in the Aztec government on condition of anonymity, fueling rumors that the Aztec government met with life forms from elsewhere on the beaches near the town of Cempoala.

ā€œThere are eyewitness accounts that Moctezuma met with six tall white men with beards. They rowed ashore from this strange wooden contraption called a ship, the likes of which we had never seen before,ā€ the official continued. ā€œOur delegation was in a state of total confusion and awe as the leader of their delegation gave them gifts and then demonstrated the power of an object that spat fire and metal balls.ā€

ā€œIt was extraordinary,ā€ he continued, ā€œThe delegation took off their metal headpieces and spoke in a strange language that we could not understand and offered us a thing called ā€˜Christianityā€™ in return for our gold and silver.ā€

After the meeting, the Aztecs were promised one of these Unidentified Floating Objects (otherwise known as ā€˜shipsā€™) and Aztec scientists are trying to reverse engineer the technology.

ā€œThose whoā€™ve allegedly seen these ā€˜shipsā€™ just canā€™t believe the complexity of the engineering,ā€ said the official. ā€œHow they manage to cross the ocean is just unbelievable.ā€

Many others regard these claims as completely preposterous. ā€œIf these white people exist, then why donā€™t they come down in front of the great pyramid at TenochtitlĆ”n and show themselves to the world?ā€ a skeptical Aztec elder said.

Others have a more sophisticated argument.

ā€œTraveling beyond the speed of a paddle canoe is just not physically possible,ā€ a leading witch doctor at the Center for Human Sacrifice went on the record as stating. ā€œThese ships just donā€™t exist, they canā€™t exist and it would defy the laws of nature if they did,ā€ he dismissively asserted.

But some Aztec government insiders think otherwise. Internal documents seen by our reporters suggest that there could be up to 4 different species of ā€˜white manā€™ who organize themselves in what are known as ā€˜empires.ā€™ While they look similar to us, they are much taller, speak in strange tongues and are obsessed with the extraction of natural resources.

Those few who allege a first-hand encounter with them tell stories that they ride on animals with four legs, which are up to five feet high. 

ā€œIt was terrifying,ā€ said an Aztec woman from the town of Texcoco to our reporter in confidence. ā€œI was abducted by four of them who appeared from nowhere on these white four-legged beasts,ā€ she revealed under hypnosis.

While many dismiss the phenomenon, leaked reports suggest that the Aztec government is taking the sightings very, very seriously. 

ā€œThere are reports that have been leaked from the Ministry of Defense that a tall white man was found dead, washed up on the shores of the YucatĆ”n peninsula,ā€ village elder Quetzalxochitl told our reporters. ā€œNobody knows how he got there, but the rumor is that they found a strange wooden object with a metallic barrel and a trigger mechanism.ā€ 

ā€œThey also allegedly found parchment with interesting shapes inscribed across it that potentially relate to our phonetic glyphs,ā€ he continued ā€œbut nobody so far has been able to decipher what it means.ā€

Allegedly, the body of the man, the strange wooden object with the metal barrel and the parchment were rushed off to a secret Aztec research facility near TenochtitlƔn and examined by a high-level committee comprising, amongst others, the Minister of Defense and the Chief Priest.

ā€œWeā€™ve seen a leaked transcript of the record of that meeting,ā€ Tupac, an investigative reporter at the Tlacōpan Times, told our correspondents. ā€œApparently, opinion was divided. Some thought that the artifacts and the alien body were dangerous; others thought that they could be a source of great enlightenment and expressed amazement over the script on the parchment.ā€

ā€œWhatā€™s really interesting about the transcript though,ā€ Tupac continued, ā€œwas that the Minister of Defense thought that the wooden object with the metal barrel might somehow be useful against the Tlaxcaltecs.ā€ 

ā€œItā€™s also clear from the transcript that the High Priest expressed reservations about the findings,ā€ Tupac said. ā€œThe High Priest remarked, ā€˜What happens if this parchment leads to the erosion of our belief system and the structures that support it?ā€™ā€ 

Others that we spoke to, however, stress that the transcript is a fake and that the event never happened. They deny that the Aztec government is in possession of the body of a white man and there is any wooden artifact with a metal barrel or any parchment with strange writing on it.

ā€œItā€™s all nonsense,ā€ laughed General Tezcacoatl with a coy smile. ā€œThe leaked transcript is a clear forgery: you can tell by the error in the way that it is dated. Itā€™s the wrong format. We use day, month, year, and not month, day, year,ā€ he continued.

But notwithstanding the best efforts of the Aztec government to gloss over this strange phenomenon, the chattering classes seem to be hooked on the idea of these strange white men and how they might arrange themselves in society.

ā€œItā€™s a discussion we often see in the marketplace when they go and buy their corn and beans,ā€ local merchant Ichtaca told our reporter ā€œBut I think that these guys have just been drinking too much of that potent intoxicant, xocotātl,ā€ he suggested dismissively.

ā€œThe implications are potentially enormous,ā€ a professor at an independent educational institution said, on condition of anonymity. ā€œApart from the obvious stuff in relation to technology and security, we just donā€™t have a theory of knowledge that is flexible enough to explain change,ā€ he mused. ā€œFor that, my hunch is that we are going to have to wait another 200,000 daily cycles of the sun, if (and itā€™s a big if) the prophecy of Thomas Kuhn writing a script called ā€˜The Structure of Scientific Revolutionsā€™ is accurate,ā€ he added.

ā€œJust think what it would do to all our belief systems. It could turn people against the Aztec gods. If they started to think for themselves and question their own existence amongst other, more superior beings, it could be chaos,ā€ he pondered further.

Meanwhile, the Aztec government continues to refuse to disclose their records on the matter, saying that Unidentified Floating Objects donā€™t exist and are not a threat to Aztecs.

ā€œLook, if these so-called ā€˜shipsā€™ and ā€˜white menā€™ exist, and they can sail the vast oceans, they would have taken over us by now,ā€ a leading Aztec prophet said to our reporters.

ā€œTake a look around you, where are they?ā€ he said, with total confidence.

Reporting by Tochtli and Ixtl on the ground 

Edited by Icnoyotl in our TenochtitlƔn bureau.

Ā© Aztec Broadcasting Corporation (1519)

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post An Allegory About Unidentified Floating Objects appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

D. K. Shivakumar has begrudgingly taken the second post of the deputy chief minister. It remains to be seen if he will continue to stand on the sideline, as tells us that chief ministers usually have a hard time completing their terms in this state. In the 66 years of its modern political history, Karnataka has seen only four instances of chief ministers completing their terms. The last one, though, was Siddaramaiah himself.

A brief history

The roots of this anomaly lie in the 20th-century movement that led to the formation of the state. This movement aimed to bring together , uniting the territory of the former Mysore Kingdom with parts of Hyderabad and Bombay states, along with the districts of Ballari, Dakshina Kannada and Kodagu. These regions shared a common language, Kannada.Ģż

Despite the unification of the state into a single administrative entity, politics in Karnataka remained highly regionalized. This resulted in a system with a weak state capital. Regional strongmen held considerable sway over policy, often demanding plum posts for their supporters. Winning in Karnataka means effectively winning six different elections, each with its own unique characteristics. To have a chance at forming a government without a coalition, a political party must perform exceptionally well in at least three regions and achieve above-average results in at least two others.

In Karnatakaā€™s 66 years of existence, the INC has been the dominant political force, governing the state for approximately 50 years. As in any other Indian election, caste plays in determining electoral outcomes. Before the unification of Karnataka, the Vokkaligas, a landholding community, held considerable sway within the INC party of Mysore state. Concerned about potentially relinquishing power to the numerically superior Lingayats, a dominant Shaivite caste in the northern regions that were to be added to the state, several Vokkaliga leaders voiced their opposition to the unification of Kannada speakers. Vokkaliga fears were not unfounded. After unification, Lingayats swiftly captured power within the INC and also took the coveted post of the chief minister.Ģż They continued to dominate the INC until the late 1980s.

The turning point came when Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi unceremoniously Chief Minister Veerendra Patil in a press conference over his handling of a communal riot. This 1990 ā€œhumiliationā€ of a son of the soil by a national leader prompted the entire Lingayat community to align itself with the then-nascent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under B. S. Yediyurappa, a loyalty that has endured ever since.

Meanwhile, the capture of the INC by the Lingayat community had created the need for a strong Vokkaliga leader who could unite them into a formidable force. H. D. Devegowda and his party Janata Dal (JD), quickly filled this void. The JD rose rapidly thanks to the support of the Vokkaliga community. This resurgence led to the Vokkaligas reclaiming the post of chief minister after nearly four decades, and, to their delight, even the post of prime minister, albeit for only a year from 1996ā€“1997. In 1999, the party split and Devegowdaā€™s faction became the Janata Dal (Secular), or JD(S).

Twenty years ago, H. D. Kumaraswamy, the son of Devegowda, took over the reins from his father. Since entering politics in 2003, Kumaraswamy has served as chief minister twice.

With these two dominant castes fighting for power, a third alternative emerged in the form of ā€œAhindaā€ā€”an alliance between religious minorities, backward castes and Dalits. The alliance masterminded by former chief minister Devraj Urs has found its torchbearer in Siddaramaiah today. These are the three corners of the triangular fight that has dominated Karnataka politics for the past three decades.

The Lingayat blunder

The previous assembly elections in 2018 had returned a , with the BJP as the single largest party. However, the INC and JD(S) managed to an alliance with H. D. Kumaraswamy as chief minister.

A year into the government, discontent grew and 12 legislators belonging to both coalition partners defected to the BJP and with Yediyurappa at the helm. He was a leader of great stature, with a massive following in the state. Since 1990, this Lingayat leader had toiled to build up the BJP in Karnataka, the partyā€™s only home in the South. However, Yediyurappaā€™s independent style of working often clashed with the ever-centralizing impulse of BJP high command.

When the conflict between the state and national parties reached a deadlock, Yediyurappa after Home Minister Amit Shah and the central BJP leadership used a clause in the BJP charter that mandated compulsory retirement at 75 to force the senior statesman out of office. Cognizant that the sentiments of Yediyurappaā€™s community would be hurt, the BJP tried to placate it by appointing Basavraj Bommai, another Lingayat, as the chief minister for the remainder of the term. But the damage was done. Bommai was a political lightweight who could never fit into Yediyurappaā€™s shoes.

Adding insult to injury, the BJP also decided to endorse the former chief minister and Lingayat leader Jagadish Shettar, a six-time elected member of Karnatakaā€™s legislative assembly, and the former deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi a month before the elections. Unfortunately for the BJP, both leaders left the party and , claiming that the BJP was anti-Lingayat. Their supporters followed en masse, further adding credibility to their claims that ā€œBJP is anti-Lingayat.ā€ Even though Shettar lost in the polls, his joining the INC worked in the partyā€™s favor. It swept the Hyderabad and Mumbai Karnataka regions with a majority of Lingayat votes.

Hindutva vs. Kannada pride

After the leadership change, the BJP thought it could offset potential losses on Lingayat votes by building a pan-religious identity of Hindutva. The party focused on national Hindu identity to win support. While the ravaged the infrastructure of the state capital Bengaluru, the Karnataka government busied itself making a fuss about and the of halal products. This aggressive push was spearheaded by C. T. Ravi, a rising star in the state party. However, this imported northern version of Hindutva failed to resonate with the people of Karnataka. While Hindutva politics can be seen as an acceptable side dish, it cannot serve as the main course in Karnataka. Unsurprisingly, Ravi lost his seat, and the BJP drew a blank in his district, Chikmagalur.

Hindutva has a natural tendency to homogenize people under a broad blanket of Hinduism and Hindi. In South India, language forms a fundamental part of identity and Hindi is still resented as an imposition by North Indian leaders.  In Karnataka, the BJP was seen as neglecting the interests of the Kannada language and cozying up to New Delhiā€™s edicts, heightening concerns about the erosion of local autonomy. Moreover, the non-payment of goods and services taxes owed to the state and the promotion of Gujarat’s Amul dairy cooperative over the local Nandini brand contributed to this narrative of the neglect of Karnataka.

Administrative Failure

Furthermore, the BJP had many failures on the administrative front. The Karnataka State Contractors Association (KSCA) that ministers were demanding illegal cuts as high as 40% of the project budget, making it unfeasible for KSCA members to operate. The INC, under the guidance of their consultant , who worked formerly for McKinsey & Company, latched on to this and launched a campaign: ā€œā€ (40% Government). The campaign prominently featured posters with the phrase ā€œPay CM,ā€ cleverly playing a pun on Indiaā€™s popular payment network ā€œPaytm,ā€Ģż with an accompanying QR code to ā€œpay bribes.ā€ Kanugoluā€™s campaign was a hit on social media, tilting the narrative battle towards the INC.

The BJP faced the polls with a sinking ship and an unreliable captain. The best they were hoping for was a hung assembly. When the were out, they could only hold on to their bastions in the capital Bengaluru and in coastal Karnataka. As many as 11 ministers lost their seats and the party drew a blank in eight districts. Their only silver lining was the BJP vote share remained unchanged at ~36%.

Meanwhile, the INC increased its vote share by a decisive ~5%, going up from 38% to 43%. This came at the cost of Kumaraswamyā€™s JD(S) whose vote share fell from 18.3% to 13.3%. The INCā€™s remarkable victory in the Old Mysore region can be attributed to Vokkaligas uniting behind the state INC chief Shivakumar who is now the second-in-command. He missed out on the chief ministerial positions because Jawaharlal Nehruā€™s great-grandson Rahul Gandhi favored Siddaramaiah once again. This overlooking of Shivakumar might have consequences. It remains to be seen if Vokkaliga support for the INC will extend to the crucial upcoming national elections next year.

What Next?

The 2023 Karnataka election victory was a hard-fought one for the INC. They needed the organizational skills of Shivakumar as well as the personal charisma of Siddaramaiah to win. The two leaders realized that they depended on each other. Hence, they buried their differences and fought the elections unitedly. Now that victory is theirs, their rivalry is back and the gloves are off. Therefore, we have good reason to believe that the governmentā€™s reign might not be frictionless.

