Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[mike777]

Rather depends who you ask, Ken. :) According to Republicans, all bad things are due to Obama and all good things are relics of his predecessor. It is good to try and look at things objectively rather than get caught up in political spin, even if that is rather difficult when almost all information sources are strongly politicised.

 

If you ask Democrats all good things are due to Obama and all bad things are due to Bush

 

You need to add this

 

Some say Regan was brilliant and ended the cold war...other say Dems were to get all honor and praise

[Winstonm]

okok after 8 years posters main point is do not blame Omaba

 

 

8 years blame bush

 

Obama is great

 

in fact your post gets an upvote

 

 

silly

 

Silly is a belief that a one dose cure-all of fairy magic is always the answer to every situation. For me, Obama was a big disappointment for his first 4 years - he listened and accepted his advisers advice too often. His last 3 years have been exceptional, working with a Congress bent on destroying any and all accomplishments he has made.

[Winstonm]

If you ask Democrats all good things are due to Obama and all bad things are due to Bush

 

You need to add this

 

Some say Regan was brilliant and ended the cold war...other say Dems were to get all honor and praise

 

I don't think I have ever heard anyone claim the Democrats ended the cold war. I have heard over and over how Reagan brought Russia to its knees; however, I have also read well-regarded sources that wrote that Russia brought itself to its knees, that it was already teetering when Reagan took office, and would have collapsed regardless of Reagan or any other Western politicians.

[kenberg]

Rather depends who you ask, Ken. :) According to Republicans, all bad things are due to Obama and all good things are relics of his predecessor. It is good to try and look at things objectively rather than get caught up in political spin, even if that is rather difficult when almost all information sources are strongly politicised.

 

I agree.My intention is to understand as best I can. As it happens, today's Washington Post has a fair amount of opinion on Syria. Here is a piece by David Ignatius

 

An excerpt, where he is referring to Kerry:

 

"What we're doing is testing [Russian and Iranian] seriousness," he said. "And if they're not serious, then there has to be consideration of a Plan B. . . . You can't just sit there."

 

Although Kerry wouldn't discuss specific military options in Syria, he did offer some broad outlines. The aim, he said, would be "to lead a coalition against [the Islamic State], and also to support the opposition against Assad." He said Obama has already directed the Pentagon and the intelligence community to move "harder and faster" against Islamic State extremists so that the terrorist group "is reined in and curbed and degraded and neutralized as fast as possible."

 

Wait! I thought that leading a coalition against ISIS and supporting opposition to Assad was plan A. Is plan B to keep doing plan A? At any rate, the entire article is interesting.

 

The WP has an editorial

 

The headline is "Mr..Obama stands by silently as Russia continues its onslaught on Syria. "

 

Neither the WP nor Mr. Ignatius are usually thought of as right wing nuts. I am unaware of whether they drool.

 

There was a further opinion piece in the Post. I don't know anything about the authors.

 

At any rate, the idea that Obama is not doing so well in foreign policy does not seem to be some far out view held only by paid supporters of the Republican Party.

 

What strikes me is that Obama seems to be perpetually surprised by events. Recent news stories have indicated (maybe incorrectly but again I think by fairly unbiased reporters) that Russian actions may well be very effective in giving Assad the opportunity to destroy U.S. supported Syrian rebels. Maybe this won't come about, but it was obviously the Russian intention and they seem to be having some success with it.

 

I am neither an advocate for Obama nor a determined critic of Obama. I did vote for him and I wish him the best. But as I look at how things are going, I don't think he is doing all that well in foreign policy areas where he has announced U.S. intentions to influence results.

 

One purpose of such an assessment is to try to see how we might do better in the future.

[Winstonm]

I agree.My intention is to understand as best I can. As it happens, today's Washington Post has a fair amount of opinion on Syria. Here is a piece by David Ignatius

 

An excerpt, where he is referring to Kerry:

 

 

Wait! I thought that leading a coalition against ISIS and supporting opposition to Assad was plan A. Is plan B to keep doing plan A? At any rate, the entire article is interesting.

 

The WP has an editorial

 

The headline is "Mr..Obama stands by silently as Russia continues its onslaught on Syria. "

 

Neither the WP nor Mr. Ignatius are usually thought of as right wing nuts. I am unaware of whether they drool.

 

There was a further opinion piece in the Post. I don't know anything about the authors.

