The Republicans never got it right in the Middle and still do not get it. President Obama is well advised not to listen to the current criticisms from the Republicans that he ought to come out stronger in support of the opposition in Iran. Start with this principle: Iran is not our country. Second principle: the enemy of our enemy is not our friend. Third principles: The worst way to get burned is to choose sides in a struggle that it not ours.
The Republican idea of supporting the opposition comes out of along line of thinking than has led us to support almost every faction of the Middle East at one time or another from Saddaam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden and, in the end, have no real friends in the area.
What President Obama has shown, by his moderate talk with a clear emphasis on supporting the right to dissent and opposing the use of violence to quell protest that he understands that what we want in the region are democratic processes to grow, not just that who we might conisder to be a friend wins all the battles. And, any strategic interest that we want to pursue in the region demand that we have the ability to be in dialogue with all the leaders, not just the ones who seem to please us. So, we need to be able to talk to President Ahmadinejad and we need to be able to be in dialogue with opposition leader Mousavi. We do not need any new enemies and we have no permanent friends. We do not know all there is to know about Mousavi and what he stands for. He is likely more friendly toward the US, but, in the end, may pursue the same goals in relationships to Nuclear Arms, Israel, Iraq as the current government.
The solid ground is to stand up for democratic process, nonviolence, respect for human rights. This seems to be the ground that President Obama is staking out. It would be mistake to "try to get tough" as the Republicans insist he ought to, unless it is on this ground that toughness is based.
Iran, like Iraq, like Afghanistan, like Pakistan is a landmine for the US and will be for decades to come. These are not our countries. We do not understand, appreciate or respect their history, their culture, their aspirations, their internal conflicts, their way of doing things. We do not need to support one poitical group over another.
And, by the way, the probable truth is that Ahmadinejad does have the majority of the population on his side at this time, though Mousavi certainly is the most significant opposition to develop to the Ahmadinejad regime and the Islamic Fundamentalists who make up part of the current ruling coalition. And, it is also probably true that these last elections were the best in recent history.
It serves our security and the development of democracy in that region for the US to stay out of the political fray and stay focused on the human rights, protection of liberties and promotion of democratic processes.
The Republicans have proven themselves completely capable of tossing out the long term strategies that might produce a more stable and democratic region for support of factions that please their political purpose in the moment. This might be, in the veiw of the neanderthal leaders of the Republicans, a good current strategy to gain political points in the US, but is not good foreign policy and certainly not the kind of behaviour that will give us a larger, more positive voice in that region in the future. Stay the course Barrack!
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
What Economy Do We Want to Recover?
The Economic recovery that the whole world awaits, begs a question that we should, in this time of travail, try to answer wisely for our future. The question is whether we want to recover the economy we had or build a new economy that is better for all of us.
It is widely assumed that the current recession began with the housing crisis about the time that the holders of sub-prime began to realize that, in fact, they did not qualify for a loan. This was about the time their mortgage payments began to go up and up and up because of the increasing interest.
They did not qualify for a loan because our economy cannot build a home for a price that many of us can pay. In poor communities like the one I work in, there is a huge differential between the number of homeowners and the number of renters, because the renters cannot afford to buy a home at the market price. The only new home builders in the poor communities are non-profits who receive government funds to build "affordable" housing for lower and middle income buyters. Typically the non-profit builders will spend about $125,000- 135,000 to build a home that they sell for $100,000.00. But, these government subsidies are limited so that while the purchase of this house at $100,000 requires a loan, there is not enough subsidy out there to help the mortgage industry. HUD provides subsidized rental housing for millions in the nation. All of which is to say that we had an economy that excluded about 30% or more of all people from buying homes either because they did not make enough income to qualify to buy a home with a enough space for their family or, to put it another way, we could not figure out a way to build a home for a price that these buyers could afford. The truth is both: we have an economy that pays about 30% of the population a salary that is too low for them to afford to buy and maintain a home and we cannot build homes for a price that they can pay. Is that the economy that we want to recover?
if you asked me, I would say NO! We do not need to recover this economy. That is the economy that led to the current recession. We need an economy where more people make enough money to buy a home and where homes can be built for a price that working men and women can afford. What the current economy tried to do was to qualify more people to buy homes without increasing wages ( a typical Republican solution to problems). in fact, the problem of reduced consumption does not have to do with the prices of what can be bought but with the lack of disposable income with which to pay.
We need a new economy in which providing a livable wages is a primary goal. This will only help the economy because it is a true economic stimulus, not a temporary one, not a paper created one. Workers spend money if they have it. They buy cars and homes and all other kinds of things that business needs to sell. We do not need to redistribute the wealth by government programs, but by creating an economy that pays higher wages to more people instead of creating higher profits for fewer people.
Until we find a way to increase wages, especially at the lower end, we are doomed to a boom and bust economy. The Europeans got it right on this one, not us.
It is widely assumed that the current recession began with the housing crisis about the time that the holders of sub-prime began to realize that, in fact, they did not qualify for a loan. This was about the time their mortgage payments began to go up and up and up because of the increasing interest.
They did not qualify for a loan because our economy cannot build a home for a price that many of us can pay. In poor communities like the one I work in, there is a huge differential between the number of homeowners and the number of renters, because the renters cannot afford to buy a home at the market price. The only new home builders in the poor communities are non-profits who receive government funds to build "affordable" housing for lower and middle income buyters. Typically the non-profit builders will spend about $125,000- 135,000 to build a home that they sell for $100,000.00. But, these government subsidies are limited so that while the purchase of this house at $100,000 requires a loan, there is not enough subsidy out there to help the mortgage industry. HUD provides subsidized rental housing for millions in the nation. All of which is to say that we had an economy that excluded about 30% or more of all people from buying homes either because they did not make enough income to qualify to buy a home with a enough space for their family or, to put it another way, we could not figure out a way to build a home for a price that these buyers could afford. The truth is both: we have an economy that pays about 30% of the population a salary that is too low for them to afford to buy and maintain a home and we cannot build homes for a price that they can pay. Is that the economy that we want to recover?
if you asked me, I would say NO! We do not need to recover this economy. That is the economy that led to the current recession. We need an economy where more people make enough money to buy a home and where homes can be built for a price that working men and women can afford. What the current economy tried to do was to qualify more people to buy homes without increasing wages ( a typical Republican solution to problems). in fact, the problem of reduced consumption does not have to do with the prices of what can be bought but with the lack of disposable income with which to pay.
We need a new economy in which providing a livable wages is a primary goal. This will only help the economy because it is a true economic stimulus, not a temporary one, not a paper created one. Workers spend money if they have it. They buy cars and homes and all other kinds of things that business needs to sell. We do not need to redistribute the wealth by government programs, but by creating an economy that pays higher wages to more people instead of creating higher profits for fewer people.
Until we find a way to increase wages, especially at the lower end, we are doomed to a boom and bust economy. The Europeans got it right on this one, not us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)