Gandhi is banking on the Shivakumar-Siddaramaiah duo to deliver a major chunk of seats in the all-important national elections next May. In the 2019 national elections, the Congress managed to win out of the 28 seats in Karnataka. However, 2024 might turn out differently. The BJP has been completely decimated in Karnataka and is in soul-searching mode. The state BJP lacks a strong leader who can deliver the only potential set of seats in South India to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Yet it is important to remember that the people of Karnataka possess a commendable level of political maturity. In the past, they have often made distinctions between state and national issues, voting for different parties in state and national elections. Time will tell if the Congress can successfully capitalize on its 2023 victory or whether the BJP will make a comeback.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Caste and Party: A Volatile Mix in Karnataka appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Even governors loyal to defeated ex-president Jair Bolsonaro either showed up or sent representatives. It was in Bolsonaroā€™s name that the protesters had stormed the presidential palace, the seat of the National Congress and the Supreme Court building, declaring that last yearā€™s election ā€“ the closest since the end of military rule in 1985 ā€“ was a sham.

But the united front against what Lula called a coup attempt hid a darker reality: Brazilā€™s democracy is being killed by the people who claim to be saving it.

What Lula intended as a show of unity could also have been seen as him, his government, and executives of every state bowing to the real power in Brazil right now: the unelected Supreme Court in general and a single judge in particular named Alexandre de Moraes.

Judge, Jury and Executioner

As Lula looks on, Moraes has become Brazilā€™s de facto dictator. After Sundayā€™s riots, Moraes threatened to arrest elected officials, police and military leaders for not acting quickly enough to restore order. He made good on his threats, suspending the elected governor of the Federal District, which includes Brasilia, for 90 days, and ordering the arrest of several other officials, including the local police chief.

This action has created misgivings. ā€œWe cannot disrespect democracy in order to protect it,ā€ IrapuĆ£ Santana, a lawyer and legal columnist for O Globo, The New York Times.

Lulaā€™s election to a third term as president was widely seen as a tectonic shift from right back to left in Brazilian politics. But in fact, Lula has no mandate other than as an executive in the countryā€™s federal system of government with its three co-equal branches. No party has a majority in the Congress, though Bolsonaroā€™s right-wing allies gained enough seats to be the largest faction.

Moraes, backed by the courtā€™s other judges, has interpreted his role as head of the Supreme Electoral Court and guardian of the integrity of democratic elections as a mandate to assume dramatic powers. He is decisively acting on key national issues while the other two branches are still getting organized. Moraes has become the sole judge of truth and falsehood in Brazilian political discourse.

Itā€™s unclear whether Lula supports Moraesā€™ powergrab, but this veteran politician has done nothing to stop it.

Brazilā€™s New President and Hope for a Democratic Revival

A Rather Sweeping Judicial Order

On January 13, as Lula workers helping repair the damage to the presidential palace, Moraes issued a sweeping order demanding six international social media companies ā€“ Facebook, Rumble, Telegram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube ā€“ remove accounts of several individuals, including journalists and elected members of the national Congress, within two hours or face fines. This all-powerful judge then went on to demand these companies keep his order secret.

One of those banished from social media was Deputy Nikolas Ferreira ā€” Brazilā€™s lower house of the National Congress is called the Chamber of Deputies. This incoming deputy is a 26-year-old Bolsonaro ally who received the most votes of anyone in Octoberā€™s congressional elections. Ferreira slammed the order on his Twitter feed, which was still up a day later.  ā€œThey took down all my accounts for no reason,ā€ he . ā€œIn the name of ā€˜democracy,ā€™ they are silencing all opposition. It is forbidden to disagree in Brazil.ā€

This is not the first time Moraes has acted to remove elected officials from social media or banned journalists from reporting what he considers ā€œfake news.ā€ But for the most part, reaction to those moves has split along ideological lines. To the left and the national media, heā€™s a hero. To Bolsonaroā€™s allies, heā€™s Public Enemy No. 1.

Will Bolsonaro Leave Trumpism Behind to Embrace a Biden-led US?

The argument is that Moraes is acting to protect democracy in the face of threats of a military coup, which many of Bolsonaroā€™s supporters have sought. But the military, which ruled from 1964 to 1985, wants nothing to do with government after having left the nationā€™s economy and its own reputation in a shambles. Remember that the military voluntarily gave up power and slunk back to the barracks after disgracing itself.

Lula initially treaded carefully with the military when he came back into office. He has since changed course. On January 21, Lula his own choice for army commander: General Julio Cesar de Arruda. Apparently, the general allegedly shielded the rioters in Brasilia from prosecution, and said Bolsonaro had ā€œpollutedā€ the armed forces. The new commander ā€” General TomĆ”s Miguel Ribeiro Paiva  ā€” is seen in some circles as the preferred choice of Moraes.

The influential newsmagazine Veja that some in Lulaā€™s Workersā€™ Party see Moraes as a potential problem for the government.  Many current and former military leaders see the judgeā€™s actions as a ā€œsignal of indignationā€ with the state of affairs and a clear desire to assert control over the country. Meanwhile, Moraesā€™ reach has become so broad that many independent observers are becoming worried. ā€œTo Defend Democracy, Is Brazilā€™s Top Court Going Too Far?ā€ The New York Times in a September 26 article.

ā€œIs there now, or has there ever been, a modern democracy where a single judge exercises the power that Alexandre de Moraes possesses in Brazil?ā€ journalist Glenn Greenwald on Twitter. Greenwald, whose husband, David Miranda, is also a deputy in the National Congress from a left-wing party, exposed the judgeā€™s order on his podcast.

How Did Brazil Get Here?

Moraes was to the Supreme Court in February 2017, a month after his predecessor, Teori Zavascki, was killed in a plane crash. Zavascki had been the courtā€™s liaison in the massive Lava Jato (Car Wash) scandal that had ensnared hundreds of Brazilian politicians, including Lula and his political protĆ©gĆ©e and successor, Dilma Rousseff. Corruption, including vote-buying, had been the engine that kept Brazilā€™s democracy from gridlocking in a system where dozens of political parties of all sorts of ideological orientations were represented in the National Congress but none of them had a majority.

Rousseff was impeached and removed from office in 2016 for reasons unrelated to the scandal. This move was widely seen as engineered by Michel Temer, who was her vice president and also under investigation but went on to replace Rousseff as president. Moraes became Temerā€™s justice minister after having been defense lawyer for Eduardo Cunha, the former president of the lower house of Congress who was convicted of corruption in 2017. Cunha and Temer were both from the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party.

The impeachment of Rousseff was condemned by many on the left as a ā€œcoup,ā€ and the anger only grew when Lula was to nine years and six months in prison for corruption and money-laundering. Sergio Moro, the federal judge who had launched the Lava Jato investigation and supervised the prosecution, passed the sentence. This left many on the left feeling that Moro had exceeded his authority as an unelected judge by his excessively aggressive prosecution of popular politicians.

The World This Week: Dilma Ousted as Bleak Future Bedevils Brazil

Lulaā€™s conviction left him unable to run in the 2018 election, which he had been widely expected to win. Instead, Bolsonaro, up until then the leader of a fringe right-wing party based in Rio de Janeiro, came to office on a wave of public outrage over the scandal. Moro became Bolsonaroā€™s justice minister.

After leaked messages emerged that Moro had colluded with prosecutors in Lulaā€™s case, the Supreme Court overturned Lulaā€™s conviction and restored his political rights. This March 2021 decision cleared the way for Lula to challenge Bolsonaro, who had been weakened by his inability to tackle corruption as promised. Bolsonaro also was dogged by accusations that he and his family were just as corrupt as the other politicians he criticized. He was also widely seen as having badly bungled Brazilā€™s response to COVID-19 as thousands died while he underplayed the risks from the virus.

After his loss, Bolsonaro was unable to gain support among the political class for his claims the election was rigged. After all, many of his allies had won in the same elections and his party had become the largest faction in the National Congress since the 1990s. Cannily, Bolsonaro flew to Florida on the day before the handover of power on January 1 to avoid demands from within the Workersā€™ Party that he be arrested and investigated for corruption, and for claiming the election was a fraud. 

Though Bolsonaro has been silent about the events of January 8, Moraes has opened a criminal probe into whether the former president was responsible. Officials have even held out the possibility that Brazil may ask the United States to extradite him. At the same time, the Supreme Court ordered the arrest of Anderson Torres, who had replaced Moro, now a senator, as justice minister. Torres became head of public security in Brasilia after Bolsonaro left office and was accused of allowing the protests to happen.

Itā€™s unclear how this will end. When Telegram refused the judgeā€™s order to block Ferreiraā€™s account, Moraes fined the social media outlet (about $237,000). Meanwhile, in the National Congress, Moraes is facing at least for his impeachment, largely from Bolsonaroā€™s allies. However, Brazilians are now so deeply divided that the country is almost ungovernable. Alarmingly, there is no significant support for standing up against an action that might be breaking the democratic order. This gives Moraes a free hand and he continues to feel justified in his actions.Given the zeitgeist, Moraes is not just issuing edicts and passing sentences. In a recent speech, Moraes the January 8 rioters: ā€œThese people are not civilized. Just look what they did.ā€ This crusading judge went on to say, ā€œThe Supreme Court, I am absolutely sure, with legal support, with our constitution, and the Federal Police, will punish everyone responsible.ā€ It seems disinformation and political violence are not the only two threats facing Brazilian democracy, judicial authoritarianism might be the new cat on the prowl.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Destroying Democracy in Order to Save It appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Compared to a range of other industrial countries, the SGI 2022 shows that the US remains a weak in terms of sustainable policies in general (rank 33 out of 41 nations) and it receives middling scores overall (rank 22) with regard to economic policies ā€“ a topic which looms large for almost every US voter. 

Will American Democracy Perish Like Romeā€™s?

READ MORE

The SGI 2022 US Report explains that ā€œGDP growth bounced rapidly back, returning to robust levels in 2021,ā€ which coincides with the first year of the Biden administration. Massive emergency spending, which had already started under former president Trump, ā€œincluded payments to individuals and firms, as well as expanded tax credits and unemployment benefitsā€. Based on the findings on economic performance, while the incumbent presidentā€™s party could be vulnerable, slight increases in some policy indicators since the Trump years, especially economic measures, also suggest that the incumbent majority party is unlikely to face a thumping defeat.  

The party polarization indicator of SGI ā€“ where the US is ranked as the most country ā€“ makes it plausible that both sides of a politically divided voting public feel energized in this election year, albeit for different reasons. Democrat optimism regarding their partyā€™s chances to contain losses is driven by the recent Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Womenā€™s Health Organization that ended the nationwide constitutional right to abortion that had existed since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. At least initially, the Dobbs decision had a significant energizing effect, especially on women, steering them towards Democratic candidates. In contrast, polls taken until the early fall of 2022 seemed to indicate that Republican-leaning conservative voters in small-town America may have felt complacent after the success of the conservative movementā€™s decades-long effort to strike down Roe v. Wade. 

The Trump effect

Former president Trump remains a central, and polarizing figure. Trump continues to claim falsely that the 2020 election was stolen and he has remained in the public gaze amid Congressional investigations into the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and his handling of classified documents. As a consequence, Democratsā€™ campaigns focus on perceived threats to US democracy by Trump and his followers. From the perspective of SGI 2022, this strategy is obvious, but not risk-free. While the report states that there is ā€œincreasing tension over the conduct of electionsā€, and ā€œvoting rights have become a contested issue, with the Republican party seeking to suppress low-income and minority votesā€, it is also true that Democrats have failed to pass a major voting-rights act through Congress despite their majority. The United States falls into the upper-middle ranks (rank 15) in terms of quality.

The Next Surge of Trumpism

READ MORE

Meanwhile, the Republican electorate is reveling in President Bidenā€™s approval ratings of well below 50 percent, though ratings are not as low as it was a few months ago. In the polls, it is inflation, not abortion or democracy, that tops potential votersā€™ concerns. Recent economic dataā€”which showed ongoing inflationā€”will keep it there. Nearly every US household is grappling with higher costs, energy and gasoline prices. But only Republican-leaning voters see inflation as the number one issue, blaming it squarely on Joe Biden and the Democrats. For Democrat-leaning voters, however, inflation is important but does not top the agenda, seen instead in the context of global economic disruptions following the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. For these voters, abortion rights for women after the Dobbs decision is the top issue. The number two and three issues for Republican-leaners are immigration/border control and rising crime. For the Democrat-leaning constituencies these topics matter less. For them, a close second after abortion rights is saving US democracy from the perceived attack by MAGA-Republicans, followed by health care.  

It’s the economy, stupid

But the mobilization of white suburban Republican and independent women who may be worried about the cost of living, school decisions or rising crime could neutralize or offset the impact of those who are mobilized by abortion and the threat to US democracy. As a consequence, Republicans aim to focus votersā€™ attention on crime and immigration and away from abortion. Meanwhile, rising prices and inflation remain a factor everywhere and will ultimately decide at least the House elections. 

In sum, the midterms are more than just a referendum on President Biden. A few weeks before election day, predictions of sweeping Republican gains have been tempered by the changing political climate, thanks in large part to the Dobbs decision, although the Republicans remain favored to take control of the House. In the final weeks, amid economic jitters, elections could turn on how much sustaining energy the Dobbs decision provides for Democrats or whether it fades in the face of so-called ā€œkitchen tableā€ concerns. 

What happens now in 2022 will also lay foundations for the presidential elections of 2024. If Trump-backed Republican Senate candidates like Herschel Walker in Georgia or J.D. Vance in Ohio do badly on November 8, 2022, Trump is less likely to be nominated as their 2024 presidential candidate. If Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida is re-elected as governor of the sunshine state for a second term, this will give him momentum for a likely bid for the White House. Conversely, if the Democrats manage to keep their Senate majority and win statewide races for governor and/or the Senate in crucial presidential battlegrounds like Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, it would likely fuel confidence for a President Biden re-election campaign for 2024. On the other hand, if the Democrats fare badly in the midterms and other state elections on November 8, 2022, the current president faces rising pressure not to seek a second term. 

[We thank the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) project of the German Bertelsmann Foundation for this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Much More than Congress is at Stake this Midterm appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The militaryā€™s incredible record of systematic failure ā€” most recently its final trouncing by the Taliban after 20 years of death, destruction and in Afghanistan ā€” cries out for a top-to-bottom review of its dominant role in US foreign policy and a radical reassessment of its proper place in Congressā€™ budget priorities.

Will the US Maintain Its Strategic Ambiguity Toward Taiwan?

READ MORE

Instead, year after year, members of Congress hand over the largest share of our nationā€™s resources to this corrupt institution, with minimal scrutiny and no apparent fear of accountability when it comes to their own reelection. Members of Congress still see it as a ā€œsafeā€ political call to carelessly whip out their rubber-stamps and vote for however many hundreds of billions in funding that lobbyists have persuaded the Armed Services Committee to cough up. 

