Campaign Finance Reform, and Democracy in Action

As American's, we usually see democracy as an absolutely positive thing. We all tend to agree that one of the most important aspects of our society is its democratic nature, and we believe that other countries should become more democratic because that will help them to advance to a new and wonderful world. We also believe that as other countries become more democratic, the world will become a safer place.

Well we are not doing a good job of handling our own democracy, and the democratic experience of some other countries is not providing us the safety we would have expected.

Let me explain.

In the United States, we have mishandled our democracy terribly. The idea of democracy is that each individual has an equal say in how the country is run. In the United States this is the fiction but not the reality. In truth, we all do get a minor say during the elections, however the real power and influence is money. Politicians in America need money, and lots of it. In order to get elected it costs boatloads of money. So in order to get that money they sell their souls. Ok, it isn't quite that dramatic, but they do have to spend an inordinate amount of time pandering and begging for money. The impact of this is that they spend less time actually governing, and more time on their knees looking for handouts. In order to get elected, you need lots of money. In order to get lots of money, you have to get it from rich people (or be rich yourself). In order to get it from rich people, you have to give them a promise (or at least the illusion of a promise) that you will give them something in return... usually policies and government contracts that they want.

Recently in the U.S. we have seen the power that money has on politicians through the incredible corruption unveiled through the recent Republican financing scandals.

It is really pretty simple. People only give money to politicians because they hope that the politician will govern in a way that benefits them. Since most of the money belongs to rich people (funny that) most of the money given to politicians supports policies that support the wealthy. There are some obvious exceptions, like when thousands of poorer people give small amounts to a politician, but the problem is that it is much harder to get thousands of the poor to part with a small amount of money, than it is to get one rich person to give up a larger portion of money.

So we end up with a system where politicians don't necessarily have to be good at governing, they really just have to be good at fund raising. And to be good at fund raising, they have to advocate policies that support those giving the money.

What a joke, and what a corrupt system.

What we really need to do is have full public funding of elections, and outright ban ANY money given to politicians, labeling it as it really is, a bribe. Think about that for a second. If we take money out of the equation, then the politicians will not see success by how good a fund raiser they are, but instead by how well they serve the interests of the voters as a whole. This would cause a dramatic change in the sorts of policies and laws that are passed in Congress, and will improve our situation to no end.

Now will that happen? Of course not, every politician in power today got there because of their excellent grasp of the current process. They are good fund raisers, and so it is in their benefit to maintain the status quo. Without some incredibly dramatic revolution, this will never change.

Now to democracy's surprises overseas. Bush has been telling us that the spread of democracy in the middle east will lead to open and free societies that will be safer for us. This actually seems to make sense; it is a simplistic argument, but the basic idea seems sound. However the reality on the ground is very different. We have seen three recent elections in the middle east that have gone counter to our expectations.

The first is the recent election victory of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has called for the destruction of Israel. The United States pushed hard for this election, and then when it looked like Hamas might do reasonably well in the election, they clandestinely supported the Fatah party to try and help them to victory. However Fatah failed dismally, and Hamas has taken power. So here we have a situation where democracy has lead to a breakdown in the peace process, and most likely an amazing increase in the volatility of the middle east. Israel has already said they will not negotiate with Hamas, and unless Hamas repudiates their stated goal of the destruction of Israel, then I can't see how they will do anything but increase the danger in the area.

The next election was the election of Iran's new President Ahmadinejad. He has moved Iran away from reforms, and closer to the closed Islamic society of the past. He has also declared that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth, and is very likely pursuing nuclear weapons. He is a destabilizing force in the middle east, and will also cause us no end of trouble. He was also democratically elected.

Thirdly is the election in Iraq. It is now clear that the major victors in the Iraqi elections were the Islamic fundamentalist religious parties with ties to Iran. Those are the people who will now be leading the country. The secular Shiites that were supported in the election by the U.S. lost dismally. The Iraqi people voted almost universally on ethnic and religious lines, and the result was that they have chosen for themselves quite possibly the American's least favorite leaders. These are men who will lead Iraq towards an Iranian style theocracy, and will likely reduce the rights of women, increase the impact of Islamic law in society, and basically move the country away from the freedoms that we would expect.

