New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Our live coverage of President Bush’s 2008 State of the Union address is after the jump for those who would like to replay our live blogging. Thanks for joining us!

We’d like to recommend Slate’s interesting analysis of Bush’s language choice in the State of the Union.  It’s an interesting analysis of trends and the effect of current events on his wording. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 68% [?]

The Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation recently released their annual study on economic freedom, which evaluates and ranks the economic freedom of 162 nations. Here is the page for the new study; here are the rankings.

Note that the study is not only cool for its rankings, but it is also an excellent resource for macroeconomic statistics and government policy of any nation in the world.

As for the countries, year in and year out, Hong Kong remains at the top of the list, often with Singapore in second. The US and the world’s other English-speaking powers are also prominent. Here is the top 10:

 1. Hong Kong

2. Singapore

3. Ireland

4. Australia

5. United States of America

6. New Zealand

7. Canada

8. Chile

9. Switzerland

10. United Kingdom

And here are the bottom ten:

10. Venezuela

9. Bangladesh

8. Belarus

7. Iran

6. Turkmenistan

5. Burma

4. Libya

3. Zimbabwe

2. Cuba

1. North Korea

And also note that countries in chaos–as if the last ten weren’t in their own chaos–were not part of the ranking (i.e. Sudan, Iraq, Congo, et al).

Popularity: 16% [?]

President Bush’s mideast tour was kicked off amidst unsetting news the other day, as Iranian Navy vessels seemed to come a bit too close to a US Navy battle group in the region. Al Jazeera has footage of the incident, released earlier in the day by the Department of Defense.

The United States responded harhsly to the incident, as they should have, and President Bush condemned the actions of the rogue Iranian speedboats as “threatening world peace.” The situation in Iran has intensified in recent weeks, after a recently announced NIE announced Iran had not seriously pursued nuclear weapons in several years [PDF]. US war games in the region have served as suitable provocation for Iran, and the Islamic Republic offers rebukes every time the United States participates in an exercise that seems to threaten their security.

Photographs of the Speedboats that Swarmed US Navy Vessels [Courtesy CNN/US Dept. of Defense]

The United States has treaded carefully, however, ensuring that they never get close enough to Iranian forces to provoke an attack. It doesn’t seem like the Iranians are being as careful. The recent “scare tactic” (if that’s what it can be termed) took us dangerously close to war with Iran. While the Iranian nation does not serve the interest of the United States in the region, toppling it would result in the implosion of American foreign policy. Nations that maintain friendly but cold relationships with the United States, like Russia, could quickly become our enemies, prompting a new Cold War or, worse yet, World War III. I’m the first to admit that Bush’s policy certainly doesn’t leave much room for action on the part of the Iranian government. Previous attempts at goodwill were rejected by the Bush Administration, which seems as eager to invade Iran as they were with Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s demagogue Prime Minister, always insists that it is the Bush Administration his country disapproves of, not the American people themselves. Rogue actions from his military, however, could further turn US public opinion against the Islamic Republic and result in an attack.

The US is all too wary of naval attacks since the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. In conventional warfare, a bigger ship bristles with more weapons and more firepower. In this era of terrorism and suicide attacks, a small vessel filled to the brim with explosives can sink a considerably larger ship like the USS Port Royal. The appearance of the flotilla of smaller boats was accompanied by threatening radio messages in English, “I am coming at you. You will blow up in a couple of minutes.” The threat of attack was all too present in this situation, and the commander of one of the US Navy vessels was seconds away from ordering an attack when the Iranian boats turned around. That order could have started a propaganda machine, fueled by the neoconservative hawks, similar to the one that erupted after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 that began the Vietnam War.

The USS Hopper at Sea, One of the Ships Surrounded by Iranian Navy Speedboats [Courtesy CNN/US Navy]

Neither party can afford war. The United States, bogged down in Iraq, has too many international obligations to sustain a winning war in Iran. The failure of US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan should act as an indicator that an invasion would not be the wisest idea. While things are looking up for the United States in Iraq, the war against the insurgency has not ended there. Inciting war in Iran could push Iraq to further turmoil and leave the United States with a Middle East that is heavily aligned against it. Iran seems not to want war either, and has pushed for peaceful reforms in the development of nuclear energy with Russia. The “Iran-Russia” axis has aligned against the United States, a power they see as capitalist and militarily invasive. While the new alliance could cause problems for the West, it’s in the best interest of both parties to pursue peaceful relations and continue economic development. Time Magazine went so far as to suggest that the action of Ahmadinejad’s forces was an attempt to force the United States Navy out of the region. I’m not in agreement with that statement, but it is in Ahmadinejad’s interests to have foreign powers out of his way while he builds relationships with other countries based on Iran’s oil industry.

