This Policy Analysis examines a coalition counter-insurgency strategy in a state of flux following a sobering campaign assessment by the Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, General Stanley McChrystal, and the deeply flawed August 20th Afghan presidential election. Mr Khosa also discusses the implications of the resulting policy debate in Washington for Australia's military and civilian commitment in Afghanistan. Lengthy article found by downloading the PDF.
Next week's special congressional election in New York's 23rd Congressional District seems to have the entire political class in an uproar. Mainstream Republican pols like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are afraid it portends a grass-roots revolt, or, worse, a third party for 2012.
Surging tea partiers hope it represents an opportunity to make mainstream Republican pols take them seriously. Democrats are afraid it means a lost seat, and perhaps a tidal wave of popular energy on the right. And all of this has a lot of people focusing on what happens on Tuesday.
But, in fact, what happens Tuesday is the least important thing about NY-23.
Whether it's the official Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava (whom many Republicans find too liberal), the insurgent Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, or the Democrat, Bill Owens, Tuesday's victor will have to face another election in just a year. A Democrat won't expand Nancy Pelosi's majority significantly, and a Republican or Conservative won't diminish it enough to matter. For all practical purposes, it won't change Congress.
The real game changer, if any, will be what comes after the election.
The GOP establishment is worried -- rightly -- about the risk of a Perot-style insurgency in 2012. Ross Perot's 1992 candidacy tapped authentic populist dissatisfaction and anger, even as it doomed the Republicans and handed the White House to Bill Clinton. Nobody in the GOP wants to go down that road again.
On the other hand, the populist dissatisfaction and anger is out there again, and it has been for a while. Unhappy over immigration and spending, key parts of the GOP base stayed home in 2006 and 2008. They're even unhappier with Obama, but that unhappiness hasn't translated into a lot of enthusiasm for a Republican Party that many see as nearly as corrupt and elitist as the Democrats.
Though the media and the Democratic Party tried to portray the Tea Party movement as Republican-organized "astroturf," the GOP only wishes that were the case. Tea Partiers are still reachable by the GOP, but if the GOP mishandles things, a Perot-style challenge is very possible.
If Hoffman wins, or even hands the election to Democrat Bill Owens, the grass-roots activists will feel that they've sent a message, and will watch to see if the GOP establishment responds. If the GOP plays its cards right, and indicates that it's received the message that people want a hard line on spending and corruption and smaller government, that energy can be harnessed and put toward the 2010 elections. If it seems, on the other hand, that the GOP still doesn't get it, and if the response is condescending or dismissive, then, well, anything can happen.
If Scozzafava manages to eke out a victory, meanwhile, GOP leaders may be tempted to dismiss the grass-roots anger altogether. This is understandable, but they'd be better off remembering how nervous it made them, and taking steps to address those concerns, rather than dismissing them.
Likewise, if Tea Partiers get too carried away and full of themselves -- like the Nader Democrats of 2000 -- they will wind up handing the elections to people they really don't want running the country. The third-party threat is a good way to get the GOP establishment's attention, but, as they say, the value of the sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it falls. Like a nuclear deterrent, it's a threat that's best not employed.
Washington Republicans need to recognize that their constituencies outside the Beltway have been unhappy with them for years, and they need to change their ways to re-establish trust. Ultimately, it's not enough to say that the Democrats are worse. They have to stand for something besides a simple return to power.
For the grass roots, meanwhile, my advice is this: Remember that all politics is local. Got a local Republican officeholder that you don't like? Run against 'em in the primary. Even if you lose (and you probably, but not certainly, will) you'll get their attention.
And look at your local party apparatus. Everybody focuses on national stuff, but getting involved in your state or local party is very easy -- usually, all you have to do is show up. And even a few dozen committed people can make a difference in a congressional district. Party politics at the local level doesn't get a lot of attention, especially in between presidential elections, which means that those who do pay attention can have a lot of influence.
Most importantly, the future of the Republican Party and the Tea Party grass roots will be determined by whether the response to NY-23 is mutually respectful, or mutually dismissive. To my mind, it's more important that people not divide into permanently warring camps than that anything in particular happen in this election.
The nice thing about NY-23 is that it's an opportunity to send a message at low cost, but the cost won't be low if it produces long-running enmity. Instead, it should be a spur for people to get involved in politics at the state and local level now, rather than complaining about the nominees later.