Obviously democracy does not always give us the outcome we as Americans might hope for. The funny thing about democracy is that it is not pro-American, it is simply pro voter. And if the voters in other countries don't like the U.S., you can be guaranteed that their governments will not be pro-U.S. either. This of course leads us to the difficult situation where we have to start considering whether our support of the principle of democracy is strong enough to allow the further spread of anti-American sentiment and government policies throughout the world. This is a tough test for America to have to go through, and it will be interesting to see how we do.

I guess it really depends on what the rich in America want.

One final note, the Bush Administration always seems to be surprised that people in the middle east tend to vote for religious politicians. Why they are surprised is beyond me, as that tactic is a central pillar of Bush's own electoral strategy. Why he thinks that Muslems will be likely to vote for secularists while his own strategy is appealing to the religious insticts of his constituents is beyond me. The religious angle has been a big winner for him, so why not in the middle east?

Iran. We are in trouble now.

Back before the war in Iraq, one of my many concerns about attacking Iraq was that Iraq itself was not a threat to us in the same way the North Korea or Iran were. It seemed strange to me that we would consider invading Iraq, while we pretty much ignored the threat from Iran and North Korea. Now at the time, we all suspected that Iraq had some kind of WMD program, but even so, it didn't seem that they were as great a threat to us as the others.

Soon after the war began, and it became clear that Iraq didn't have any WMD, the distinction became even clearer. North Korea actually developed nuclear weapons, and demonstrated that they have long range missile capabilities. This happened without any focus or effort to stop them from the Bush Administration. Iran also clearly progressed in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and also armed itself with long range missiles, likely imported from North Korea. Of Bush's Axis of Evil, Iraq was truly the least threat to us and our interests, yet that is the one Bush was determined to spend our strength and means attacking.

In the case of Iran, we pretty much ignored the growing threat, and really simply abrogated all responsibility to the Europeans. We we were busy in Iraq, and had no time for Iran. Of course the result of this inattention is that Iran now has further advanced its nuclear research, it has begun enriching uranium again, and there is little to nothing we can do about it.

Why is there nothing we can do? Because Iran knows that we will not do anything drastic, simply because we can't. Our military might is tied up in Iraq, and while we could participate in targeted strikes, we can't even project the threat of a full invasion. It is simply not possible. Add in the fact that the new democratically elected leader of Iran has called for Israel's destruction, and will soon have the means available to him to do that, and things get really scary. While many would claim that the threat of mutually assured destruction might deter him, as it did the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the cold war, there is ample evidence that his religious convictions will not allow him to be deterred. I hate to speak in generalities, but this is a religion which inspires many of the most radical of its adherents to give their life as suicide bombers, so I am not hopeful that the threat of self destruction is much of a deterrence for the radicals who lead Iran.

So what do we do? I honestly don't know, but our options would have been much broader if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Israel has now indicated that it will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, (and rightly so based on Iran's rhetoric) and there are indications that they will strike any nuclear facilities if it looks like the Iranians are getting close. The U.S. will likely be implicated as complicit in any attack, since the attacks would obviously have to travel across U.S. occupied Iraq. The last thing we want to is to get dragged in to a shooting war between these two states, but we honestly might not have much of a choice. Israel (as much as I criticize them for their actions with the Palestinians) have a right to life and existence, and we should defend any nation that is being threatened with annihilation. A war with the U.S. and Israel against Iran though will be disastrous, in that it will further cement the Muslim misconception that Americans hate Islam and Muslims. More suicide bombers will appear, more attacks will occur, and we will simply dig ourselves deeper into the hole we are currently in.