National Security

Letā€™s make no mistake about this: Congressā€™ choice to keep investing in a massive, ineffective and absurdly expensive war machine has nothing to do with ā€œnational securityā€ as most people understand it or ā€œdefenseā€ as the dictionary defines it. US society does face critical threats to our security, including the climate crisis, systemic racism, erosion of voting rights, gun violence, grave inequalities and the corporate hijacking of political power. But one problem we fortunately do not have is the threat of attack or invasion by a rampant global aggressor or, in fact, by any other country at all. 

Maintaining a war machine that outspends the next 12 or 13 largest militaries in the world combined actually makes us less safe. This is because each new administration inherits the delusion that the United Statesā€™ overwhelmingly destructive military power can, and therefore should, be used to confront any perceived challenge to US interests anywhere in the world ā€” even when there is no military solution and when many of the underlying problems were caused by past misapplications of US military power.

While the challenges we face in this century require a genuine commitment to international cooperation and diplomacy, Congress allocates only around , less than 10% of the Pentagon budget, to the diplomatic corps of our government: the State Department. Even worse, both Democratic and Republican administrations keep filling top diplomatic posts with officials indoctrinated and steeped in policies of war and coercion, with scant experience and meager skills in the peaceful diplomacy we so desperately need. 

This only perpetuates a failed foreign policy based on false choices between economic sanctions that UN officials have to ā€œmedieval sieges,ā€ coups that destabilize countries and regions for decades, and wars and bombing campaigns that kill millions of people and leave cities in rubble, like Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.

ā€œPeace Dividendā€

The end of the Cold War was a golden opportunity for the United States to reduce its forces and military budget to match its legitimate defense needs. The American public naturally expected and hoped for a ā€œ.ā€ Even veteran Pentagon officials told the Senate Budget Committee in 1991 that military spending could be cut by 50% over the next ten years.    

But no such cut happened. US officials instead set out to exploit the post-Cold War ā€œ,ā€ a huge military imbalance in favor of the United States, by developing rationales for using military force more freely and widely around the world. During the transition to the new Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright famously Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell, ā€œWhatā€™s the point of having this superb military youā€™re always talking about if we canā€™t use it?ā€

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51³Ō¹Ļ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

In 1999, as secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, Albright got her wish, running roughshod over the UN Charter with an illegal war to carve out an independent Kosovo from the ruins of Yugoslavia. The UN Charter clearly prohibits the of military force except in cases of or when the UN Security Council military action ā€œto maintain or restore international peace and security.ā€ This was neither. When UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Albright his government was ā€œhaving problems with our lawyersā€ over NATOā€™s illegal war plan, Albright crassly to ā€œget new lawyers.ā€ 

Twenty-two years later, Kosovo is one of the poorest places in Europe and its independence is still not recognized by many . Hashim Thaci, Albrightā€™s hand-picked main ally in Kosovo and later its president, is awaiting trial in an international court at The Hague, with war crimes, murder, torture and enforced disappearances under cover of NATO bombing in 1999.

Clinton and Albrightā€™s gruesome war set the precedent for more illegal US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, with equally devastating and horrific results. But Americaā€™s failed wars have not led Congress or successive administrations to seriously rethink the USdecision to rely on illegal threats and uses of military force to project American power all over the world, nor have they reined in the trillions of dollars invested in these imperial ambitions. 

Instead, in the upside-down world of US politics, a generation of failed and pointlessly destructive wars have had the perverse effect of normalizing even military budgets than during the Cold War. They have also reduced congressional debate to questions of how many more of each useless they should force US taxpayers to foot the bill for.

The Military-Industrial Congressional Complex

It seems that no amount of killing, torture, mass destruction or lives ruined in the real world can shake the militaristic delusions of Americaā€™s political class, as long as the ā€œmilitary-industrial-congressional complexā€ ā€” the original wording of Dwight Eisenhowerā€™s speech ā€” is reaping the benefits. 

Today, most political and media references to the military-industrial complex refer only to the arms industry as a self-serving corporate interest group on a par with Wall Street, Big Pharma or the fossil fuel industry. But in his farewell in 1961, Eisenhower explicitly pointed to, not just the arms industry, but the ā€œconjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.ā€ Eisenhower was just as worried about the anti-democratic impact of the military as the arms industry. Weeks before his speech, Melvin A. Goodman , Eisenhower told his senior advisers, ā€œGod help this country when somebody sits in this chair who doesnā€™t know the military as well as I do.ā€ His fears have been realized in every subsequent presidency.

According to Milton Eisenhower, the presidentā€™s brother, who helped him draft his farewell address, Ike also wanted to talk about the ā€œ.ā€ Early drafts of his speech, Goodman writes, referred to ā€œa permanent, war-based industry,ā€ with ā€œflag and general officers retiring at an early age to take positions in the war-based industrial complex, shaping its decisions and guiding the direction of its tremendous thrust.ā€ He wanted to warn that steps must be taken to ensure ā€œthat the ā€˜merchants of deathā€™ do not come to dictate national policy.ā€ 

As Eisenhower feared, the careers of figures like Generals Lloyd Austin and Jim Mattis now span all branches of the corrupt military-industrial complex conglomerate: commanding invasion and occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq; then donning suits and ties to sell weapons to new generals who served under them as majors and colonels; and finally reemerging from the same revolving door as cabinet members at the apex of American politics and government.

The Complicity of Congress

So, why does the Pentagon brass get a free pass, even as Americans feel increasingly conflicted about the arms industry? After all, it is the military that actually uses all these weapons to kill people and wreak havoc in other countries. Even as it loses war after war overseas, the US military has waged a far more successful one to burnish its image in the hearts and minds of Americans and win every budget battle in Washington. 

The complicity of Congress, the third leg of the stool in Eisenhowerā€™s original formulation, turns the annual battle of the budget into the ā€œā€ that the war in Iraq was supposed to be, with no accountability for lost wars, war crimes, civilian massacres, cost overruns or the dysfunctional military leadership that presides over it all. There is no congressional debate over the economic impact on America or the geopolitical consequences for the world of uncritically rubber-stamping huge investments in powerful weapons that will sooner or later be used to kill our neighbors and smash their countries, as they have for the past 22 years and far too often throughout our history.

If the public is ever to have any impact on this dysfunctional and deadly money-go-round, we must learn to see through the fog of propaganda that masks self-serving corruption behind red, white and blue bunting, and allows the military brass to cynically exploit the publicā€™s natural respect for brave young men and women who are ready to risk their lives to defend our country. In the Crimean War of 1853-56, the Russians called British troops ā€œlions led by donkeys.ā€ That is an accurate description of todayā€™s US military.  

Sixty years after the farewell address, exactly as Ike predicted, the ā€œweight of this combinationā€ of corrupt generals and admirals, the profitable ā€œmerchants of deathā€ whose goods they peddle, and the senators and representatives who blindly entrust them with trillions of dollars of the publicā€™s money, constitute the full flowering of Eisenhowerā€™s greatest fears for our country.

Eisenhower concluded that ā€œonly an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals.ā€ That clarion call echoes through the decades and should unite Americans in every form of democratic organizing and movement building, from elections to education and advocacy to mass protests, to finally reject and dispel the ā€œunwarranted influenceā€ of the military-industrial-congressional complex.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Congress Gives the Nod to the Military-Industrial Complex appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Will Joe Manchin Remain a Democrat?

READ MORE

On the other hand, there are lots of places that claim to have a fealty to democratic institutions dedicated to ensuring free societies governed by some form of majority rule. The United States of America is in the latter group and sees itself as the leader of the pack.

The Senate

Now for some reality. Americans are quick to point to their beloved framework as a model for the institutional design that can best ensure that the will of the people, majority rule, is enshrined in their political life. I know this may surprise some, but the Founding Fathers didn’t really trust the majority they claimed they were championing, so they created the US Senate.

The least populous state in the nation, Wyoming (with just over , 0.17% of the US population), gets two US senators in the 100-member legislative body. The most populous state, California (with 39.5 million, 11.8% of the population), gets the same two US senators. How is that for majority rule?

When there is some measure of political and social consensus in the nation, America can seem to overcome the senatorial mockery of representational government. Maybe back when there were 13 colonies forming a nation, each of which had a whole lot of land and not many people, the idea of a patrician legislative body with effective veto power over legislation generated by the more representative legislative body could be shoehorned into a viable democratic framework. Well, not anymore.

As the nation seeks to address long-term social, economic, and racial inequities, one senator from West Virginia (population 1.79 million, 0.54% of population) can stand in the way of Senate action on significant legislation meant to benefit the 330 million or so Americans across the entire land. This senator from West Virginia, armed with his vision of the US Constitution, that outsiders will not tell West Virginians what to think, while completely missing the irony of an outsider from West Virginia having the singular political and institutional power to tell the citizens of the remaining 49 states what they should think.

Filibuster

On its own, this type of minority gridlock makes it almost impossible for the Senate to function, whether the gridlock is within a single political party or between the political parties. But wait, thereā€™s more. As if it isnā€™t bad enough that a single US senator representing about half a percent of the US population can bring the legislative process to a halt, the Senate has procedural rules that essentially square the impact of individual senators, often from very small states. Enter the ā€œ.ā€

While the constitutional framework establishes the Senate and its membership component, there is absolutely nothing in that same Constitution that says anything about the Senate requiring 60 votes to pass legislation. Rather, that notion seems so contrary to Americaā€™s constitutional narrative that it should be seen as unconstitutional. A legislative body, already moored in a mockery of representational governance, has established rules to ensure that majority rule is impossible to achieve without a super-majority of adherents. This is fatal for any controversial piece of legislation in a politically divided nation.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51³Ō¹Ļ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

While the full history of the filibuster is in some dispute, its ā€œmodernā€ application is not. It was a rule born in defense of racism and nurtured to this day by racists. So, it is no accident that this anti-democratic procedural contrivance is almost always raised when simple majority rule threatens to provide some measure of the social, economic and political building blocks required to confront the nation’s racial injustice and economic and social inequities.

Voting in 50 States

Nowhere is this more evident than in the discussion of legislation aimed at creating national standards to ensure voting rights. At its core, the nationā€™s struggle to enhance and encourage access to the polls has been a national flashpoint since Americaā€™s inception.

From the outset, women and enslaved people (mostly black people and other people of color) had no right to vote. Women gained the right to vote in 1920 with the passage of the 19^th Amendment to the US Constitution. Black men and men of ā€œcolorā€ were essentially granted the right to vote in 1870 with the passage of the 15^th Amendment to the Constitution. Yet ever since then, black people and increasingly others of color have been engaged in an unending struggle to actually gain the right to vote and the unfettered capacity to exercise that right.

Today, once again, a universal suffrage that has never been realized in America is under further attack from a dwindling white majority that simply cannot accept a fully-engaged diverse electorate. As hard as it may be to imagine, the actual eligibility to vote in any election, including national elections, registering to vote and the requirements to cast a ballot are not presently controlled by meaningful federal legislation. Rather each state and many localities in each state set their own voting rules and regulations.

The tortured history of the consequences of this 50-state solution to guaranteeing the most fundamental of democratic rights is probably the subject of more books and studies than any other of the ā€œguaranteedā€ rights that dot the pages of the US Constitution. But no matter how much is written or how many marches and protests there have been, the Senate is now poised to filibuster to death a modest legislative effort to finally provide a measure of enforceable national voting standards.

Freedom to Vote Act

Just a few days ago, not a single Republican senator voted in favor of the Freedom to Vote Act, this most recent federal voting rights legislative effort. In the evenly-divided US Senate, this is the filibuster death knell for any meaningful federal voting standards. And just for emphasis, this Republican procedural move was on a vote to bar any Senate debate of the legislation in question. So, senators who havenā€™t yet even heard the debate in this great deliberative body overwhelmingly to prevent that debate from happening in the first place.

The institutional failures and the underlying foundational framework that exacerbate those failures are monumentally frustrating to those of us who believe in good governance and government as the principal constructive avenue to meet a nationā€™s collective challenges. Today, it is impossible to emphasize enough how Americaā€™s anti-democratic forces emanate from its deeply-flawed senatorial cesspool.

With regard to voting rights, there is the small ray of hope that the bare majority Democratic Party in the Senate, which controls the procedural rules, will eliminate the filibuster to allow simple majority rule to confront racial injustice. It would be a fitting condemnation of a rule designed to ensure racial injustice.

*[This article was co-published on the authorā€™s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The US Senate, the Filibuster and the 50-State Solution appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

On the Senate side of the Capitol, both Democrats and Republicans are leaving town with their party balloons still in the air in celebration of a bill to fund repair and replacement of a portion of the nationā€™s hard infrastructure that has crumbled before their very eyes for decades. It has become so rare that both parties can agree on anything that the celebration far outweighs the accomplishment. After all that hard work, it seems that it is time for a ā€œwell-deservedā€ weeks-long vacation, the other topic that receives regular bipartisan support.

Is America Ready to Raise the Minimum Wage?

READ MORE

On the House of Representatives side, things are a little more complicated. That group of dedicated public servants adjourned on July 30 for seven weeks, although a short recall is possible for a symbolic vote or two along the way. To be fair, they did pass some meaningful legislation in the last few months. However, only one such piece of legislation has passed the Senate as well and been signed into law ā€” Joe Bidenā€™s initial COVID-19 (American Rescue Plan). But at least they tried to find legislative solutions on some significant issues, the most important of which are voting rights and police .

With all those senators and representatives now vacationing, it would be easy to conclude from this casual approach to governance that the nation is smoothly sailing to its appointed destiny of renewed greatness. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is so much that is so obviously wrong at the moment in todayā€™s America that even the appearance of a weeks-long hiatus should ethically disqualify those vacationing legislators from further service. A ā€œgratefulā€ nation should retire all of them. But that wonā€™t happen, in part because each of them will have a spin machine at work full-time rolling out the tale of just how hard they are working on the issues of the day back in their districts.

While You Were Vacationing

Lest you think that I am being a little hard on these self-congratulatory public servants, letā€™s take a look at what is going on around the nation and around the world while the US Congress has freed itself of its legislative responsibilities.

First, and most obvious, COVID-19 is again ravaging the nation. So, instead of collectively working on urgent public health initiatives, like vaccination mandates, the vacationing legislators are individually on the stump creating more public health confusion. Much of the idiocy makes enough local news that it fortifies those in the caves, covens and churches in Republican districts and states as they go about their communities spreading the disease. The only upside is that many of the vacationing Republican congresspersons are spending their time hanging out with their unmasked and unvaccinated constituents.