 

At any rate, the idea that Obama is not doing so well in foreign policy does not seem to be some far out view held only by paid supporters of the Republican Party.

 

What strikes me is that Obama seems to be perpetually surprised by events. Recent news stories have indicated (maybe incorrectly but again I think by fairly unbiased reporters) that Russian actions may well be very effective in giving Assad the opportunity to destroy U.S. supported Syrian rebels. Maybe this won't come about, but it was obviously the Russian intention and they seem to be having some success with it.

 

I am neither an advocate for Obama nor a determined critic of Obama. I did vote for him and I wish him the best. But as I look at how things are going, I don't think he is doing all that well in foreign policy areas where he has announced U.S. intentions to influence results.

 

One purpose of such an assessment is to try to see how we might do better in the future.

 

That the WP editorial page calls for more war is not a surprise:

 

To read the Washington Post’s op-ed page at the end of this summer is to have a distinct sense of déjà vu. Just like this time last year, Post pundits gnash their teeth and warn us that Obama’s foreign policy is broken and the U.S.’s reputation around the world is shot, but that the best way to definitely fix both is for our country to start bombing Syria.

 

Of course, in 2013, the target of our Tomahawks was to be elements of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s regime. After Assad’s use of chemical weapons last August, in the midst of that country’s intractable civil war, the Post’s editorial board and plethora of its op-ed columnists—both liberal and conservative—came out strongly in favor of a military strike as a response. When Obama took a “go slow” approach that rejected airstrikes and instead focused on a diplomatic effort to rid Assad of his WMDs, the paper was unsparing in its criticism. The Post—along with much of the Beltway—bemoaned that Obama’s “credibility”—along with our country’s—was sunk.

 

That the Post’s op-ed page would prove a friendly redoubt for war hawks aggressively pushing for US military action around the world is no surprise. After all, the paper’s editorial board was a big cheerleader, and then staunch defender of, the US invasion of Iraq. (As far as contrite apologizer for, not so much.) It’s safe to say that it channels the neocon proclivities of the Beltway conventional wisdom like no other publication. If there’s a “serious” case for war to be made, in other words, the Post will take up the challenge.

[barmar]

Anyone think Obama really lived up to the promise of his Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people"?

[billw55]

Anyone think Obama really lived up to the promise of his Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people"?

Good question. I tend to think that reestablishing diplomacy with Iran is no small achievement. Whether that "lives up to the promise of his Nobel Peace Prize" is more difficult to say.

[PassedOut]

Anyone think Obama really lived up to the promise of his Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people"?

That award was premature at best. I took it to be aspirational after the disastrous years before.

 

I don't judge foreign policy solely on the basis of whether or not bad things happen. There are always other actors and other interests. No country can completely control what others do--let alone individual actors within those countries--no matter how many weapons and soldiers one's country produces.

 

What a country can do is to make sure that it's own foreign policy is responsible and constructive and as effective as possible. That's the standard to use.

 

In bridge, taking the right line sometimes fails when an inferior line would have succeeded. And sometimes a fine player misses an inference. But acting thoughtfully on the best information available is the way, and measure, of success.

[Winstonm]

Anyone think Obama really lived up to the promise of his Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people"?

 

I didn't think so at first but upon reflection it cannot have been easy or simple to turn off the Bush/Cheney torture machine, avoid further military misadventures, normalize relations with Cuba, and build a bit of trust between the U.S. and Iran, all the while fending off Netanyahu's vitriol and contempt without sucker punching him for going around the President's back to plead his case to the Republican Congress.

[hrothgar]

Anyone think Obama really lived up to the promise of his Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people"?

 

Obama's Nobel Prize was for not being George Bush. He succeeded admirably.

 

Personally, I hoped for more from Obama. With this said and done, I think that he's the best President I've seen in my lifetime, with the possible exception of LBJ.

[kenberg]

I do not hold Obama responsible for him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps the worst feature of that decision is that, in practice, it makes it impossible to consider him for it now, or next year, or whenever. If he were to receive the Prize next year, or the year after, I might disagree but at least I could view it as a rational action.

 

The committee was making a political statement, nothing else. I tire of seeing awards that are intended to honor the accomplishment of the recipient being used to express the social/political views of the awarding committee.

 

Anyway, unless two Nobel Peace Prizes are to be given to the same person, we will never know if a Nobel Prize Committee, meeting next year, would judge his accomplishments as worthy of this award. Too bad.