Obviously it is not good to criticize without offering an alternative solution, but unfortunately I can't see any good options. Iran says they are only seeking nuclear technology for energy purposes, but the Russians offered them very cheap nuclear fuel and they turned it down. The only real reason for that rejection is that they really want the ability themselves. They say they need the energy, but even if we offered to give them for free all the energy (in gas, fuel or electricity, whatever) they need, I don't think it is likely they would turn back. It seems increasingly obvious that they desire weapons, and are in a unique short term position to be able to develop them before the U.S. can extricate itself from the burden of occupying Iraq.

Finally, I would like to address the hypocrisy of the U.S. and Israel, in that both of us have nuclear weapons, however we don't trust anyone else with them. Bush has even restarted long-dormant research into new nuclear weapons. This is indeed a problem, as we have no moral right to tell anyone else that they can't have these weapons. However I have to admit (even with people like Bush and Sharon in charge) that I trust the U.S. with these weapons more than the Iranians. Neither the U.S. or the Israelis have a leader who is calling for the utter destruction of another country, not the least Iran.

Solving this problem is going to take a master of diplomacy, a deft hand, and an extremely creative and nimble mind. Unfortunately instead we have a President who has only shown his diplomatic ineptitude, his heavy handed style, and his incredibly incurious and stubborn mind. We are in trouble.

Have we really come to this?

On Friday of last week, the United States apparently used missile laden drones to attack homes in a village near the Afghan border in Pakistan. They were after Al-Zawahri, the purported "number 2" in the Al Qaida hierarchy. The only problem was he wasn't there, and we killed dozens of civilians in a Pakistani village, including innocent women and children.

How did we come to this?

First, Pakistan is an allied state, however they did not countenance the attack! Pakistan has roundly condemned the attack, and they have asserted that they did not give permission, and they were not informed before the attack took place. The United States military thought they had the "number 2" Al Qaida leader in their sights, and it didn't matter where he was, we were going to attack. What an amazing lack of respect for the sovereignty of others.

Second, when did we decide it is ok to destroy a village, killing innocents, to try and get one man? Can you imagine police in the U.S. blowing up an apartment building full of people to try and get a mass murderer? Of course not. That would be roundly condemned. Then why is it ok to do the same thing in Pakistan? Obviously we value Pakistani life less than we do American life, or we wouldn't even think for a minute that this is a valid approach. Let me state this clearly... It is NOT appropriate ever to kill dozens of innocents to get one man.

Thirdly, it is just stupid! We are trying to win this "war on terror", and a major front in that war is the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. I can't think of a better way to turn more Muslims into American Haters, than by showing our complete disregard for Muslim life in this way. Our enemies claim we are against every Muslim, not just the terrorists. They claim that we are trying to destroy Islam. They claim that we have no regard for Muslim life. Well this attack does nothing to dispel those claims, and only strengthens our enemy's appeal. What a stupid thing to do.

Pakistan is rapidly turning against us, and our reputation, already shaky, is getting a huge hit from this stupid maneuver. Worst of all, we didn't even get the guy we were targeting. All we did was kill mothers, wives, children and fathers. All innocent. President Bush has brought us to this point, where actions like this are done in our name. I am ashamed.

The absolutely wrong question

MSNBC this morning has a Washington Post Article that talks about the domestic spying controversy of the Bush Administration. Most of you will understand this issue by now, that the Bush Administration broke Federal law by going around congressionally mandated courts for reviewing any domestic spying. Instead they decided to simply spy on American Citizens without any oversight.

The article itself is scary, in that it seems to show that many American's are ambivalent or even supportive of the President's move. This seems to me to only really be possible if the majority of Americans are simply misinformed about this issue.

The latter does seem to be the case, and the accompanying poll (obviously non-scientific) is a great example of this. The poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10802208/) totally misses the mark on this issue.