Meanwhile, a country that clings to the notion that the current version of universal suffrage has become a critical component of its ā€œdemocraticā€ foundation is in the throes of an unrelenting Republican-led effort to do everything possible to make voting more difficult and less universal. The reasons for this are simple: racism and privilege. Universal suffrage to white conservatives is only a good thing if the ā€œuniverseā€ is overwhelmingly composed of right-wing white people. Unfortunately for that dwindling crowd, the universe includes a lot of black and brown people, and a whole bunch of young people who see ā€œuniversalā€ as a plus.

There is an easy way to stop the reversal of the democratic process in America. It is to pass legislation at the national level that sets clear voting rights standards, that increases access to the ballot for all eligible voters and that provides fierce enforcement measures to ensure legal compliance. But you canā€™t do any of this on vacation.

While many of those vacationing legislators may come face-to-face with constituents in places where everything is burning, and heatwaves, drought and smoke spread daily devastation, nothing can be done about this either while on vacation. Therefore, environmental laws, climate change legislation, and economic incentives and regulatory mandates remain on hold. The legal framework for cleaner energy production, research and use remains unchanged and woefully inadequate to meet todayā€™s planetary challenges.

While climate change is taking its deadly toll during the congressional vacation season, we should not forget about gun violence and police violence. Hardly a day goes by in America without multiple firearm deaths and some measure of police overreaction or undertraining resulting in the death or serious injury of someone in some community that the cops are supposed to be protecting. It will be hard to get a full tally from these events over the coming vacation weeks, but every congressperson knows that critically-needed federal legislation to address rampant gun violence and police reform will be on hold, as well.

No matter how completely oblivious most Americans have become to gun violence (until it hits very close to home), America remains the most likely developed country in which at any moment someone is being killed or killing themselves with a firearm. Since it has been a few weeks now since the nationā€™s high-profile mass killing, it will be hard to make it to the end of this congressional vacation without another one. Thoughts and prayers are all we get when Congress is in session, so their absence shouldnā€™t change the landscape much on this one. But we should all be disgusted that these public servants can go on vacation while the gun carnage continues unabated and has remained unaddressed in meaningful federal legislation for decades.

The List Goes On

I could go on. The list is long. But so is the vacation. Think about how a functioning legislature might be able to make some legislative progress in the coming weeks on universal access to meaningful health care, child care and family leave, a living minimum wage, tax reform and access to quality education.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51³Ō¹Ļ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

There might even be the opportunity to debate the crippling and continuing impact of Americaā€™s systemic racism and how to do something about it. And maybe if they werenā€™t all on vacation, they could do something constructive, instead of sound bites, about the implementation of Americaā€™s long-overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan and its human rights implications, about immigrants and refugees, and about ensuring that the vaccines that Americans are throwing away get into the arms of those begging for them elsewhere.

They could be doing some of this, but they are doing none of it. They are on vacation.

*[This article was co-published on the authorā€™s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Congress Adjourns While the Nation Burns appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Trumpā€™s polling is not good, ā€œfake newsā€ is everywhere, the word ā€œimpeachmentā€ drifts from unfriendly lips more often than the word ā€œmoronā€ ever did, and there is open talk of recession abroad in the land. Even soybean farmers are having second thoughts after China decided that Brazilian soybeans make just fine soya sauce. And the news only gets worse, as it turns out that unemployed coal miners may actually have the skill set necessary to understand the false promises and turn on the false prophet. 

Then, just when it seemed that Trumpā€™s daily political triage was at least slowing the bleeding, up pops a real whistleblower blowing a mighty powerful whistle in Trumpā€™s face. The weary enablers got quickly to work again, propping up the ā€œbossā€ by telling him how great he is while suggesting that he keep his mouth shut, watching him open his mouth anyway, blaming Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (throwing in Joe Biden and his son) and all Democrats for Trumpā€™s troubles, and just plain lying about connected events to obfuscate the truth. Socialists and communists canā€™t be ruled out either.

Next, a most extraordinarily unexpected event occurred. The enablers let down their guard at a critical moment and permitted the of truly incriminating documentary evidence Trump. Maybe they were just run ragged by all the ongoing efforts to keep Congress from getting at the documents and the witnesses who would incriminate Trump in any of the vast array of allegations of official misconduct and personal criminal wrongdoing swirling around him. Or maybe, and more likely, they made a big mistake.

The Genie Is Out of the Bottle

Since this genie canā€™t be put back in the bottle, any effort to impede congressional inquiry will not only appear to be, but will be, a further obstruction of justice. All the obfuscation, resistance to subpoenas, claims of executive privilege and witness tampering that has preceded this critical moment may possibly have been for naught. This time, the Democrats in Congress already have the goods and seem energized to get the remaining mother lode quickly.

It will help the nation understand the depth of Trumpā€™s corruption if the responsible press can stay focused on the facts and give no breathing room this time to the ā€œalternative facts,ā€ lies and fanciful conspiracy theories that the right-wing media will peddle in response. There is no need for panel discussions, unschooled ā€œexpertsā€ or equivalency analysis. In this case, a media that simply presses forward on a comprehensive and understandable factual narrative will be the best response to previous media shortcomings that have fueled Trumpā€™s perfidy.

Now, with congressional Democrats finally leading the way, it falls on Americans to end the Trump scourge. The American electorate started it all by themselves when their self-professed ā€œbetter angelsā€ took flight amid a torrent of “alternative facts,” corporate cash and bigotry. 

Now, it is time for Americans to get rid of Trump, consigning him and his enablers to a historical scrapheap, while working diligently to ensure the prison sentences that should follow. But much more than that, Americans of goodwill must regain trust in government and work feverishly to restore the institutions that have been allowed to decay through decades of attack and misinformation.

As this latest Trump assault on governance plays out, Trump will again become unhinged and strike out at all of the usual targets in an effort to deflect scrutiny. Maybe this time, the nation and the world will pay more attention to the danger Trump poses than the theatrics of his personal drama. Those paying attention may be growing weary of this drama and increasingly aware of the institutional and security costs at stake.

The Iranians, the Taliban and the North Koreans have already called Trumpā€™s ignorant bluff; the Israeli government continues in disarray as Trumpā€™s buddy, Benjamin Netanyahu, struggles to corruptly cross the electoral finish line; and that special relationship with the Brits has imploded in Trumpā€™s face. Only those who are themselves a major part of the problem perceive Trump to be part of any solution.

Betrayed His Oath

There is no magic to Americaā€™s ā€œsuccess,ā€ but the institutional framework that is established in the nationā€™s Constitution provided a foundation for a governing continuum that historically has been taken for granted and given far less critical attention than it should have been. In fact, it is likely that Trumpā€™s reign has focused Americaā€™s intellectual core on the need to modernize the foundation in order to ensure the survival of the institutional infrastructure upon which the nationā€™s future depends.

The problem with this prescription is that the required intellectual rigor and debate will never get needed oxygen while Trump is in office and is ceded so much of the public stage. Now, thanks to a courageous whistleblower, there is a new possibility that congressional Democrats will take their oath of office seriously, and loudly and proudly lead the nation to a condemnation of a president who has betrayed his  to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

While I have no illusions that the Republican Senate will drive Trump from office, I am encouraged at the moment that an impeachment fight will further expose Trumpā€™s perfidy and marginalize his support. But this will only happen if the Democrats in Congress act forcefully to press their case, try to make news every day with factual charges and bring the matter to a vote by a date certain but within 60 days.

Once Trump is ā€œimpeached,ā€ Democrats can decide how to characterize the ratified impeachment and how best to memorialize those charges.

With that done, Democrats can immediately move on to continue their fight for gun control, universal access to meaningful health care and immigration reform. Maybe this time, the American electorate will comprehend the simple truth that doing what appears to be politically advantageous at the expense of public duty is simply wrong and at the heart of the case against Trump. Maybe this time, doing what is right will prove to be a political virtue. 

*[A version of this article was cross-posted on the authorā€™s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Is It Time for Trump to Go? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Narendra Modi, the god-like leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), appears to have won another . Predicted to secure at least 300 of the 543 seats (347 with if you count its National Democratic Alliance, NDA, partners) in the lower house of Indiaā€™s Parliament, the Lok Sabha, Modi has decimated the opposition. With Rahul Gandhiā€™s Congress party conceding defeat, the prime minister has inscribed himself in the collective conscience of more than a billion Indians. No leader has had such a magnetic effect on the countryā€™s electorate since Atal Behari Vajpayee, another BJP leader, in the late 1990s.

Assisted by his influential party president, Amit Shah, and some strategic victories ā€” including one in the , in Uttar Pradesh ā€” Modi has proved that winning an election is possible despite espousing religious hatred and bigotry, and shutting down dissent. It is now probably safe to say that India is colored in saffron ā€” the color of right-wing Hindu nationalists. Modi, who is the first prime minister to to power with such a large mandate in five decades, is here to stay.

There have been significant success for the NDA in the past five years. Under Modi, India has emerged as one of the worldā€™s economies and has taken a strong against terrorism. The government has also managed to avert a humanitarian catastrophe by over a million people within 24 hours in the state of Odisha before a devastating cyclone hit.

As India gears up for another round of BJP-led NDA rule and the possibility of a war with Pakistan, the future seems difficult to predict. As prime minister, Modi has continually maintained that economic reforms and job creation are his biggest goals, but ā€” which were duly suppressed by the government a few months back ā€” show otherwise. The Indian economy has been weakened by the disastrous demonetization policy almost three years ago. Unemployment is at its highest in 45 years. Minorities continue to remain concerned about their future in a country that is relying on division along religious lines to further political agendas. There is a lot to fear for in the future, and no one around to disperse that fear.

At the Expense of the Opposition

As congratulatory messages for Modi pour in from all parts of the world, and India prepares to be part of a world order that is dangerously veering towards the right, it is important to remember that the journey doesnā€™t end at victory. The NDA government has tall promises to live up to and has to steer away from impulsive decisions made by the prime minister if it wants to survive in a nation that has pinned its hopes on the alliance at the expense of the opposition.

Rahul Gandhi failed to garner public appreciation, despite much fanfare surrounding his becoming the of the Congress party. The son of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was seen by his mother and some politicians within Congress as the torch bearer for a new generation. But as candidate, he failed to live up to expectations and ended up making a mockery of himself through terribly poor PR. Despite promising India policies such as the ambitious , which pledged to provide 72,000 rupees ($1,000) to the poorest 20% of the country, Gandhi failed to garner public interest, even in his home constituency of Amethi, where in 1998.

Despite gracefully accepting defeat by the NDA alliance, Gandhi has a tough road ahead. He has reportedly to resign as party president, and his political future looks bleak. Congress has always found it hard to survive without the Nehru-Gandhi family, which has held the party together since India won its independence in 1947. In the words of Ibn Khaldun, an Arab historian, dynasties become by the time they reach the fifth generation. Rahul Gandhi, who is the fifth generation of the Nehru-Gandhi family, is showing signs of fatigue. He now needs to hand over to someone who has a better public image and is more adept at dealing with Indiaā€™s political quagmire.

Congress desperately needs an image makeover, and no Gandhi scion, even the sister of Rahul Gandhi, , can make that change happen. As candidate, Gandhi was utterly lost, not just at the national forum, but on the ground as well. In this election, he lost Amethi owing to pure neglect. While he heaped accusations on the BJP-led NDA and explored alliances with smaller political parties, the swiftly laid out her base in Amethi and eventually won the contest there.

Don’t Just Make Promises

Narendra Modi is facing immense responsibilities in the coming five years, the most important of which is maintaining a friendly alliance with neighboring countries, particularly Pakistan. Supporters of the BJP are asking for an open boycott of Pakistan on and are requesting India exclude Pakistan from Modiā€™s swearing-in ceremony. The strategic release of a about a surgical strike conducted under Modiā€™s aegis, along with a in Kashmir that killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary troopers shortly before the elections began, gave the prime minister the upper hand in advocating his anti-Pakistan agenda.

Giving into demands for an open boycott of Pakistan will have major ramifications for Indiaā€™s defense and public safety. Playing the Hindu religion card to antagonize Muslim-majority Pakistan will incite religious violence in India and can open up its borders to more terrorism. A war with Pakistan can be for India, particularly because New Delhi doesnā€™t have the defense structure in place nor the funds to survive a war, even if it does manage to generate significant political will.

Modiā€™s promise of ā€œacche dinā€ (good days) will be heavily scrutinized over the next five years, both by the public and the media. Despite much hype, the governmentā€™s flagship , while the attempt to get rid the country of black money fell flat, crashing the job market ad crushing lives instead. The benefits from the highly anticipated , which was implemented haphazardly, are yet to reflect on the economy.

The successes of the last five years, such as Indiaā€™s in the Ease of Doing Business ranking and the financial inclusion program, , will be expected to be replicated. But the announcement of more economic schemes needs to come with a conscience that development is for every Indian, irrespective of religion or caste. A major development that remains to be seen is the on the construction of a temple for Lord Ram on the ruins of the Babri Masjid, a 16^th-century mosque that was by right-wing Hindu nationalists in December 1992. Calls for ā€œmandir banegaā€ (the temple will be built) are spreading all over Indian social media, making the issue even more dangerous and contentious than it already is.

First Things First

The first thing the re-elected prime minister needs to do is make it clear that he is here for all Indians and not representative of the religious majority. He should be open to criticism and urge his partyā€™s politicians to accept healthy debate instead of shutting down those who disagree with the government. Reducing for humanities research, students at a national university and tolerating the murders of liberal thinkers and journalists is a sign of damaged democracy.

Prime Minister Modi also has a tiresome responsibility of creating more jobs in the manufacturing sector and protecting agriculture, which is the backbone of Indiaā€™s economy. He has already set a bad example in terms of governance by strong-arming the Reserve Bank of India and forcing its governor to after the bank asserted its autonomy by questioning the government’s decision to waiver millions of bad loans from decaying state-owned banks. Under the NDA government, public banks have lent to financial criminals and tried tirelessly to bail out failing companies such as Jet Airways, which is near . This needs to immediately stop if India doesn’t want its economy to suffer a credit shock.

The road ahead for the BJP is a thorny one. Whether Narendra Modi decides to walk on these thorns by accepting their existence or steamrolls over them is a decision only he ā€” and his soon-to-be appointed cabinet ā€” can make.