The American people are being tested. In 1964, they gave into the demands of a warmongering president and ended up tangled in a twelve year conflict in Vietnam. In 2004, they were led into a baseless war by a president who manipulated their fears. There too, they ended up in a conflict that’s sure to last more than the twelve years the United States spent in Vietnam. In 2008, they should stand up for the democratic and diplomatic values of the United States and ensure a conflict with Iran is averted.

Update: Iran’s own “update” on the situation aired on state-owned television today and shows a far more peaceful and routine encounter. The US Navy admitted that the audio they merged with video seen on the above DoD video may not be from the same source. More to come as the conflict continues or becomes resolved…

Popularity: 28% [?]

Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics has said that, “History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” However, individual and political freedoms are on the decline in Russia, even as Russia has been reaping the rewards of a capitalist market economy under the leadership of President Putin. This trend toward less political freedom in Russia, if left unchecked, may result in a return to the authoritarian rule Russia endured in the Soviet era. So, what can the United States and the international community do to stop this?

Before Putin became President, Russia had been subjected to drastic economic and political reforms under President Yeltsin. This shock therapy resulted in the Russian government defaulting on loans worth billions of dollars, the value of the ruble dropping precipitously, and unemployment becoming rampant. As a result of this turmoil, many Russians desired a stronger central government that could offer them stability. Stability was the stated goal of Yeltsin’s successor, Vladimir Putin, and he achieved this through the consolidation of state power on all levels. While the internal security and stability have markedly increased during Putin’s reign, personal freedoms, including both political and economic freedom, have been declining. Economic freedom is now dismal; Russia ranks 120th out of 157 in the Index of Economic Freedom, a product of the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.

Prominent businessmen have been put in prison, journalists bullied and sometimes killed, and privately owned companies, including media outlets and energy conglomerates, are being gobbled up by the State. This lack of political freedom is directly related to Russia’s lack of economic freedom. Indeed, Milton Friedman has said, “Restrictions on economic freedom inevitably affect freedom in general, even such areas as freedom of speech and press.”

Fortunately, for Putin, there have been dramatic increases in oil and natural gas prices. Russia has the most proven reserves of natural gas in the world, and this has been the main driving force of Russia’s economy. The wealth pouring into Russia’s coffers through its energy industries have made it possible for Putin to distract the Russian populace from the lack of personal freedoms. As such, political and economic freedoms have been on the decline, despite economic prosperity.

Establishing economic freedom in Russia is the key to increasing political freedom. Rather than punitive economic or diplomatic sanctions, the United States and the international community should attempt to use the forces of the market to compel economic, and thus political freedoms on Russia. Reduced energy prices would make the economic shortcomings of Russia more apparent to its own people. There are two ways to reduce oil and gas prices in a market economy: increase energy supplies globally, or reduce gas and oil demand through development of alternate energy sources or through conservation. Utilizing these market forces would be a long-term endeavor, but in a climate of lower energy prices, Russia’s economic prosperity would then more accurately reflect its lack of economic freedom. There would then be a chance for internal pressures to force Russia to make true economic reforms, and, hopefully, to create the right environment for political freedoms to take hold and flourish.

Popularity: 35% [?]

Along the same lines of voter irrationality, especially on economics, here is a link to a compilation of polls on issues of international trade. Despite the fact that economic theory such as the logic of comparative advantage demonstrates how global trade is omni-beneficial–that the relative majority of economists agree that freer international trade is healthy–and that all the evidence points to more international trade corresponding with higher living standards, most people in America still believe it is a detriment. The most recent of the polls give you an indication of public opinion: 

NBC News/Wall Street Journal (12/14-17/2007)  

Do you think the fact that the American economy has become increasingly global is good because it has opened up new markets for American products and resulted in more jobs, or bad because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheep labor? 

Good: 28%

Bad: 58%

Equal 11%

Unsure: 3%   

Popularity: 33% [?]

The story about has been in the news a couple of days now. A British woman teaching in Sudan has been arrested for naming her class’ teddy bear “Muhammad,” which constitutes degradation of the prophet (at least according to the Sudanese government and many angry Muslims). From the AP:

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and swords and beating drums, burned pictures of a British teacher Friday and demanded her execution for insulting Islam by letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Many in the protesting crowd shouted “Kill her! Kill her by firing squad!”

…

Gibbons was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in jail and deportation for insulting Islam with the naming of the teddy bear, which was part of a class project for her 7-year-old students at the private school.

She escaped harsher punishment that could have included up to 40 lashes, six months in prison and a fine. Her time in jail since her arrest Sunday counts toward the sentence.