Like it or not (and my guess is that neither likes it very much) the grass roots and the party apparatus are probably better off hanging together than hanging separately. Against an entrenched Democratic Party with control of the presidency, the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the mainstream media, both are better off agreeing to disagree on some issues, while working together on others. That's what winning coalitions do.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/03/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Next month, Prof. Ada Yonath will be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry, becoming the fifth Israeli scientist to win this award. This has sharpened, once again, the grim statistics regarding the scarcity of Nobel laureates in the Muslim and Arab worlds. While Jews, who are only around 0.2 percent of the world population, have won a quarter of all Nobel Prizes awarded in the sciences, Muslims, who are one quarter of the world population, have won only a handful, even by the most generous accounts. And while relative to its size, Israel's tiny academia has been the world's leading Nobel power over the past decade, Arab universities have yet to produce their first Nobel laureate. And anti-semitism never means hating Arabs---I wonder if there's a connection?
#1
Not to mention that the only Moslem Nobel Prize science laureate, Dr. Abdus Salam, is disowned by the rest of the Moslem community. He's the wrong kind of Moslem.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
11/03/2009 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
from salam's wikipedia entry
"...Salam was buried in the graveyard Bahishti Maqbara in Rabwah [Pakistan] next to his parents' graves. The epitaph on his tomb initially read "First Muslim Nobel Laureate" but, because of Salam's adherence to the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect, the word "Muslim" was later erased on the orders of a local magistrate, leaving the non-sensical "First Nobel Laureate..."
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/03/2009 21:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Never heard of Abdus before. From Wikipedia, he "was a Pakistani theoretical physicist, astrophysicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for his work in Electro-Weak Theory. Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg shared the prize for this discovery". Not too shabby!
I can think of two explanations for the Nobel Prize Muslim/Jew imbalance. One is that the perfidious Juice have stolen all the Nobels that should have gone to deserving Muslims. The other explanation, more plausible to the rational mind, is the Muslims have produced little of scientific or cultural value over the last century aside from fatwas and corpses.
On October 30, atheist author Christopher Hitchens appeared on Dennis Miller's Internet radio show condemning Mother Teresa. The UK born author and commentator referred to the Nobel Prize winner, saying "The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it's a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to."
Just because Mr. Hitchens is a brilliant thinker and on the right side of War on Terror questions does not mean he can't be a bit of a crackpot on other things.
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/03/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Not sure why this is news, he wrote a book on the same topic and was invited by the Catholic Church to argue the case against granting her Sainthood.
Posted by: Gaz ||
11/03/2009 2:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Penn & Teller's tv show Bullsh*t covered the dark side of Mother Theresa too. They actually made a pretty good case against her. For all I know, Hitchens could be right.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/03/2009 6:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think Christopher Hitchens is an amusing sometimes-crackpot who writes well and speaks well. In general, I think he gets it right. Other times, maybe no so much.
BUT there does seem to be something smelly about MT.
AND she is tainted by the Nobel Peace thingy.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/03/2009 6:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Gaz, not too sure on the specifics (Old Spook would be more of an authority on this), but part of the Church's process of declaring someone a saint is appointing someone to be the "devil's advocate". This person is the one who lays out the case for why this person doesn't deserve canonization (didn't perform any miracles, contrary to popular belief he/she was actually a sleaze, that kind of thing).
I believe it is usually a canon lawyer who assumes this office, and I am sure they can call any witness they want to bolster their case. Hitchens did testify against her during this process back in 2002, if I remember correctly.
#8
Perhaps the most damning argument against her was schmoozing with the rich and infamous at cocktail parties. Those who fund raise in that manner are left with a sticky and slimy coating that does not rinse off.
I made the mistake of shaking the hand of an ex-ambassador who was one of those kinds, and was distraught because his cheap perfume stench couldn't be removed from my hand for days.
#9
When someone does something noble the slime come out to bring them down. The orphanage in Katmando is still up and operational. They are still sending the kids to college as they grow older and the place is clean and the kids are healthy. I was there last year. I'm not sure what she did to get the bad press but what she did there was wonderful.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/03/2009 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm not sure what she did to get the bad press but what she did there was wonderful.
When somebody does something beautiful, the light shines and sends the cockroaches scurrying for cover. Or else the roaches try to find a way to put out the light.
Mother Teresa was an ordinary woman who did extraordinary things because she obeyed her calling even when she didn't feel God's presence for years on end. Faith is a fact, not a feeling.
She had been doing her work for decades before the media found out about it.