*[An earlier version of this article made a connection between the air strike ordered by Prime Minister Modi and the terrorist attack in Kashmir; they were, however, unrelated incidents.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Whether You Like It or Not, Narendra Modi Is Here to Stay appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

All political parties bring out manifestoes before elections. Think of them as love letters to the electorate that tell citizens about the person wooing them. In Indiaā€™s ongoing national election, the tells us a lot about this party.

The proposed policy of the on Jammu and Kashmir is oblivious to the harsh realities of the state. Section 37 on page 41 spells out the partyā€™s promises for the region: ā€œan innovative federal solution.ā€ Interestingly, the party does not tell us what this solution would be.

The mention of Jammu and Kashmir raises a key question: Why does a state find a special reference in the manifesto of the Indian opposition? No other state achieves this honor, including the turbulent northeastern ones. They are all conveniently bunched under section 38. The Congress partyā€™s manifesto proposes a solution to a complicated problem it created and, therefore, deserves detailed examination.

IS THE CONGRESS SOLUTION REAL?

The partyā€™s manifesto makes a sweetly reasonable declaration: ā€œ[D]ialogue is the only way to understand the aspirations of the people of the 3 regions of Jammu & Kashmir and find an honourable solution to their issues.ā€

Such a declaration begs a simple question: Who does India have a dialogue with? Is the answer Pakistan? Is the answer China? Is the answer the US? Or is it Saudi Arabia?

The promise of dialogue forgets one simple fact. The state of Jammu and Kashmir comprises three administrative divisions: Hindu-dominated Jammu, Muslim-majority Kashmir and the Buddhist Ladakh. Only the Kashmir Valley is a theater of conflict. It comprises merely 10 out of 22 districts of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact, the violence in Kashmir is causing Jammu and Ladakh much distress. Political power in Jammu and Kashmir is monopolized by politicians of the Kashmir Valley. And national politicians give scant attention to Jammu and Ladakh because they are peaceful.

When proposing dialogue, the Congress fails to spell out whom will it talk to. Will it include citizens of Jammu and Ladakh? How will the party select whom it will talk to? And, after ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits, growing radicalization in Kashmir Valley and the decimation of civil society, which Kashmiris will the Congress talk to?

REVIEWING THE TROOPS DEPLOYMENT

The Congress manifesto has promised ā€œto review the deployment of armed forces, move more troops to the border to stop infiltration completely, reduce the presence of the Army and CAPFs [Indian paramilitary forces called Central Armed Police Forces] in the Kashmir Valley, and entrust more responsibility to the J&K police for maintaining law and order.ā€

First, the Congress is naive to believe that borders can be sanitized just by moving more troops to the border. Already, the Indian army has reduced infiltration through concerted use of improved technology and tactical troop deployment. Yet Pakistan remains committed to its long-term strategy of inflicting on India ā€œ.ā€ The Congress party is lying when it promises to stop infiltration completely. That cannot and will not happen.

Second, to reduce military and paramilitary presence is likely to cause much strain on the local police. The local police answers to the state government, which currently stands dismissed. The state of Jammu and Kashmir is under presidentā€™s rule, the direct administration of New Delhi. Tomorrow, it will be under the elected chief minister because law and order is a state subject. They are not likely to have the funding or training to fight an increasingly bloody proxy war.

Recently, ā€” launched by the Indian army in coordination with the CAPFs, intelligence agencies, Rashtriya Rifles and the police ā€” has been a tremendous success. It turns out that in 2018 achieved the best results over the last 10 years. According to Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh, ā€œ250 terrorists were killed, nearly 54 arrested and four surrendered.ā€ These results give hope for peace, but the Congress manifesto threatens that possibility.

Of course, eliminating known terrorists has been partially negated by new ones joining the ranks. , a local youth, was responsible for the suicide attack at Pulwama in February, which triggered the latest bout of Indo-Pakistani tensions. Pakistanā€™s Inter-Services Intelligence has used propaganda and psychological operations to ā€œa discernible rise in the levels of radicalisation and violent extremism.ā€

Such is the state of affairs that respected foreign policy analyst Brahma Chellaney that ā€œPakistanā€™s terror-centred warfare has proved costlier for India than any past war on the country.ā€ For Pakistan, this is payback for 1971 when India defeated its neighbor and helped Bangladesh declare independence from Pakistan. It turns out that support of terrorism also pays. No one, especially the US, wants Pakistan to implode and terrorists getting their hands on nukes. As Chellaney states, ā€œsponsoring cross-border terrorism pays.ā€

The Congress manifesto fails to take into account the role of Pakistan. If India lowers its troop presence, proxies of Pakistan will increase. Terrorism will rise. More people will die. Sadly, the manifestoā€™s pious homilies fall flat in the face of harsh geopolitics, religious radicalization and grassroot realities.

PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE LAW

The Congress manifesto states, ā€œThe Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Disturbed Areas Act in J&K will be reviewed.ā€ This act, popularly known as AFSPA, has become a beating stick for the security forces. People assume that AFSPA allows security forces to get away with murder. The reality is that AFSPA is simply an act that allows the army to arrest, open fire in self-defense and carry out search operations without reference to the civil authorities.

However there are safeguards. The army has to hand over every person it arrests under AFSPA within 24 hours to the local police. There are other safeguards to check abuse. In general, AFSPA is a much-needed legislation that allows the army to function without its hands totally tied. In any case, the Indian army does not have the freedom of other militaries. The US, the UK and even Pakistan give their troops far greater legal protections when sending them into combat. Were it not for such protections, US Navy SEALs could not have killed Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

In addition to the AFSPA point in the manifesto, veteran Congress politician P. Chidambaram has talked of by ā€œbalancing the rights of security forces, as well as human rights and remove immunity only in three cases, enforced disappearance, sexual violence, and torture.ā€

Prima facie, this seems entirely reasonable. Yet there is more to it than meets the eye. As a clever politician, Chidambaram is insinuating that the Indian army gets away with murder, rape and torture right now. The reality is that the army is not exempt from the Indian Penal Code and numerous other laws. Indiaā€™s National Human Rights Commission is no pushover and it registered 82,006 cases in 2017. All security forces in the country fall under its purview.

The Congress manifesto doubles down on Article 370 and , two rather controversial aspects of the status quo. The former gives special legal status to Jammu and Kashmir, while the latter gives the state legislature ā€œa carte blanche to decide who ā€¦are ā€˜permanent residentsā€™ of the State and confer on them special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the State, scholarships and other public aid and welfare.ā€ This has allowed the more populated Kashmir Valley to lord over Jammu and Ladakh. Politicians from the valley deny refugees from the partition of 1947 permanent status and create a monolithic culture that Shia Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics find deeply disturbing.

The manifesto also posits ā€œa large-hearted approach that will eschew muscular militarism and legalistic formulations and look for an innovative federal solution.ā€ One wonders what that federal solution might be. The manifesto also promises ā€œtalks without preconditions.ā€ Does that mean talking to jihadist groups? Is ceding Jammu and Kashmir or the Kashmir Valley to Pakistan on the agenda? And is the Congress party willing to talk about azadi (independence) for Kashmir?

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Congress Manifesto Raises Terrifying Questions about Jammu and Kashmir appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen and a score of Democratic co-sponsors want to use the tax code to discourage direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies. Their bill, theĢż, would prohibit firms in the US from taking tax deductions for any consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

Limiting tax deductions is a blunt and arbitrary way of approaching a legitimate concern. Consumer drug ads play an important role in debates about the costs of prescription drugs, the risks of misuse and overuse of some medications, the balance of authority between doctors and patients, the limits of commercial speech, and a host of other issues. (For overviews, seeĢż,Ģż ²¹²Ō»åĢż.)

But the bill is not well crafted to address those issues. The problem starts with the legislationā€™s name: Allowing drug companies to deduct advertising costs is not a subsidy. Many other deductions are: The charitable deduction in the personal income tax, for example, subsidizes charitable giving. And the mortgage interest deduction subsidizes borrowing to buy a home.

But the business deduction for advertising costs is not a subsidy. The corporate income tax is a tax on corporate income. To calculate income properly, businesses tote up their revenues and deduct their expenses. Those expenses may include wages for workers, rent for office space and, yes, the costs of advertising.

Under an income tax, companies deduct those expenses because they incur them in pursuit of the profits we have chosen to tax. One can debateĢż companies in any industry should write-off their advertising costs. But in an income tax, there is no question that they should write them off.

Rhetoric aside, the broader question is whether limiting deductibility is a good way to discourage consumer drug advertising. Using the corporate income tax to impose penalties this way has the same strengths and weaknesses as much more common efforts to offer rewards.

On the plus side, the tax code provides ready infrastructure for creating a financial penalty. With little legislative effort (the bill is less than three pages), lawmakers can design a meaningful deterrent to consumer ads. But limiting deductibility is a blunt and arbitrary instrument. In principle, lawmakers should discourage ads based on the harms they want to reduce. Congress should impose large deterrents against the most damaging forms of consumer ads, smaller disincentives to less damaging ads and rewards for beneficial ads (there isĢżĢżsome consumer drug ads create benefits).

Ending the tax deduction does not allow such careful calibration. Instead, it creates a single financial penalty based on the corporate tax rate. Recent tax changes illustrate how arbitrary this can be.

When proposals to eliminate tax deductibility for drug ads were floated inĢż,Ģż ²¹²Ō»åĢż, the corporate tax rate was 35%. Eliminating the tax deduction would have increased the effective cost of drug ads by more than half. Without deductibility, a $100,000 ad would have cost as much as a $154,000 ad with the deduction. But the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) lowered the corporate rate to 21%. Now, eliminating tax deductibility would increase ad costs by only about a quarter. A non-deductible $100,000 ad would cost as much as a deductible $127,000 one.

The Way to Go?

To those not steeped in tax policy, the Shaheen bill has the same rhetorical power as earlier proposals to eliminate tax deductibility for consumer ads. Indeed, it may have even more rhetorical power ā€” aĢżgarnered only four sponsors last year. In practical terms, however, the bill has lost half its economic effect since passage of the TCJA.

For better or worse, advocates for limiting the tax deductibility of drug ads have lowered their ambition. Such are the perils of basing policy on arbitrary parameters of the tax code, rather than focusing on the real costs and benefits of drug advertising.

So whatā€™s a better approach? Well, as much as I enjoy talking tax, regulation should be the first line of attack here. The Food and Drug Administration should weigh the pros and cons of consumer ads and how they vary across different conditions, therapies and advertising media.

If taxes are the only game in town, lawmakers should do the hard of work of deciding how bad consumer ads are. They do that when they impose taxes on alcohol and tobacco. They do that when theyĢż. And they do that (for good, not bad) when they decide how big tax credits should be for electric cars and research and development. Arbitrary tweaks to the tax code are not the way to go.

*[This article was originally published on the authorā€™s .]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Should Congress Use Income Tax to Discourage Consumer Drug Ads? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Here comes the cavalry, maybe.ĢżA US House of Representatives controlled by the Democratic Party is empowered to start the ball rolling on addressing Americaā€™s real needs and to change the dynamic of a government now in full retreat from meeting its obligations to its citizenry.ĢżBut will the Democratic majority actually try to do so?ĢżI have my doubts.

Focus will be of paramount importance, because there is so much to do. While the Mueller probe continues, congressional investigations get underway, and the media panders to unnamed sources and paid sycophants to fuel its daily overdose of withering speculation, letā€™s get going on some real legislative work.

How about introducing a bill that provides forĢżsingle payer universal access to health care? Then, letā€™s watch every Republican vote against it and obstruct at every turn, while spending their legislative time crafting a 2,000-mile border wall that will never get built in order to satisfy the ego of the idiot-in-chief.ĢżGiven the choice between health care and a border wall, I am betting that most voters would go with health care, but we will never find out until Democrats put a meaningful legislative proposal to a congressional vote.

Next up, maybe a group of young Democrats could work hand-in-hand with some of their young constituents to putĢżaĢżban on assault weaponsĢżon the table where it should have been long ago, so that each and every representative will have to vote with the young people they represent or with the gun merchants dealing daily death to those young people and their friends.ĢżNo need for talk on this one.ĢżUp or down, yes or no.

With these two bold steps, the word will begin to spread that the Democratic Party actually stands for something. If you donā€™t like what they stand for, vote Republican. But if access to meaningful health care for you and your family and safer schools for your kids and grand-kids matter to you, pay attention, get involved and insist that your Democratic Party representatives get this done.

If the Democrats in the House of Representatives can just put universal health care and an assault weapons ban on the floor for an up or down vote, the first steps toward a meaningful legislative agenda would have been taken.ĢżNo longer would procedural impediments provide cover from legislative accountability.ĢżUp or down, yes or no.ĢżMake each representative choose on these two fundamental issues. Imagine the surprise and celebration if a majority chooses us over the health insurance industry and big pharma and us over the gun merchants.ĢżFor the ones who donā€™t, the rest of us will know who they are.

But donā€™t stop there.ĢżKeep the pressure on.ĢżHow about aĢżcomprehensive and humane immigration reformĢżbill that provides for immigration eligibility criteria that values immigration as a source of national strength, while providing for a safe and orderly entry process for immigrants who meet that eligibility criteria.ĢżAny humane reform has to provide a permanent path to citizenship to those already here and a welcoming escape for those seeking asylum.ĢżThe Democratic majority in the House of Representatives can do this.ĢżUp or down, yes or no.

And just think how many of those striving in America to make ends meet would welcome aĢż$15 per hour minimum wage, a living wage.ĢżPut it to a vote, so every underpaid worker will know who cares and who does not. Up or down, yes or no.

It would also be nice to see the Democratic representatives in the House open an informed legislative discussion aboutĢżclimate change, an enlightened national agenda to address it, and a regulatory framework for ensuring compliance with existing standards while new ones are debated and adopted.

Some of the younger Democratic representatives might also find the time to apply their social media savvy toĢżconfronting the privacy implications of the business model that drives Facebook and its invasive progeny.ĢżA forward-thinking regulatory framework is essential in this sphere as well, but it cannot be developed by legislators still tied to their flip phones.

Not Too Much to Askā€¦

This is a lot to put on the shoulders of the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.ĢżBut it is not too much to ask.ĢżThe nation can no longer tolerate a cabal of old white men in the Republican Party and their enablers who thwart every legislative effort to develop innovative government policy and program initiatives that meet the needs of so many in America.

I am acutely aware that good and vital legislation will not become law in the next two years, but the Democratic majority in the House must show the nation what it looks like. It is enough for now, and a huge task in itself, to force each and every representative to cast a vote on some of the fundamental issues on which their political futures should rise or fall. Up or down, yes or no.ĢżNo rock to hide under.ĢżThere is a small possibility that even a few Republicans will be forced to make choices they should have made years ago.