It asks, "Do you support domestic spying in light of today's threat of terrorism?" That is it, that simple question. And I have to ask, what the hell does this have to do with the current issue? I understand that it is tangentially related, but the question isn't whether or not the President can spy on Americans on American soil. That is legal and appropriate, under congressional law, and provided it is done under judicial oversight. No-one is saying that there can be no spying on American citizens in America. The Congress passed the law stating that this can happen, and the Administration even has 3 days after starting a wire tap to comply with the law by seeking judicial oversight. There is a mechanism that provides for this eventuality, but the Bush Administration simply felt it could ignore the law.

So this poll is asking exactly the wrong question. The question should be, do you think that in light of today's threat of terrorism, the President is entitled to break the law while searching for terrorists?

The President broke the law. It is incontrovertible, and he admitted it. The only question is whether or not that is justified under the circumstances. However the main stream "Liberal" media is pandering to the President by helping to frame the debate in the terms the President would prefer. Instead we need to be addressing the issue of how the President seems to think he is above the law.

Judge Alito (in his confirmation hearings yesterday) stated clearly that he felt that NO person, no matter how high in the Government in the United States, is above the law. Unfortunately I bet he doesn't believe it, and the President also doesn't believe it. The media is only helping them in their power grab by portraying the issue in this way.

What's next for Bush, Assassinations?

I am going to make a statement which many will initially find inflammatory, ridiculous, and exaggerated. I would have agreed until yesterday, but once I started thinking about it, I could see no reason why it might not be true.

Bush is going to start assassinating terrorist suspects inside the United States.

There I said it. Sound crazy?

Well not too long ago I would have said that it was crazy to consider that our own government would sanction torture. However it is now abundantly clear that in the fight against terrorism, torture is no longer off limits. Why else would Cheney lobby against a ban on torture? Why else would we send prisoners to third countries for interrogations? We have lots of evidence of American's who have been charged and convicted for torture, and there is little evidence that the Bush administration sees any reason to stop these actions.

Not too long ago, I would have said that it was crazy that we would have ignored the Geneva Conventions. However the Bush Administration considers the Geneva Conventions quaint, and says they don't apply to the war on terror. So we now hold "enemy combatants" for as long as we want, with no access to the red cross, in any conditions we determine fit.

Not too long ago, I would have said that it was crazy that the U.S. would be running secret prisons with no oversite by anyone, where secret prisoners are secreted away, for secret interrogations, with no transparency whatsoever.

Not so long ago, I would have said that it was crazy that the U.S. would be secretly wiretapping American citizens, listening to their calls, and doing so without judicial oversite. However Bush himself has admitted to doing this, and claims he will continue to do so, even though it is non-constitutional, and breaks federal law.

Not so long ago, I would have said that it was crazy to imagine an American Citizen being arrested, and held without charge, without access to lawyers, and without any regular court review, for 3 or more years. However that is exactly what has happened to Jose Padilla.

So since the Bush Administration took power, we now have secret prisons, American's held without charges and without access to lawyers, U.S. sanctioned torture of suspects, secret illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens, and no respect for international conventions of war. What exactly is left? What is the only real next step?

Well it is to start killing suspects before they can do any damage. We already know that the Bush Administration deems that their highest duty is to protect Americans from terrorists, and that this trumps the Constitution, U.S. laws and International norms. They have already indicated they are willing to do anything to protect Americans even if it breaks the law. The only thing left for them to do is start the Assassinations.

Now this may seem extreme, and by God I hope it is, but they are already doing everything else, why is this so unthinkable? They claim that they didn't go to the secret courts for their secret wiretaps on American citizens, because they felt that it would be too much of a risk if the court denied their claims of need. They feel they cannot stand by and wait for judges to make decisions while they are trying to protect the American people. Well what is to say that they will be willing to wait for the courts if they feel that a suspect is getting ready to kill Americans. Wouldn't it be easier and safer just to take them out, avoid all the messy issues that come up with torturing and holding them without judicial review?

I hope I am wrong. But nothing this Administration has done to this point tells me that this is far fetched or irrational.