Most also believe that the government, which for its escapades in Darfur has received castigation from the west, is exploiting the incident insofar as it wishes to fuel anti-western sentiment among its people.

The article continued:

The 54-year-old Gibbons, who was sentenced to 15 days in jail, spoke Friday with her son John and daughter Jessica in Britain by telephone.

“One of the things my mum said today was that I don’t want any resentment towards Muslims,” the son told AP.

But why shouldn’t she hold resentment towards Muslims? For many of them and according to their religious scripture free expression must be compromised to make room for sharia law, and in this case outlawing depiction of the prophet or “degradation” of any part of the religion. Many Muslims would want to see her put to death, at least imprisoned, for her benign actions, why should the teacher turn the other cheek? She shouldn’t. She should stick up for herself, just like the west should stick up for itself in the face of such controversies as the Danish cartoon incident among others.

This comes in light of new “youth” riots outside of Paris, which, like the more widespread riots of a year ago, the media mostly forgets to mention predominantly feature the wrath of one religion in particular.

Popularity: 32% [?]

When asked about the legal treatment of gays in Iran at Columbia University, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a one liner to remember–the best part is that he was serious:

In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.” [Laughter] “In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.”

Popularity: 53% [?]

I was pissed when I first saw this. From the NYT:

NEW YORK (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site when he comes to New York City next week, but the request was denied, a police official said Wednesday.

Pardon my French, but what an asshole. Keep in mind that this is from the nation that was founded on the slogan “death to America,” behind terrorist attacks in ‘83 and ‘96 respectively that killed 243 and 16 Americans respectively, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and who is ordering the killings of many Americans in Iraq today. For years they have been the lead patron to many organizations who would have done anything to execute an attack such as the one that killed 3000 Americans. At least, however, we know that Iranian backed organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al. were jubilant on the day just over six years ago; and we have all the reason to believe that the Ahmadinejad was beside himself too.

Iran should have been taken down long ago; at least we should not allow them to mock our great national tragedy.

Popularity: 67% [?]

On the anniversary of 9/11, young muslim apostates are launching a campaign to make it easier for Muslims to leave Islam–which is considered an offense punishable by death according to Islamic literature. From The Times:

 The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack…

“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” Mr Jami said. “In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.”

The article’s afternote sites the Koran:

Sura 4: 88-89 reads: “Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.”

The scary thing is that Europe faces intimidation from Islam even if they do not have the same Islamist governments as in the Middle East. We saw this from the murder of Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh, from the massive riots and deaths from the Danish Cartoon controversy, from the (Muslim) youth riots in France, to many other instances. It demonstrates both the growing force of Islam across the world as well as Europe’s tolerance for it.

I do not really see how this amnesty movement for apostates however could work in the Muslim world. Where Sharia’a is present the teachings of the Koran are beyond question. I do however think that Mr. Jami’s campaign is valuable because it points out the danger of Islamic mysticism on a continent where criticizing the religion is politically incorrect (a crime punishable by social ostracizing). There is always a place for people to call out religion when it is used as a political tool; if nobody does so there is no stop to the havoc it can wreak.

Popularity: 71% [?]

After just over half a year of the troop surge, Bush is bringing soldiers home in limited quantities. Quite frankly, that confuses me. If the seven month surge is beginning to make the situation better in Iraq five year war, why start bringing troops home? It seems like exactly the opposite thing to do if we want to continue to make progress in Iraq.

What more troops gave us in Iraq was more force. Force has also been lacking since the beginning of the occupation in Iraq; we have always been fighting more passively (peacekeeping occupation) than aggressively (total war) and we never had enough troops to maintain the peace in the aftermath of isolated conflicts. We got it, it began to work, and then we toned it down. Considering my assumptions and my present knowledge, the move appears to make very little sense.

The President insisted:

Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces.

That may or may not be true. But lets give the General the benefit of the doubt and say it is, say, 80% true–would it still be practical to begin withdrawals? I still say no. For one, there is a remaining possibility that Petraeus is wrong and we loose the ground we gained. And second, saying that maintaining our current levels is satisfactory also implies that we can achieve victory at the present rate. I don’t have any sense that we could achieve a surrender of jihadist forces in Iraq “in due time”. I think that even now, we still have to augment the rate of achievement in Iraq to make progress significant enough for ultimate victory.

If anything, the successes of the surge would tell me that we should maintain the surge itself or continue to inject more force in Iraq. As is I surmise that the present political developments are nothing more than representative of the major flaws of the entire Bush policy: he wants enough force in Iraq to keep the situation in our control, yet he will not raise the levels of force enough to yield the radically destructive change that constitutes victory in war.

Popularity: 43% [?]