In the months ahead, I expect that new investigative pressure and the accompanying media circus will further expose the depth of Trumpā€™s criminal enterprise and the extent to which his venal incompetence has already undermined governance. Unfortunately, as this all unfolds, it will be way too easy to divert attention from the legislative task at hand.

However, those of us who care must keep our eye on the prize. It is a substantive prize, not a procedural one.ĢżEven if Trump and his merry band of acolytes all wind up in prison, not one single person who needs an operation they cannot afford will get one.ĢżNot one single child will be spared the rain of bullets at the next school attacked by a deranged kid with an assault weapon.ĢżAnd not one ā€œdreamerā€ will be any closer to her dream.

The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will only truly matter if it moves the nation closer to the kind of place where the sick are healed, kids are safe and immigrants are welcomed. If you donā€™t want that kind of nation, I canā€™t help you. But I hope that the Democrats will renew the expectation that that kind of nation is possible.

If Trump goes to jail, I will celebrate the moment.ĢżIf the nation gains its moral compass, I will finally be able to celebrate the nation.

*[A version of this article was also featured on the authorā€™s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Can America Begin to Find Its Way? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

As the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has attracted much media attention. A young outspoken womanĢżĢżas ā€œan educator, an organizer, a working-class New Yorker,ā€ Ocasio-Cortez has positioned herself as an outsider who isnā€™t afraid of speaking truth to power.

While her radical political positions ā€” from abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Medicare for all ā€” is responsible for some of that publicity,Ģż have also drawn a lot of scrutiny.

ā€œIā€™ll tell you something,ā€ Washington Examiner reporter Eddie ScarryĢż on November 16, 2018, ā€œthat jacket and coat donā€™t look like a girl who struggles.ā€

It seems thatĢżĢżjust canā€™t accept the fact that an unapologetic Democratic socialist like Ocasio-Cortez ā€” who calls for a more equal distribution of wealth and fair shake to workers ā€” can also wear designer clothes.

To a historian like meĢżwho writes about , the attention to Ocasio-Cortezā€™s clothing as a way to criticize her politics is an all-too-familiar line of attack. Ocasio-Cortez isnā€™t the first woman or even the first outsider to receive such treatment. In particular, Iā€™m reminded ofĢż, a young radical socialist who used fashion as a form of empowerment while she fought for workersā€™ rights. Lemlich ā€” like Ocasio-Cortez ā€” wasnā€™t afraid to take on big business while wearing fancy clothes.

ā€œWe like new hatsā€

In 1909, when she was only 23 years old, Lemlich defied the male union leadership whom she saw as too hesitant and out of touch. In what would come to be known as the ā€œ,ā€ Lemlich led thousands of garment workers ā€” the majority of them young women ā€” to walk out from their workplace and go on a strike in New York.

That 14-week strike between November 1909 and February 1910 was the largest strike by women to date, turning what was thought of as a disorganized workforce into a united, political force. Strikers demanded better wages, hours and working conditions. But they also called to end the pervasive sexual harassment in the shops, safer workrooms, and for dressing rooms with mirrors and hooks on the walls, so workers could protect their elegant clothes during the workday.

ā€œWe like new hats as well as other young women. Why shouldnā€™t we?ā€Ģż, justifying strikersā€™ demands. And when they went out to the streets, strikers were also wearing those nice clothes of theirs, updated according to the latest trends.

As historianĢżĢżhas shown, insisting on their right to maintain a fashionable appearance was not a frivolous pursuit of poor women living beyond their means. It was an important political strategy in strikersā€™ struggle to gain rights and respect as women, workers and Americans.

When they picketed the streets wearing their best clothes, strikers challenged the image of the ā€œdeserving poorā€ that depicted female workers as helpless victims deserving of mercy. Wearing a fancy dress or a hat signaled their economic independence and their respectability as ladies. But it also spoke to their right to be taken seriously and to have their voices heard.

Activism and fashion can work together

The strikersā€™ fashionable appearance was heavily criticized by middle-class observers and the male union leadership. To them, it was evidence that these women werenā€™t really struggling as much as they claimed to be.

Sarah Comstock, a reporter forĢż, commented that ā€œI had come to observe the Crisis of Social Condition; but apparently this was a Festive Occasion,ā€ pointing to the fact that the strikersā€™ clothes made them look like they didnā€™t have any real grievances. ā€œLingerie waists were elaborate, pufftowered,ā€ she observed. ā€œThere were picture turbans and di’mont pendants.ā€

The New York SunĢż, calling them the ā€œunwonted leisure class ā€¦ all dressed in holiday attireā€ and showing no evidence of harsh treatment.

To critics like Comstock and The New York Sun, the fact that strikers aspired for better working conditions that would allow them to go beyond mere survival ā€” and would provide them with disposable income to spend their wages as they saw fit ā€” wasnā€™t a privilege that working-class women should have.

Despite the criticism, Lemlich and her fellow strikers were able to win concessions from factory owners for most of their demands. They also turned Local 25 of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union into one of the most influential labor unions in the country, changing for the better the lives of millions of workers like themselves.

But more importantly, Lemlich and her colleagues changed the perception of what politically radical women should look like. They demonstrated that socialism and labor struggles were not in opposition to fashionable appearances.

Today, their legacy is embodied in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezā€™s message. In fact, if Clara Lemlich were alive today, she would probably smile at Ocasio-Cortezā€™s response to her critics. The reason some journalists ā€œcanā€™t help but obsess about my clothes [and] rent,ā€Ģż, is because ā€œwomen like me arenā€™t supposed to run for office ā€” or win.ā€

Ocasio-Cortez has already begun to fashion an image for women who, as herĢżĢżcan attest, not only know how to ā€œtalk the talk,ā€ but can also ā€œwalk the walk.ā€

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezā€™s Clothes and Early Female Labor Activists appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

As election fever heats up, pollsters in India are debating outcomes. Yogendra Yadav and Sanjay Kumar of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and this author are crunching numbers and justifying their inferences to the public.

The three of us have Shekhar Gupta of to thank for this series of articles. He invited us to in ā€œthe spirit of healthy disagreement.ā€ Since then, Gupta seems to have , but 51³Ō¹Ļ has stepped in to publish my side of the story.

THE YADAV CRYSTAL BALL FOR NORTH INDIA

Yadav believes that the state of Jammu and Kashmir hardly affects the national equation. In Punjab, the implosion of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which literally translates as the Common Manā€™s Party, plays to the advantage of the Indian National Congress. He estimates that the Congress party will make small gains in Punjab and cites local body elections as an indicator of the swing in popular sentiment toward Indiaā€™s oldest political party. Yadav predicts a loss of three to four seats for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Partyā€™s (BJP) National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in Punjab.

He takes the view that the BJP will lose in Haryana on account of the unpopularity of the chief minister of the state, Manohar Lal Khattar. He forecasts that the BJP will suffer in Delhi too and is unlikely to sweep all constituencies as last time. Yadav sees only one fly in the ointment for the Congress. It is none other than Rahul Gandhi. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is far more popular than Jawaharlal Nehruā€™s great-grandson. The former is seen as self-made while the latter as a feckless heir.

Yadav says that a presidential-style contest between Modi and Gandhi would benefit the former. Therefore, the BJP is likely to shift attention from Khattar to Modi. They are likely to keep the focus on the more credible central government instead of the unpopular state leaders to boost their electoral prospects.

TROUBLES FOR THE BJP

The BJPā€™s troubles in Indiaā€™s northernmost state, Jammu and Kashmir, have made headlines around the world. The state is under for the eighth time since June. Till then, the Bharatiya Janata Party was in an opportunistic alliance with the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (JKPDP). This experiment has completely backfired for both parties, but the BJP has the consolation of the captive Hindu vote in Jammu that remains loyal despite the staggering ineptitude of its local leadership.

The same cannot be said for the BJPā€™s hold on Buddhist Ladakh. This spectacular land could have become a stronghold of the BJP by now, but the party took the Ladakhis for granted in much the same way as the Hindu inhabitants of Jammu. Consequently, the BJPā€™s hold on his plateau region is gone for a toss and it is a big loss.

The beneficiary in the state will be the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC), the traditional ruling party of the state. Led by the second and third generation scions of the Abdullah family, JKNC is yet another family fiefdom like Shiv Sena. Now, it will benefit from the backlash against the JKPDP and make yet another comeback.

In Punjab, Yadav might be underestimating the support for the Indian National Congress. The Aam Aadmi Party faces complete meltdown. CVoter Tracker indicates that the Congress is poised to win nine of 13 seats for parliament. Until 2017, it appeared that the AAP might break out of its stronghold in Delhi and notch up a victory in Punjab. CVoter called the election in AAPā€™s favor, but the results in favor of the Congress proved it wrong. Since the heady days of 2017, the AAPā€™s support base has whittled away.

Speculation about the decline of the AAP has already begun. Controversy over links with has hit them hard. Khalistanis are Sikh radicals who have long wanted a separate nation state called Khalistan. Far too many forget that the Punjab insurgency was once bloodier than the Kashmiri one. The Indian military had to enter the Golden Temple to flush out extremists who fought a spirited gun battle. This operation led to such resentment that Sikh bodyguards assassinated Indira Gandhi, Indiaā€™s most powerful prime minister to date.

The AAPā€™s association with Khalistan has evoked ghosts from the past. Voters have moved back to the Congress, the BJP and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), the regional party of the Sikhs and the fiefdom of the Badal clan, despite their manifold flaws. As things stand, all four members of parliament from the AAP will lose in the election. The biggest beneficiary will be the Congress, where Captain Amarinder Singh has proved to be a canny chief minister and has put his party into pole position.

In the two states of Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir, the BJP is losing three seats but its current and former allies, the SAD and the PDP, are losing a further six. This means that the BJP-led NDA is losing nine seats.

ITā€™S COMPLICATED IN HARYANA, DELHI AND RAJASTHAN

CVoter Tracker data differs from Yadav in its forecast on Haryana. Yet the data agrees with Yadav in his assessment that BJP leader Khattar is an extremely unpopular chief minister in Haryana. The BJP is helped by what pollsters have termed the (IoU). India has the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system left behind by the British. In such a system, the largest party can win with even 30% or less of the vote if the remaining 70% is divided among other parties and the second largest party gets 29.99% support. If IoU is low, a relatively unpopular party can win because of a divided opposition.

For decades, the Indian National Congress was the big beneficiary of FPTP. Now, the BJP has inherited that advantage. In Haryana, the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) is the major regional party led by Devi Lalā€™s descendants. In the land where siblings once fought the epic Mahabarata battle, Devi Lalā€™s grandsons, Ajay Chautala and Abhay Chautala, have declared war on each other, fragmenting the Jat vote and wrecking in the process. Like Shiv Sena, these dynasts are removed from grassroots realities and alienated from their voter base.

The implosion of INLD is bad news for the Congress party in the short run. The former is polling at 20% while the latter at 30%. Sadly, for both, the BJP, despite its incompetent and unpopular chief minister, still has the support of 40% of the voters as per CVoter Tracker data. This might allow the BJP to win seven out of 10 seats they won in 2014, limiting their loss to three seats in Haryana. In 2004, the Congress won nine out of 10 seats in parliament with .

As in Haryana, the BJP is benefiting from a divided opposition in Delhi. It is not only the bickering between the AAP and the Congress, but also the implosion of the AAP that is playing out in favor of the BJP. Yadav, one of the most eminent of Indiaā€™s pollster was a founding member of the AAP. Arvind Kejriwal, the temperamental chief minister of Delhi, has kicked out Yadav and other heavyweight intellectuals. This benefits the BJP but is a godsend for the Congress. In 2015, the AAP won 67 of 70 seats in Delhi, getting 54% of the popular vote and leaving the Congress with a mere 9%. The rest of the vote went to the BJP.

While the BJP vote share has remained largely steady, people in Delhi are shifting back to the Congress from the AAP. For the first time since 2013, CVoter Tracker data shows that the Congress has pulled ahead of the AAP. If the AAP and the Congress ally, then the BJP is toast. If not, then the low IoU and the FPTP system favors the BJP, which may repeat its 7-0 performance of 2014 albeit with a lower vote share.

Finally, another phenomenon deserves attention. Termed, the ā€œsplit-voteā€ phenomenon, this author was the first to flag it 10 years ago. Simply put, Indian voters have been voting for different parties depending on the level of the government. They may vote in Party A to local councils, Party B to the state legislature and Party C to the national parliament.

In , the slogan ā€œModi tukhse bair nahin, par Rani teri khair nahinā€ is on almost everyoneā€™s lips. This literally translates as, ā€œModi, we have no enmity with you, but we are not sparing the local queen.ā€ The current chief minister of Rajasthan, Vasundhara Raje, is from one of Indiaā€™s former royal families that had cozy relations with the British and then reinvented itself in modern electoral politics. She has a reputation for incompetence and arrogance. Furthermore, Rajasthan continues to suffer from rampant corruption and she has failed to improve the state administration. Unsurprisingly, Rajasthanā€™s public is hell bent on booting her out, even though it retains some sympathy for Modi. As a result, the Congress will win a landslide in the state legislature, but that might not translate into seats in the Indian parliament.

It is a well-known secret that, in many states run by the BJP, chief ministers would lose and the opposition would triumph. However, the same voters might cast their vote for the BJP candidate for the national parliament for a simple reason. They prefer Narendra Modi to Rahul Gandhi, making the half-Italian, rather good-looking Nehruvian heir the most unlikely best friend of a rustic, hirsute and plebeian Modi.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Might the Congress Make a Comeback in Northern India? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

°Õ“Ē»å²¹²āā€™s 3D Definition: Faith

The Washington Post offers this on a California congressman: ā€œThis lawmaker isnā€™t sure that God exists. Now, heā€™s finally decided to tell people.ā€

In the same article we learn that ā€œthe number of members who decline to offer a description of their faith identity has bounced between five and 10 since the 1960s, according to .ā€ Apart from the fact that the author of the article doesnā€™t know whether she has faith in numbers (ā€œfiveā€) or digits (ā€œ10ā€), the meaning of the notion of faith ā€” as it is used here ā€” highlights a serious problem with the definition of that word in US political culture.

Here is its 3D definition:

Faith:

For most of humanity, an intellectual and emotional identification with a particular tradition that refers to or invokes supernatural or mystical forces. In the US, the public act of avowing that one is absolutely and incontrovertibly sure of something that is, by definition, uncertain and unprovable, a requirement that such a person is competent to serve in government.

