What Iran represents

March 19, 2012
politics

The tension between Iran and Israel (and by proxy, the United States) has become palatable. It was a major topic at the AIPAC conference held recently in Washington. It has already seeped into the Republican nominating process, and one can assume it will only get worse. One of the big GOP rallying cries is President Barack Obama’s “dangerous” policy toward Israel.

Map of the Middle East

A political map of the Middle East

Iran’s government is reckless, but cowardly. America doesn’t play around—neither does Israel—and the Khomeini-Ahmadinejad regime knows it. Iran is much like North Korea in that respect, and countless other regimes before theirs.

Israel is in a position where its fate lies more or less in the hands of the West, particularly the Americans. This makes it difficult to for Israel to confront the human rights abuses that come with displacing a population. Therefore, Israel can provoke its would-be Muslim aggressors as much as it cares to, and the U.S. will always side with Israel. If anything, we have an enhanced imperative to be firm with Israel.

As far as the United States’ involvement, it has been at war for the past eleven years in a morass that is beginning to look much like the scenario played out by the Soviet Union two decades ago. This doesn’t mean the U.S. can’t stretch the eagle’s wing a bit further, but the American people are weary of it.

This doesn’t begin to address long term consequences of military action in Iran. However, we’ve already pledged ourselves to this hopeless ideal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. And if Iran did get the bomb (that is, if it hasn’t already)? It presents an existential threat to Israel who, by the way, started producing nukes in 1967. But that’s it. Tehran will bluster and flaunt, but it’s nothing different than what Pyongyang does—hell, they fired a missile today—so long as it continues to provoke a response.

In the end, in spite of all the warmongering and public enmity between Israel and Iran, neither side has any interest in starting a protracted war: Israel would sooner take decades of rocket attacks from Palestinian militiae, as Mr. Ahmedinejad would prefer economic sanctions. As for America, we can’t be too sure. One question remains: What about the Palestinian people? Or, for that matter, the Syrian people, thousands of whom have been murdered by Bashar Al-Asaad’s militia goons within the past year? These are difficult questions.

Talk talk

March 18, 2012
politics

Here’s the truth: Ideologues only do a disservice to the national discourse if you fully accept what they say and write, and if you believe that the people of the electorate are not capable of controlling their actions. Most of it sounds, on the surface, perhaps threatening—but all the same, just static.

Clockwise from top left: Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Andrew Breitbart, Jon Stewart, Sarah Palin, Ed Schultz.

You may want to blame Barack Obama for your gas prices, or John Boehner for holding the debt ceiling hostage, but understand that politicians are simply nodes in a complex ecosystem that is made up of a lot of other public servants, as well as legions of lawyers, economists, public relations professionals, energetic young activists, vocal retirees, a broad swath of paid commentators, and of course, you and me—members of the electorate who practically need to be driven to the polls to get democracy to function properly. A successful politician simply has a more focused voice.

That’s where talkers come in. Talkers—the people who get paid to interrupt each other on cable news. They also have that focused voice, but they are not tied to the duties and responsibilities associated with holding public office. The talkers may be better equipped to articulate an argument, but the fact remains that the way Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh fit into this ecosystem is strictly as entertainment. They are there to bring in viewers and listeners, the volume of which directly dictates how much each of their patrons (the networks) can charge advertisers, which allows them to continue operating.

It’s difficult to develop a filter through which to perceive the message of the talker—that is, to discern facts and glean insights while sluicing out ideological puffery. In government, when we don’t like someone, we vote the scumbag out of office; in the market, we stop buying the scumbag’s products. In the case of talkers, we tune out. Talkers are by nature outspoken, confrontational, and self-serving. So although talkers may inflate or incense in plays to your emotions, the bark is ultimately worse than the bite.

In the end, we the people choose our own truths. In the United States, politics is like sport—there are two popular predetermined narratives, constantly reinforced in every aspect of popular society. We argue to compete; not just because we want to convince, but because we want to win. We project our own experiences and desires onto the folks with a voice; not because we want people to hear our message, but because we want to feel listened to.

Our beliefs are real, though, no matter how skewed from the facts they may be. The truth is that numbers—the masses going to the polls as well as the balance sheets—never lie. Economics is the primary pillar of politics. Remember the debt ceiling fight last summer? (No?!) How about Obamacare? Nearly every incumbent president who has been voted out of office can blame it on the economy. When the economy sucks, we’re angry, and the President makes a convenient centrally-located punching bag for that anger.

As long as there is a demand for folks who shout loudly in public and don’t mind the attention, politicians and talkers will always be around. We the people think for ourselves, though. We wouldn’t knowingly allow ourselves to be coöpted by anyone else’s story, would we? By accepting certain truths about people and government and economics, most of these so-called “threats” diminish, from Fox News to gun control, from Sarah Palin to Saul Alinsky, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. The perception of an army of welfare dependents wanes, the one percent becomes one of us in a beautiful capitalist garden where everyone is treated well. But most of us can’t or won’t accept these truths about ourselves and how our world works—how cruel and violent a place the universe is, how incalculable compassion is in the face of adversity. So shall be the way, regardless of the outcome in November, or whether or not Rush Limbaugh has sponsors for his show.