[Al_U_Card]

Part of the "Build them up to knock them down (when they cease to be useful)" strategy. Syria, like Iraq and Iran got the "benefit" of CIA intervention with the subsequent dictatorial barbarism we have come to expect from the wielders of absolute power and ruthless control.

When you disturb the hive, honey vs stings is the comparator. With people and their rights to self-determination, "physician heal thyself" might better serve the interests of all concerned.

[PassedOut]

I do not hold Obama responsible for him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps the worst feature of that decision is that, in practice, it makes it impossible to consider him for it now, or next year, or whenever. If he were to receive the Prize next year, or the year after, I might disagree but at least I could view it as a rational action.

 

The committee was making a political statement, nothing else. I tire of seeing awards that are intended to honor the accomplishment of the recipient being used to express the social/political views of the awarding committee.

 

Anyway, unless two Nobel Peace Prizes are to be given to the same person, we will never know if a Nobel Prize Committee, meeting next year, would judge his accomplishments as worthy of this award. Too bad.

This made me curious about what people (not organizations) might have won two Nobel prizes, and I found these four: John Bardeen, Marie Curie, Linus Pauling, and Frederick Sanger. Only one of the prizes (Pauling, 1962) was the Peace prize.

[Zelandakh]

Only one of the prizes (Pauling, 1962) was the Peace prize.

And only 2 people have won a Nobel Prize twice in the same category. Noone has so far been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize twice.

[Phil]

Good question. I tend to think that reestablishing diplomacy with Iran is no small achievement. Whether that "lives up to the promise of his Nobel Peace Prize" is more difficult to say.

 

Wasn't this the peace prize he received after being in office for only a few months?

 

Maybe it was given to him in advance.

[y66]

Krugman's take on Kasich a day before the primary:

 

So what will happen in NH tomorrow? I have no idea. We must dispel with this notion that anyone has the slightest idea what they are doing. However, there seems to be a real possibility for one thing that seemed unlikely before the RubiOS bug manifested itself: that John Kasich will come in second on the Republican side.

 

If he does, there will be an outpouring of praise from self-proclaimed centrists, who will declare Kasich the sensible, responsible Republican of their dreams. So let me attempt what will surely be a futile preemptive strike, and note that on economic policy — which sort of matters — Kasich is terrible, arguably worse than the rest of the GOP field.

 

It’s not just his balanced-budget fetishism, which would be disastrous in an economic crisis. He’s also a hard-money man.

 

Ted Cruz has gotten some scrutiny, although not enough, for his goldbuggism. But Kasich, when asked why wages have stagnated, gave as his number one reason “because the Federal Reserve kept interest rates so low” — because this diverted investment into stocks, or something. No, it doesn’t make any sense — but it tells you that he is viscerally opposed to monetary as well as fiscal stimulus in the face of high unemployment.

 

So no, Kasich isn’t sensible. He’s just off the wall in ways that differ in some ways from the GOP mainstream. If he’d been president in 2009-10, we’d have had a full replay of the Great Depression.

 

Krugman is also quite worried about the bond market.

 

Somebody please wake me up.

[Al_U_Card]

Casino capitalism. Central banks accept monetary policy designed by and for bankers and the stability of banks. John Q. is just an inconvenient mover of money.

[kenberg]

Krugman's take on Kasich a day before the primary:

 

 

 

Krugman is also quite worried about the bond market.

 

Somebody please wake me up.

 

 

On the side of the bond market link there is a link to a 1982 NYT article about Sanders. It's a hoot.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/28/us/it-s-new-politics-vs-old-in-vermont-as-mayor-strives-to-oust-alderman.html

[billw55]

Wasn't this the peace prize he received after being in office for only a few months?

 

Maybe it was given to him in advance.

I would say that your question was answered in advance:

 

The committee was making a political statement, nothing else. I tire of seeing awards that are intended to honor the accomplishment of the recipient being used to express the social/political views of the awarding committee.

Obama's Nobel Prize was for not being George Bush.

[barmar]

Wasn't this the peace prize he received after being in office for only a few months?

 

Maybe it was given to him in advance.

He was nominated after just 2 months in office, and awarded 6 months later. When they made the award, the Nobel Committee claimed that it wasn't just based on hope. But lots of people didn't believe them, and obviously still don't.