Contextual note

As a news story, we suppose that if one congressman ā€œisnā€™t sure that God exists,ā€ we are expected to presume that all or most of the others are ā€œsure.ā€ The Pew Research Center mentions ā€œfaith identity,ā€ signifying the traditions that particular office holders follow. But the notion of faith in the Christian tradition was first defined by St Paul in the Christian Bible (): ā€œFaith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.ā€

In other words, in the that same Christian tradition ā€” which tends to be the reference in the officially non-denominational government of Washington as defined in the Constitution ā€” faith is a choice that individuals make to ā€œhopeā€ for what they cannot be sure of. Not being sure would thus be the foundation of faith, in the process SĆøren Kierkegaard described as the ā€œleap of faith.ā€

In a very literal sense, if one was ā€œsureā€ of oneā€™s religious convictions, it would no longer be faith. But The Washington Post assumes that a congressman who is not ā€œsureā€ is an exception. Can it be that Jared Huffman is the only congressman with faith in the traditional Christian sense? But more significantly, can American voters really have confidence in legislators who are sure of everything they believe?

Historical note

The Constitution mentions religion only once, in , Section 3, where it states that ā€œno religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.ā€ As with many phenomena in the United States, the government may be prevented from doing what citizens decide to do despite the constitutional restriction. Voters tend to test candidates on the basis of their religion, in particular requiring some proof of commitment to a ā€œfaith,ā€ if only to be able to conclude their public speeches with, ā€œGod bless America.ā€

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /

The post The Daily Devilā€™s Dictionary: Defining ā€œFaithā€ in America appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The tax treatment of employee stock and options raises a classic Goldilocks problem. We want to tax this compensation neither too much nor too little. In a recentĢż, I consider three questions about how to strike that balance.

Do companies get excessive tax deductions for employee stock and options?

This concern rocketed to prominence in 2012 when Facebook went public. Its employees earned billions from their stock options and restricted stock units. The company, in turn, got billions in tax deductions, reducing its income taxes for years.

Those deductions outraged some observers who asked how Facebook could get billions in tax write-offs when its financial statements showed much lower compensation costs. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle denounced the ā€œstock option loopholeā€ and proposed limiting these deductions.

While there are good reasons for Congress to worry about companies gaming the tax code, this is not one. The tax deductions that companies receive for employee stock and options are, with few exceptions, just like those for cash wages, salaries and bonuses.

Here is an example: Suppose Esther has 1,000 options from her employer, Acme, Inc. Each allows her to buy a share of Acme stock for $10. If Esther exercises her options when Acme stock is worth $15, she pays $10,000 for stock worth $15,000 and thus has a $5,000 gain. Esther pays ordinary income taxes on the $5,000, while Acme deducts $5,000 as compensation. And both Esther and Acme pay payroll taxes on the $5,000.

Estherā€™s stock options are taxed just as if she received a $5,000 cash bonus. The deduction for Acme, just like the deduction for Facebook, is an integral part of our income tax system. Employees pay income taxes on their compensation, and businesses get a corresponding deduction. Lawmakers should maintain the parallel treatment of cash and equity compensation in any tax reform.

Does taxing options at exercise pose a special challenge for employees of private companies?

Employees owe income and payroll taxes when they exercise most options. Thatā€™s not a problem for employees who have easy access to the cash they need to pay their tax bill. But it can be a problem for employees who find themselves option rich and cash poor.ĢżEmployees of publicly traded companies can always cover their tax bill by selling stock. But employees of private companies often canā€™t. This problem is rare, but has reportedly becomeĢżĢżas successful startups stay private longer.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has proposed to solve the problem with theĢż. The bill allows employees of privately-held firms to defer their taxes from exercising options for up to seven years or until their stock becomes liquid, whichever comes first.

Deferral of tax payments would help solve the liquidity problem. But it also would give equity compensation a notable advantage over cash compensation. Deferral of tax payments would be valuable for all employees, not only those with limited liquidity. Even taxpayers who have available cash would welcome the chance to defer their taxes for several years. Charging interest on the amount of deferred taxes would be one way to maintain some balance between cash and equity compensation.Ģż (In essence, this approach would treat the deferral of tax payments as a loan from the IRS.)

Does the AMT pose a special burden for employees who receive incentive stock options?

Employees who get a special type of stock option ā€” known as incentive stock options or ISO ā€” face a different tax structure. ISO gains are taxed at capital gains tax rates, not ordinary income rates. And taxes arenā€™t due until the employee sells their stock, which could be long after they first exercise their options. Thatā€™s a big advantage for employees. But businesses donā€™t get a tax deduction for the compensation. Since the loss to firms is usually larger than the gain to employees, ISOs are rare. (This could change if Congress cuts the corporate rate much more than individual rates in a coming tax bill.)

But thereā€™s a catch. Under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), ISO gains are taxed when exercised. This creates an unwelcome surprise for employees who are unaware of the AMT and its accelerated tax on ISOs. Indeed, it can create financial hardship when stock prices fall, leaving taxpayers with a big tax bill on gains that have since evaporated.

This problem was especially severe during the financial crisis. Congress responded by temporarily exempting ISO gains from the AMT. That exemption has long since lapsed. Congress could permanently fix the problem by repealing the AMT, as the GOP framework and many other plans propose.

Stock options create some unusual challenges for tax writers, and theyā€™ll have to be careful to be sure they are treated fairly relative to other forms of compensation to avoid creating incentives for tax-motivated compensation schemes.

*[This article was originally published on the authorā€™s .]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /

The post How Should Tax Reform Treat Employee Stock and Options? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Lame duck President pulls no punches. In hisĢżmajor on August 5 over on the Iran deal, Obama let his critics have it.

I take it he has done the math and knows that the Republicans in the House and possibly the Senate will reject his Iran deal, but that they do not have the votes to override his veto of any restrictions they try to put on it. So he, unlike first-term Obama, has no illusions that he can reason with the on the Hill.

Instead, he is already reaching over their heads to the American public and trying to convince the people that he is doing the right thing. So since he canā€™t likely persuade the GOP Congress, he is letting them know what he really thinks of them at last. Obama said:

ā€œNow, when I ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didnā€™t just have to end that war. We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place.

ā€œIt was a mindset characterized byĢża preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.ā€

This is a bolder than ever before characterization of the Iran dealā€™s knee-jerk critics, many of whom, Obama correctly pointed out, were against the deal even before they had any of its details. He is laying the directly at the feet of the Republican Party and of war hawks among the Democrats (though note that contrary to what is often alleged, the majority of House Democrats voted against the Iraq War).

What was wrong with that rush to war? It derived, Obama says, from an active preference for war rather than diplomacy and for a preference for unilateral American war-fighting over coalition-building.

Obama implicitly evoked the ghost of Paul Wolfowitz (now an adviser to presidential candidate Jeb Bush), who as the number two man at the Pentagon told Congress in spring 2003 that the Iraq War would cost $60 billion, that only 100,000 troops would be needed and that those troops would be back out of the country for the most part by October 2003.

Obama added:

ā€œLeaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. And, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive while dismissing those who disagreed as weak, even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.ā€

Dear GOP: Just in case the no-drama style is confusing you,Ģżhe is making fun of you as juvenile delinquents who preen and strut and call level-headed people pussies.

What really happened?

Obama went on:

ā€œMore than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given, but thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesnā€™t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent. Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL [Islamic State]. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.ā€

Let me expand on what Obama said. About 100,000 US troops received at least flesh wounds in Iraq, with 33,000 injured badly enough to go to hospital. Some 10,000 of those in turn were pretty badly wounded and need Veteran Administration hospital care in the long-term. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates that over the lifetime of the wounded veterans, and given other costs such as replacing all those bombs we dropped, and paying off the $1 trillion we borrowedā€”yes, George W. Bush fought the Iraq War with deficit financing as though he were taking out a 30-year mortgageā€”the Iraq War will end up Ģż$3-6 trillion dollars.ĢżThat would mean that Wolfowitz, a mathematician, was only off by a factor ofĢża hundred to 200.

Myself, I figure that an Iran war would cost about 3 times what an Iraq War cost, since Iran is nearly 3 times more populous and geographically expansive than Iraq. So, $18 trillion. The US gross national product (GNP) is about $17 trillion annually, and our national debt (an important chunk of it built up during Bushā€™s wars) is about equal to that. This situation is very badā€”you never want your debt to equal your GNP, and it has already hurt the US credit rating. If you double the national debt with an Iran war, you pretty much turn the US into Greece right there. You might as well just go to the Chinese embassy and offer to sell yourself into slavery at that point.

So, again, GOP, let me just expand on what Obama is saying: You lied us into the Iraq War in part by low-balling us. It is like when an auto dealer initially offers you an unrealistically low price on a car to get you hooked on the idea of owning it, then gradually lets you know that unfortunately there are those pesky extras like, you know, tires and windows and taxes that will rather raise the priceā€”but you still want it, right?

And Obama is saying he is determined that a big infantry-driven land war is just not going to happen with regard to Iran as long as he is president, and moreover he is amazed that after the Iraq debacle anyone should even be talking about such a catastrophic course of action.

Those who are, he said, are warmongers.

*[This article was originally published on Juan Coleā€™s .]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ģż/Ģż

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourĢżĢżis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aĢż.

The post Obama: Opponents of Iran Deal Are Warmongers appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

A nuclear deal with Iran could be a game changer for US foreign policy and for the Middle East. The P5+1 and Iran have been developing a comprehensive agreement that would freeze Tehranā€™s ability to create a nuclear weapon and start the process of sanctions relief.

If it succeeds, this deal would dramatically decrease the probability of another costly war in the Middle East and could usher in an historic rapprochement between the United States and Iran after 34 years of hostilities. US-Iranian collaboration against extremist groups from the Islamic State to al-Qaeda could help damp down the fires raging across the Middle East.

Key US allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, oppose the deal. Both nations harbor long-standing hostilities toward Iran and both want to preserve their preferential relationship with the US.ĢżBut the American people, frustrated by over a decade of US involvement in Middle Eastern wars, support the initiative. A recent poll by The Washington Post and ABC News shows that six in ten Americans support a plan to lift international economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program.

Democrats back the agreement by an overwhelming majority of five to one, ²¹²Ō»åĢżeven a plurality of Republican voters support the Iran nuclear deal. Why, then, will there be such a tough battle in Congress to approve a deal that the Obama administration has worked so hard to achieve and is supported by most Americans?

Some Republicans have a knee-jerk reaction to anything the Obama administration puts forth. And certain Republican and Democrat Congress members fundamentally distrust Iran, believe it is sponsoring militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and think a deal will strengthen Iran to the detriment of Israel.

But the most compelling reason that so many elected officials will oppose the deal is the power of lobby groups and think tanks, backed by hawkish billionaires who are determined to quash a deal they see as bad for Israel.

Little known to the public, here are some of the groups:

(UANI): Founded in 2008, UANI boasts a bipartisan powerhouse advisory board of former politicians, intelligence officials and policy experts. Co-founders Richard Holbrooke and Dennis Ross, and its president Gary Samore, have all worked in Barack Obamaā€™s White House.ĢżIn June, UANI announced a multimillion-dollar television, print, radio and digital campaign with the message that ā€œAmerica Canā€™t Trust Iran, Concessions have gone too far.ā€ Mark Wallace, UANIā€™s chairman and George Bushā€™s US ambassador to the United Nations, said: ā€œWe have a multi-million-dollar budget and we are in it for the long haul. Money continues to pour in.ā€

: Founded in 2011 by pollsters John McLaughlin and Pat Cadell, it is linked to right-wing pro-Israel factions in the US and abroad. The Advisory Board includes Col. Richard Kemp, who denounces the ā€œglobal conspiracy of propaganda aimed at the total de-legitimization of the state of Israelā€ and former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who insists that ā€œthe biggest threat to our national security is sitting in the White House.ā€

The group labels Iran ā€œthe worldā€™s largest sponsor of terrorismā€ and recently launched its own $1 million ad campaign against the nuclear deal. One ad features an American woman saying her father was killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) in Iraq, followed by a menacing voice claiming ā€œIran has single-handedly supplied thousands of IEDs that have killed or maimed Americaā€™s troops overseas. Today, negotiators are pushing for a nuclear deal with Iran that would give them access to nuclear weapons.ā€ It tells Americans to call their senators and ā€œspeak out against a bad deal.ā€

: Founded just after the 9/11 attacks, this neoconservative think tank pushes for an aggressive military response in the Middle East and also follows a hawkish pro-Israel line. It advocates for crippling sanctions on Iran, including medicines, as a way to cause domestic hardship and internal turmoil and its experts are leading advocates for a US military strike on Iran.

: This is a new group, also bipartisan, formed in 2015 by three former senators: Norm Coleman, Evan Bayh and Saxby Chambliss. In 2014, Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, became a registered lobbyist for the repressive Saudi regime, providing the Saudis with legal services on issues, including ā€œpolicy developments involving Iran.ā€

Its first campaign was a successful effort to pass the Corker-Menendez bill, which forces President Obama to submit the agreement to Congress before signing it. In March, the group launched a $1.4 million ad campaign aimed at Senator Schumer and other key senators with the message that the deal (which had not even been released) is ā€œgreat for Iran, and dangerous for us.ā€ One over-the-top, fear-mongering ad showed a suicide-bombing truck driver in an American city detonating a nuclear bomb, apparently on behalf of Iran. The message, albeit a crazy one, is that if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear weapon, it will attack the US.

: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the largest pro-Israel lobby group. AIPAC, too, has been pushing sanctions and opposing the nuclear deal. It claims that Iran is the worldā€™s leading state sponsor of terror and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capability. AIPAC spends millions of dollars lobbying, but its real financial clout lies with the pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) it is tied to.

In addition to lobbying against a deal in Washington, over the past several years AIPAC has also been promoting state-level bills mandating divestment of public funds from foreign companies doing business with Iran.

Dozens of states have passed such , and many are likely to stay in place even after a nuclear deal, complicating the federal sanctions relief that is a key element of the negotiations.

What is the source of the millions of dollars now being poured into the effort to squash the nuclear deal?

Most comes from a handful of super-wealthy individuals. Home Depot Founder Bernard Marcus gave over $10 million to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Other multimillion donors are hedge fund billionaire and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs board member Paul Singer, and Charles Bronfman of the Seagram liquor empire and board chair of Koor Industries, one of Israelā€™s largest investment holding companies.

