General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Sommerswerd]

This is exactly it. Dems need Israel as an incentive for Rs to vote money for Ukraine.

This was sort of along the lines of my thoughts as well, but I was thinking it wasn't a simple one-to-one exchange of Israel funding for Ukraine funding because that doesn't add up. Even the most staunchly Zionist Republicans know full well that 17 billion for Israel does not match the $60 billion proposed for Ukraine. The Democrats were always going to have to give more than that to Republicans in order to get funding for Ukraine passed, that's part of why the Republicans were able to get such favorable terms on the Mexico/border portion of the deal.

Political maneuvering (that could be fairly characterized as "partisan dysfunction").

Sure you could fairly describe the political maneuvering as "partisan dysfunction", but you could also fairly describe "political maneuvering" as "normal political behavior". I mean that's part of what politics, particularly partisan politics entails isn't it? Oppositional political parties, functioning in an adversarial system, are going to engage in all sorts of political maneuvering to achieve their goals, often at the expense of the goals of the other party. That's a feature, not a bug in the system, right? So we can call it "partisan dysfunction" but that's just taking one thing and calling it something else, to no particular end. Its kind of a distinction without a difference. Do you see what I mean?

But that isn't the important part, really. You and I both love semantics...sometimes... but the more meaningful issue here seems to me the part about whether the only reason aid to Israel is being held up, is because of Trump. Remember you said:

I think the sole reason it has failed is Donald Trump ordering the Republicans not to do a border funding deal.

Then you said:

My sense is that even the most pro-Israel democrats recognize that passing a "clean" Israel bill is a dumb move as it takes away the main leverage to try to pass something on Ukraine, assuming the border is now off-limits.

I think you are right that they need a source of leverage, even moreso if they can't use Mexico/border funding as leverage anymore. So what that underscores, is that Democrats think they have leverage on the issue of Israel funding. But the only way the Democrats could have leverage on the Republicans on Israel funding, is if the Democrats don't want it but the Republicans do. That is exactly why the Republicans have leverage on the Democrats over the Ukraine funding... the Republicans don't want it, but the Democrats do.

Now I recognize that it is more complicated than that, because there are certainly plenty of prominent Republicans who support Ukraine funding and lots of prominent Democrats who support Israel funding. My point however, is that for there to be leverage, it would seem to be the case, that a substantial enough amount of Democrats are against Israel funding, or at least ambivalent about it, to make the Democrats going along with Israel funding to be a legitimate bargaining chip. If the Democrats are all in favor of Israel funding, there is no leverage.

 

[Samson]

Pakistan’s PTI-linked independents lead in final election count

The military has called for stability as multiple parties allege election tampering and announce protests.

www.aljazeera.com

Well that was anticlimatic

I do not think that is the climax. The second and third place parties are trying to exclude them and they are trying to deny them the assigned seats. I think there may be more to this story yet.

 

[Lexicus]

Do you see what I mean?

I see what you mean, but I don't entirely agree because part of the measure of the dysfunction is that it has become acceptable to hold core functions of government hostage for political maneuvering. There was a time not long ago when Congress would have passed all three of things without any drama.

Then you said:

There's no contradiction here. If Trump hadn't instructed the GOP not to pass the whole deal, it would almost certainly have passed (whether the Freedom Caucus would have used that as a pretext to try to remove Johnson is a separate question). The failure of the standalone Israel bill would never have happened absent the situation created by Trump's intervention, even ignoring the fact that aid to Israel was part of the larger deal anyway.

That is exactly why the Republicans have leverage on the Democrats over the Ukraine funding... the Republicans don't want it, but the Democrats do.

Not really. All that is required is that the Democrats be less in favor of it, on average, than the Republicans are. While that is clearly the case, it is also clearly the case that, even if we assume all members of Congress who have called for a Gaza ceasefire would vote against aid to Israel (which may or may not be correct), those members amount to a minority of the Democrats' House minority (60-70 members IIRC) and just five Senators. Aid to Israel would pass both houses of Congress on the merits, which has been my point all along.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I see what you mean, but I don't entirely agree because part of the measure of the dysfunction is that it has become acceptable to hold core functions of government hostage for political maneuvering.