 

I think it's not uncommon to give the award to people who represent a movement, even if they haven't actually achieved much yet. It serves to raise awareness to the issue they're fighting for. An example is Malala Yousafzai -- she was already outspoken about female education in the third world, but I think it's likely that the prize raised the profile of her movement significantly.

 

I was just looking at the history of Peace Prize winners. I feel bad about how few of them I actually recognize the names of. But I also noticed the 1994 prize for Arafat/Rabin/Peres, for their efforts to create peace between Israel and Palestinians (the Oslo Accords). How's that peace process working out now?

[kenberg]

He was nominated after just 2 months in office, and awarded 6 months later. When they made the award, the Nobel Committee claimed that it wasn't just based on hope. But lots of people didn't believe them, and obviously still don't.

 

I think it's not uncommon to give the award to people who represent a movement, even if they haven't actually achieved much yet. It serves to raise awareness to the issue they're fighting for. An example is Malala Yousafzai -- she was already outspoken about female education in the third world, but I think it's likely that the prize raised the profile of her movement significantly.

 

I was just looking at the history of Peace Prize winners. I feel bad about how few of them I actually recognize the names of. But I also noticed the 1994 prize for Arafat/Rabin/Peres, for their efforts to create peace between Israel and Palestinians (the Oslo Accords). How's that peace process working out now?

 

 

For Malala Yousafzai I think we need an award for being an extraordinary person. A truly fine person. An inspirational person. Peace Prize does not exactly cover that ground but, apologetically, it is the best we can do.

 

With Arafat/Rabin/Peres, peace is clearly the issue. The accords were of course unsuccessful and I do think that is relevant as to how deserving of the prize they are. The fact that it hasn't worked out is not disqualifying, the quality of the effort is relevant, the inherent difficulty of the problem is relevant, but how something works out in practice counts as well.

[Al_U_Card]

One of Canada's finest sons.

 

 

Father of the United Nations Forces

In 1956, Great Britain, France and Israel launched an attack on Egypt aimed at removing President Nasser. The United States had not been informed, and the Soviet Union threatened to use atomic weapons against the assailants. The "Suez Crisis" found its solution when the President of the United Nations General Assembly, the Canadian Lester Pearson, won support for sending a United Nations Emergency Force to the region to separate the warring parties. This gained him the Peace Prize for 1957.

 

Pearson was a historian. In the inter-war years he was employed in Canada's Department of External Affairs. He was sent to Europe, and witnessed both the breakdown of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II. During the war he was stationed in Washington, where he worked on preparations for the founding of the United Nations. Many wanted him to be the first Secretary-General, but the Soviet Union was opposed. Instead, Pearson headed the UN committee that recommended the division of Palestine into a Jewish part and an Arab part.

 

So the (judicial) use of force is worthy of the PEACE prize....

[y66]

Is there a Nobel Prize for threadjacking?

[kenberg]

It's an error to make too much of any short portion of one debate, but the following caught my attention last night. The transcript is from the WP

 

 

IFILL: Let me turn this on its head, because when we talk about race in this country, we always talk about African-Americans, people of color. I want to talk about white people, OK?

 

SANDERS: White people?

 

IFILL: I know. (LAUGHTER)

 

So many people will be surprised to find out that we are sitting in one of the most racially polarized metropolitan areas in the country. By the middle of this century, the nation is going to be majority nonwhite. Our public schools are already there. If working- class, white Americans are about to be outnumbered, are already underemployed in many cases, and one study found they are dying sooner, don't they have a reason to be resentful, Senator -- Secretary Clinton?

 

 

 

 

Some stipulations. Sanders is quick-witted and I think "White people?" was intended humorously. And I laughed as well. Still.

 

 

Humor works best when it is based on truth. The candidates are asked if they would like to address the frustrations and hopes of struggling whites, and the thought that anyone would ask a Democrat such a question leads to laughter. And this laughter is from Democrats.

 

 

I thought that Hillary did a pretty good job with her response, but I imagine that this group of voters noticed that their concerns seemed to be an afterthought. This could partially explain the fact that many of them vote Republican.

 

 

At the very least, I think the Dems have a communication problem.

 

 

 

For those who might note that the laughter came before the full formulation of Ifill's question, I had no doubt about where she was headed as she started out her question.

[Winstonm]

What I get from the Democratic debate is that it is "The Visionary" vs "The Pragmatist". I think the appeal of each shows up in the polls. The visionary gets the vote of youth who tend to romanticize while the pragmatist gets the older votes who are fearful of losing what little they have.