When she had the opportunity to "schmooze with the rich and infamous," she had the opportunity to share truth with them. For example, when asked to participate in one of Bill Clinton's prayer breakfasts, she told him politely and publicly that his support of abortion was immoral.
#11
I heard the broadcast. I love Miller's shows, although I get the podcast a couple days late.
Acutually, what Hitchens said is that "it's too bad there's no hell for her to go to".
He was on the show with a minister debating religion. Hitchens is a famous atheist.
Hitchen's point was that he saw her as a fanatic, who some of the worst poverty in the world, saw women as nothing but breeders, and that introduction of contraception is the only way you break that cycle. She was totally against any form of family planning.
He also railed on her because he has opened 200 nunnerys around the world in her name, money that should have gone to the impoverished that it was donated for, and not to glorify herself.
#13
The birth rate has been dropping in India, as it has in most of the world. But something must be done to improve the lot of those born unwanted, and Mother Theresa has made a difference for those she could help.
#14
Christopher Hitchens spending so much energy villifying Mother Teresa, shows the dark recesses of his mind more than hers. His arguments seem abstract. Her actions were concrete.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/03/2009 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/03/2009 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Thank you, lord garth. One of the many nice things about Rantburg is that someone always has the exact information I'd been burbling vaguely about. :-)
#17
If we judge people by what they do and not by what they say I think we know who wins hands down.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
11/03/2009 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Grom, condoms are a stopgap at best. Birth control may reduce the population somewhat, but does nothing to promote the value of a human being.
Picking up dying people and showing love; teaching women they are valuable and not trash in a culture that still practices female infanticide; helping those who are suffering and sharing a hope of a better life. You change a culture by changing individual hearts.
One of the most important things to remember about socialism -- or coercion of any kind -- is it fails eventually because human beings have an innate desire for liberty and a strong need for personal property rights. In fact, the origins of government lie in the need of agricultural communities to protect themselves from violence and theft. So it is particularly ironic that in more recent times, it is government itself that has more frequently played the role of bandit. When you start taxing people at extreme rates to pay for socialist "benefits," when you start telling them which schools their children must attend, when you start giving jobs away to people based on race instead of ability... you quash human freedom, which bogs down productivity... and if continued for long enough, leads to social collapse.
I find it perplexing that only 20 years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the West continues to implement laws that mimic all of the failed policies of our former "communist" foes. In fact, our current president won the election by promising to "spread the wealth around." But... truth be told... we don't have to look to Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union to find a society destroyed by coercion, socialism, and the overreaching power of the State. We could just look at Detroit...
In 1961, the last Republican mayor of Detroit lost his re-election bid to a young, intelligent Democrat, with the overwhelming support of newly organized black voters. His name was Jerome Cavanagh. The incumbent was widely considered to be corrupt (and later served 10 years in prison for tax evasion). Cavanagh, a white man, pandered to poor underclass black voters. He marched with Martin Luther King down the streets of Detroit in 1963. (Of course, marching with King was the right thing to do... It's just Cavanagh's motives were political not moral.) He instated aggressive affirmative action policies at City Hall. And most critically, he greatly expanded the role of the government in Detroit, taking advantage of President Lyndon Johnson's "Model Cities Program" -- the first great experiment in centralized urban planning.
Mayor Cavanagh was the only elected official to serve on Johnson's task force. And Detroit received widespread acclaim for its leadership in the program, which attempted to turn a nine-square-mile section of the city (with 134,000 inhabitants) into a "model city." More than $400 million was spent trying to turn inner cities into shining new monuments to government planning. In short, the feds and Democratic city mayors were soon telling people where to live, what to build, and what businesses to open or close. In return, the people received cash, training, education, and health care. Balance at the link if you dare.
#3
On the other hand, Michael Barone wrote an interesting column that cited the article linked below. He suggests Detroit may be a new frontier. After reading the article and looking up some home prices, it might be a fun place to start a new conservative settlement in downtown Detroit. I do believe Michigan has CCW reciprocity with many states. Pack the wagon!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Next week's special congressional election in New York's 23rd Congressional District seems to have the entire political class in an uproar. Mainstream Republican pols like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are afraid it portends a grass-roots revolt, or, worse, a third party for 2012.
On October 30, atheist author Christopher Hitchens appeared on Dennis Miller's Internet radio show condemning Mother Teresa. The UK born author and commentator referred to the Nobel Prize winner, saying "The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it's a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to."