I agree but that is a separate issue. Another small detail, is that I don't think that it is "for political maneuvering" that the Republicans hold government hostage. The Republicans use political maneuvering to hold government hostage, for purpose of undermining government for their various, often nefarious goals.

There was a time not long ago when Congress would have passed all three of things without any drama.

Well its four things, but I know what you mean generally and on that I have mixed feelings about whether that is actually the case, depending partially on what you mean by "not long ago". There hasn't been any significant appetite for partisan agreement on the border/immigration for as long as I can remember. In fact, what had the media falling all over themselves with praise and Congress circle-jerking over this bill was the fact that they were actually able to reach a "bipartisan" deal, because of how impossible it had been in the past. Also, the US certainly didn't intervene on Ukraine's behalf in 2014 when Putin took Crimea. I'm unsure about Taiwan... the TPP failed... but that was also Trump's doing, so...

Now as for Israel, yes I agree that Israel funding has historically been non-controversial and essentially rubber-stamped by Congress. Which sort of raises the irony of what Netanyahu is so brazenly doing, defying the US/Biden and smashing the Palestinian people with reckless abandon, at best, malice at worst. The longer the war goes on the more hostile the world community is becoming to it and the more unfavorable politically and diplomatically it becomes, for the US to support it. I have another thought about that which I will tag you on in the Israel/Palestine Thread.

There's no contradiction here. If Trump hadn't instructed the GOP not to pass the whole deal, it would almost certainly have passed (whether the Freedom Caucus would have used that as a pretext to try to remove Johnson is a separate question). The failure of the standalone Israel bill would never have happened absent the situation created by Trump's intervention, even ignoring the fact that aid to Israel was part of the larger deal anyway.

I agree with this, so yes in that sense you can ultimately trace the failure back to Trump.

Not really. All that is required is that the Democrats be less in favor of it, on average, than the Republicans are. While that is clearly the case, it is also clearly the case that, even if we assume all members of Congress who have called for a Gaza ceasefire would vote against aid to Israel (which may or may not be correct), those members amount to a minority of the Democrats' House minority (60-70 members IIRC) and just five Senators. Aid to Israel would pass both houses of Congress on the merits, which has been my point all along.

As I said in the next sentence(s) I am aware of that and pointed exactly that out... Democrats' relative ambivalence about Israel funding vis-a-vis Ukraine funding... and the Republicans feeling vice-versa, is what theoretically gives them leverage over each other. The Republicans tried to call that bluff and it blew up in their faces.

 

[Lexicus]

There hasn't been any significant appetite for partisan agreement on the border/immigration for as long as I can remember.

There has never been any problem passing things that make the border more "secure" by increasing police powers or oppressing migrants or what have you. The hangup on immigration reform has always been "amnesty", the idea that you give undocumented people already in the country a path to legal status in exchange for a tougher border regime or employer verification or whatever. As an example, I did a paper in grad school on the immigration/asylum provisions of the Real ID Act in 2005 which complicated the process of obtaining asylum due to entirely spurious/false claims of terrorists using the asylum system to infiltrate the country. That law passed with something like a 98-1 vote in the Senate.

I agree with the the rest of your post.

 

[Farm Boy]

Work permits were huge.

 

[Joij21]

No, you didn't. You gave the propaganda reason. The reason the US wanted to dominate the world was not to dominate the world was not to save it from the USSR, but to create the situation described in this article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/

Bruh, China pollutes and consumes like Satan.

It ain't called the dragon for nothing.

 

[Arwon]

Trump’s Russia threat against NATO: What US allies are spending on defence

The former president has repeatedly said the US is unfairly carrying the financial burden of the security alliance.

www.aljazeera.com

3.5% is a crazy large percentage of GDP for such a military hyperpower to be spending, expecting other countries to match that is stupid

 

[Farm Boy]

Treaty obligations are 2%, are they not? Even the International Lions Club will throw your ass out if you don't pay your dues.