The largest donor is Sheldon Adelson, a casino and business magnate who contributed almost $100 million to conservative candidates in the 2012 presidential campaign, outspending any other individual or organization. He publicly advocated for the Obama administration to bomb Iran. Peter Beinart, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, : ā€œEvery Republican politician knows that Adelson conditions his checks on their Iran vote.ā€

Congress has 30 days from the day the deal is introduced to vote in support or opposition (or 60 days if the negotiations are delayed). To block the deal, Congress needs a veto-proof majority, which is precisely what these groups and individuals are attempting to buy.

ā€œIā€™ve been around this town for about 30 years now and Iā€™ve never seen foreign policy debate that is being so profoundly affected by the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars in the American political system,ā€ said former six-term Congressman Jim Slattery.

Congress members face a dilemma: They fear a backlash by the billionaires if they vote for the deal, but most of their constituents support the deal. The pathetic irony is that with the democratic move of giving Congress a say in the Iran deal (instead of leaving the administration with the authority to seal the agreement), the billionaires have a better shot at drowning out the voices of the American people.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ģż/Ģż

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your Ģżis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aĢż.

The post Multimillion-Dollar Ad Campaigns Aim to Influence Congressional Votes appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

On March 9, 47 Republican senatorsĢż a letter to ,Ģżwarning that any agreement only signed by US President might not last any longer than his last day in office.

This intervention of the Senate in a foreign policy matter is not, as some observers are saying, ā€œunprecedented.ā€ Congress refused to ratify the treaty presented to it by President Woodrow Wilson in 1919, which involved joining the League of Nations (the predecessor of the United Nations). In the late 19^th century, as Arthur Schleslinger Jr. pointed out in a Foreign Affairs article in 1972, the Senate for 20 years declined to ratify any treaty at all, and contemporary observers became convinced that it would never do so again.

Of course, there is a difference between refusing to sign off on a presidentā€™s treaty and inserting the legislature into the negotiation directly, while it is going on.

President Obama objected, saying: ā€œI think itā€™s somewhat ironic to see some members of wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. Itā€™s an unusual coalition.ā€

And, of course, Obama is correct that the right-wing of the Republican Party has things in common with hard-liners in Iran.

1) Many Republicans in Congress oppose abortion even in case of rape or incest. As I observed inĢża classic ĢżSalon years ago, that puts the GOP right (exemplified by Sarah Palin) in the company of the clerical Guardianship Council in Iran:

ā€œPalinā€™s stance is even stricter than that of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2005, the legislature in Tehran attempted to amend the countryā€™s antiabortion statute to permit an abortion up to four months in case of a birth defect. The conservative clerical Guardianship Council, which functions as a sort of theocratic senate, however, rejected the change. Iranā€™s law on abortion is therefore virtually identical to the one that Palin would like to see imposed on American women, and the rationale in both cases is the same, a literalist religious impulse that resists any compromise with the realities of biology and of womenā€™s lives.ā€

2) Many Republicans in Congress say they do not believe in evolution. Actually in this regard they are closer to than to Iran. Evolutionary theory is taught in Iranian school textbooks. But the textbooksĢżcarefully discussing human evolution ā€” very likely out of fear that it would prompt a backlash from Shiite fundamentalists. Ironically, the sameĢż is made in Israeli schooling, for fear of the orthodox.

3) Both the GOP and Iranian hard-liners have a fascination with foreign military entanglements. Republicans in Congress mostly say that President Obama is at fault for withdrawing US troops from in December 2011, and that he should have kept a division in that country. (They ignore that the Iraqi parliament refused to allow the troops to remain, and that George W. Bush had failed to gain such an agreement.)

Iranian hard-liners also see a national interest in having troops in Iraq, and special operations forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have been detailed to stiffen the resolve of the Iraqi army and to coordinate with Shiite militias. Ironically, since President Obama sent 3,000 US troops back into Iraq as advisers and established a command, both the Republicans and the Iranian hard-liners have gotten their wish of forces stationed in Iraq. And ironically, the two are de facto allies in the current struggle against the Islamic State, though neither side would admit it.

4) Many congressional RepublicansĢżare strong of nuclear energy and dismiss environmental concerns about nuclear waste.ĢżThe hard-liners in Iran have insisted on expanding Iranā€™s system of civilian nuclear reactors and enriching fuel for them in-country. Some ten reactors are now planned.

5) Both the US GOP and the Iranian hard-liners are opposed to the P5+1 (permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany) negotiations over Iranā€™s enrichment program. The Republicans want the unrealistic goal of no enrichment by Iran. The Iran hard-liners want enrichment without international restraints, though they say they do not want a nuclear weapon. Rather, they are functioning as nationalists, insisting that Iran is an independent country and has every right to do what South Korea and Japan do every day.

Like the GOP hard-liners, the Iran hard-liners have tried on several occasions to derail the negotiations. Last fall, they President Hassan Rouhani ofĢżbeing too accommodating of the ā€œAmerican wolf,ā€ saying he needed to speak to Washington ā€œfrom a position of strength.ā€ Friday prayer leaders Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad ZarifĢżfor taking a walk in Vienna with US Secretary of State John Kerry, saying he was way too friendly with an officialĢżof a country that backed Iraqā€™s Saddam Hussein in his eight-year aggressive war on Iran in the 1980s.

So, President Obama is perfectly right: The GOP and Iranian hard-liners have a great deal in common. Only, the Iran hard-liners donā€™t deny global warming.

*[This article was originally published on Juan Coleā€™s , Informed Comment.]

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a or you could choose to be a .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /

The post Republicans and Iranians Have More in Common Than You Think appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

When looked out over the joint session of Congress that had assembled to hear him speak on March 3, the Israeli prime minister almost caught a glimpse of something unusual: empty seats.

That wouldā€™ve been a rarity in Washington DC, where bipartisan support for the Israeli government runs deep. Just a few years ago, Netanyahu packed the house for a controversial  on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. This time, nearly 60 Democrats boycotted the address.

That left Republicans scrambling to fill the with staffers and allies. They even awarded a plum front-row spot to GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson.

What changed?

Netanyahu had come to harangue lawmakers about the ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and a group of countries led by the . The talks are aimed at restricting ā€™s nuclear enrichment activities and allowing international inspections of its nuclear facilities.  In exchange, negotiators are offering Tehran relief from sanctions that have badly damaged its economy.

Win-win, right? Well, thatā€™s not how Netanyahu sees it.

The hawkish prime minister, who happens to be facing an election very soon, thundered to Congress that the proposed deal would ā€œā€ that Iran develops a nuclear bomb. He even alluded to the Holocaust, implying that a deal with Iran would threaten Israelā€™s survival.

The Democrats who skipped the speech mostly hemmed and hawed about procedural matters. They complained that House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, had violated protocol by not consulting US President before inviting a foreign leader to speak.

A few others fretted that Boehner was turning Israel into a partisan issue by forcing lawmakers to choose between Netanyahu and Obama ā€” who, just last January, threatened to  any legislation designed to sabotage the negotiations.

Obama himself skipped the speech too, citing a policy not to meet with foreign leaders so close to their own elections. US Vice President Joe Biden drummed up a scheduling conflict in Guatemala. Maybe theyā€™re all just too polite to mention the best reason for skipping: Netanyahu is simply wrong about Iran.

For one thing, thereā€™s nothing inevitable about Iran developing a nuclear weapon. As far back as , Netanyahu predicted that Iran could have a bomb within three years. Nearly 25 years later, Israel itself remains the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East.

That didnā€™t stop Netanyahu from the same snake oil about Iraq in 2002. The Israeli parliamentarian told Congress there was ā€œno question whatsoeverā€ that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.

ā€œI guarantee you,ā€ Netanyahu promised, that toppling the Iraqi leader ā€œwill have enormous positive reverberations on the region.ā€

And this is the guy Congress is calling in on Iran?

US intelligence agencies concluded back in 2007 that Iran had long since  any attempts to weaponize its nuclear program. The surest way to keep it that way is to cut a deal. If Iran feels secure in its relations with Washington ā€” and remember, the United States has invaded countries to both Iranā€™s east and west in recent years ā€” then itā€™s less likely to contemplate developing a nuclear deterrent in the future.

A successful agreement could bring a measure of transparency to Iranā€™s enrichment program, ensuring that Tehran is telling the truth when it says that itā€™s only interested in nuclear power. It could also ā€” maybe ā€” bring about an end to the 36-year estrangement between Iran and the United States.

We tried it Bibiā€™s way in Iraq. The next time he drops by Congress to offer more advice, let him tell it to a few more empty seats.

*[This article was originally published at  and .

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a or you could choose to be a .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļ’s editorial policy.

The post When Bibi Came to Town appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The demeanor of Israeli Prime Minister during his speech to a joint session of Congress was that of a peevish child about to throw his teddy for not getting his way on . His usual rhetoric, replete with the customary comparisons to Nazi Germany have become a tedious metaphor, no more clever than his cautionary warnings over ā€œbetting the security of the world.ā€ The same security, which Israel is in the process of gambling with by undermining our nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Yet even among the standing ovations and raucous applause, politicians who are so quick to bemoan the loss of leadership seemed elated that a country like will, once again, commandeer our foreign policy ā€” the best bit of foreign policy to come out of the Middle East in a very long time.

Has there ever been a better moment to evaluate what the relationship with Israel really means for the ? Clearly there is no longer a unity of opinion among politicians; more than 50 lawmakers were conspicuously absent from the prime ministerā€™s speech on March 3. The obsessive fixation with Israel continues to impede our foreign policy interests abroad, and most, I believe, would be hard pressed to articulate how this relationship has remained mutually beneficial. As opposed to a coherent regional strategy that might actually advance the objectives of the United States, our relationship has devolved along the lines of partisan politics and special interests.

Bibiā€™s Agenda

Before I attempt to address some of the more dubious claims made by Netanyahu, let me first disclose that I have lived and worked in the for close to seven years ā€” most of them in Jordan and Iraq. During this time, I realized just how warped my preconceived notions about the Middle East had become. This was a natural consequence of coming of age in Washington DC after the events of September 11, 2001, as well as watching the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq unfold in real-time.

The reason I bring this up is because a politician like Netanyahu is uniquely adept at exploiting these preconceived notions. Whether it be about Iran, multiple wars in or the expansion of against international law, he has played to the American fear of the Muslim world with a sense of calculated precision. This kind of incessant fear mongering is one of the reasons why we have not been able to reconcile our national interests with our strategic objectives in the Middle East. And it is time that we realize the agenda of Israel, under Netanyahu, is no longer compatible with the long-term interests of the United States.

For example, trying to link the or to Iran is beyond ridiculous. Forget about the obvious sectarian incompatibility of one being Sunni, the other Shiite, these kinds of comparisons have the ability to do irreparable damage. Especially as our government seeks authorization for war against the Islamic State ā€” a war that will inevitably see American soldiers in close proximity with Iranian advisors.

Binyamin Netanyahu and John Boehner / Flickr

It is equally as dangerous to make synonymous a legitimate state actor, such as Iran, with a nihilistic non-state actor, such as the Islamic State. This portrays the world in unambiguous terms, which reduces the complexity of the modern Middle East to a simplistic narrative that only Israel has authority over. Nothing can be more damaging for our long-term interests than to view the world with this level of naivety.

While it is true that Iran projects its influence throughout the Middle East via proxy groups and partisan networks, it is also true that every country in the region acts in a similar manner ā€” defending their own self-interests. This isnā€™t ā€œgobbling up countriesā€ or a ā€œvoracious appetite for aggression.ā€ This is international relations 101.

By no means is this an attempt to vindicate the actions of any one country; it is only an observation on how influence is projected in a region that is experiencing prolonged instability. Claiming that Iran is the bedrock of global terrorism only diverts attention away from the very real threats posed by groups such as the Islamic State. Groups that were initially supported by countries like , and Kuwait.

We should also keep in mind that the face of modern terrorism is the kind of ā€œlone wolfā€ activity recently conducted in , , and . These individuals were not radicalized by Iran, but by groups who are adherents of ideologies that originate from the Gulf states. Attempting to conflate these threats is a lousy political tactic, one that seems desperate, when 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Saudi, not Iranian.

There is also something deeply troubling about blindly accepting the foreign policy objectives from the one nuclear power in the Middle East, which refuses to admit it has nuclear weapons. Nor has Israel ever signed the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which Iran has. Coupled against recently leaked from Mossad, which claimed ā€œIran at this stage is not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons,ā€ Israel starts to look suspiciously like a state that is ā€œrefusing to come clean.ā€

We should also remain deeply skeptical of a country that continues to flaunt its democratic credentials, while at the same time running the largest open air prison in the world: Gaza. Talks of ā€œcherishing freedom and offering hopeā€ are entirely hypocritical and without merit for a country that not only consistently violates the rights of Palestinians, but is also heading in the direction of state apartheid. Our politicians should not be providing standing ovations when Netanyahu rallies around the concept of ā€œthe one and only Jewish state.ā€ No, they should be aghast that this justification is being used to marginalize 20% of Israelā€™s Arab population.

Furthermore, using the ā€œIslamic Republicā€ (of Iran) as a pejorative, while at the same time flaunting the righteousness of a ā€œJewish State,ā€ is every bit as divisive as the kind of sectarianism that has eroded security throughout the Middle East. These two concepts are hardly indistinguishable from one another. Regardless, we should be supporting secular states that are committed to progressive diplomacy, and not cheering on a country that is forcing us to act under the pretenses that Iran is going ā€œto deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including every part of the United States.ā€

Finally, we are not alone in these negotiations. We must recognize that our other allies and partners in the group (Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) have also staked their foreign policy objectives on the success of these negotiations. Without these talks, Iran really has no incentive to not reach nuclear breakout. The only other options are military, and given our previous lack of success in the Middle East, this course of actions remains highly unadvisable.

Withdrawing our support for negotiations, under pressure from Israel, would only risk further alienating the international community at such a critical time when we have the ability to affect real change. Is the political career of Binyamin Netanyahu really worth this? Because, this is ultimately what his speech was really about ā€” election campaigning ā€” not the future of Israel or our security in the United States.

Purposefully misleading Congress, while at the same time advocating for steps that would damage, if not collapse, our foreign policy is incredulous. This should not only outrage the American public, but permanently put our relationship with Israel on notice. The time has come for Israel to be removed from our politics.

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a or you could choose to be a .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / / /

The post It is Time to Put Israel On Notice appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.