 

[Arwon]

Hmm if we're suddenly becoming sticklers for international treaty obligations it seems an odd set of priorities to ignore the conventions on say, torture and rendition, refugees, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear non proliferation, that various NATO countries in Europe and North America love to skirt or ignore or violate, but become super jazzed up about some national accounting benchmarks. I suppose with more militiary spending some of these countries could more efficiently violate some other treaty commitments.

 

[Farm Boy]

One is suggesting that paying your dues doesn't require being a stickler. Deadbeats may disagree.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I do not think that is the climax. The second and third place parties are trying to exclude them and they are trying to deny them the assigned seats. I think there may be more to this story yet.

I meant anticlimactic as regards election day. No-one seems happy with the results. I do agree that the situation will only get messier from here

 

[Crezth]

Hmm if we're suddenly becoming sticklers for international treaty obligations it seems an odd set of priorities to ignore the conventions on say, torture and rendition, refugees, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear non proliferation, that various NATO countries in Europe and North America love to skirt or ignore or violate, but become super jazzed up about some national accounting benchmarks. I suppose with more militiary spending some of these countries could more efficiently violate some other treaty commitments.

It makes perfect sense if you have an average (liberal or conservative) western nation person's idea of What's Important.

What's important:

Free trade
Free countries
Free minds
Free markets
Free 20 oz drink with the purchase of an entree and a side
Preserving freedom

What's not important:

Brown people being bombed
Brown people being starved
Brown people being herded into camps stripped and executed
Black people being bombed
Black people being starved
Black people being herded into camps stripped and executed
Preserving the rule of international law

 

[Arwon]

 

[Lexicus]

It makes perfect sense if you have an average (liberal or conservative) western nation person's idea of What's Important.

What's important:

Free trade
Free countries
Free minds
Free markets
Free 20 oz drink with the purchase of an entree and a side
Preserving freedom

What's not important:

Brown people being bombed
Brown people being starved
Brown people being herded into camps stripped and executed
Black people being bombed
Black people being starved
Black people being herded into camps stripped and executed
Preserving the rule of international law

There's a jungle (that some democratic Allies are villas in). Animals are eaten all the time in the jungle, it is only natural.

 

[Farm Boy]

Certainly it is more convenient to let somebody else pay for being the monster in this cherry pie gumdrop world.

Rational interest when the Self Is King. That's a lesson from ol' Bonespurs himself.

 

[Snowygerry]

Treaty obligations are 2%, are they not? Even the International Lions Club will throw your ass out if you don't pay your dues.

No, as usual Trump is talking out of his a$$..

The treaty actually states we will "aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.".

That is "aim to move towards" spending 2% on our own military, not NATO.

It says nothing about "paying" NATO, it is not a golf club is it.

For a small nation like Belgium with large gnp, 2% yearly would mean every soldier will have his own tank, or we'll have to keep an aircraft carrier on de Schelde.

In absolute numbers, 1,2 % is still more than 2 % of most nations.

List of countries with highest military expenditures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A nation like Switzerland, with full deployable militia spends, 0.8 of gnp according the table above.

NATO is an incredibly wasteful organisation, on account of the US' useless wars mostly, but also because we buy expensive US weapon systems like the F35 that are rarely delivered in time, and sufficient numbers.

Strictly for self-defence, we'd probably be better off without it.

Actually the cost of NATO, is a different calculation, nothing to do with the 2% norm.

The table here shows for example that Germany bears an equal % of the cost of NATO as the US, and Belgium more than most.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#direct

 

[Arakhor]

Of course Trump is talking out of his arse. If he really believed that Europe actually paid NATO for US defensive measures, he wouldn't propose actively destroying NATO by refusing to honour Article 5.

 

[Snowygerry]

All of this has been explained to 6 successive US presidents, yet for some reason they refuse to tell their electorate.

Please stop electing idiots.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

All of this has been explained to 6 successive US presidents, yet for some reason they refuse to tell their electorate.

Please stop electing idiots.

Electing idiots is the American way