Politics: A new beginning

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Not too long ago, we were discussing whether Bush's big speech signalled a fundamental change in American policy re spreading democracy, or was simply a lot of rhetoric aimed at shoring up our Iraq policy after the failure to find WMD or Al Qaeda ties. Well, so much for that newfound commitment to democracy in the Middle East.

This requires me to answer a survey before I am allowed to read it. Not doing it. Can you copy and paste the relevant portion?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's hardly an uncommon opinion, and I would imagine that she is at least as aware as most that they have left NY for NJ. Did you see the show (I didn't)? If she said it ironically, she could convey that NY sports fans feel abandoned by the Jints and Jets.

I don't know anybody who grew up in NY that has this view and I know a ton of New Yorkers (unfortunately, many of them are related to me). I didn't see it, but my brother did and called me - he couldn't believe what he had just seen (i.e., that Russert had set her up like that). He said that he totally caught her off guard.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
This requires me to answer a survey before I am allowed to read it. Not doing it. Can you copy and paste the relevant portion?

For you, absolutely.

Free Pass for Free Trade

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, December 8, 2003; Page A25

For the past several years Morocco has advanced as much as any Arab country toward political liberalization. It has released some human rights prisoners, held a couple of fairly open elections, created more rights for women inside and outside of government. But as in other would-be reformist states around the region, the underlying system hasn't changed. Power is still monopolized by a king, Mohammed VI; its Parliament is more a debating society than a legislative body. Islamic groups are banned or strictly controlled, prisoners are still abused and even secular, liberal-minded journalists are liable to be thrown in jail if they dare to criticize His Majesty.

Morocco, in short, is one of the countries where democratic progress seems most possible -- but it's also one of those "moderate" Arab autocracies where for decades the United States has ignored domestic repression in exchange for help on foreign policy and security matters. Since Sept. 11, 2001, Morocco has been more helpful than most, even after suffering its own devastating bomb attack in Casablanca last May. Yet President Bush has announced, three times, the abandonment of that old Middle East realpolitik in favor of a policy of promoting freedom -- which raises the interesting question of what that should mean for this North African country.

Here's what the administration has told King Mohammed it means: Economic aid is to be quadrupled next year, while military aid will be doubled. What's more, a free trade agreement between the United States and Morocco -- only the second one with an Arab state -- will be finished soon; negotiators were meeting over the weekend in the hope of wrapping it up. All this will be offered with no political strings attached: no requirement that the king take another step or two toward democracy, or even that he let Ali Mrabet, the last journalist who tweaked him, out of jail.

"We have strongly supported the steps Morocco has taken to move into the future," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in Marrakesh last week after meeting with Mohammed. "We want to be partners in this effort, and our support for Morocco as it fights terrorism and undertakes reform has increased dramatically."

The revealing part of this policy is not the favored treatment; it's the free ride. Morocco, after all, has always been an American favorite. But in other parts of the world, the United States has not hesitated to use economic leverage to promote political change. To this day, Russia's access to U.S. markets depends on its respect for certain human rights. Arab democracy advocates in the Middle East, such as Egypt's Saad Eddin Ibrahim, argue that U.S. aid and trade preferences ought to be explicitly linked to political road maps -- not instant democracy, but steps toward greater freedom, tailored to bolster the indigenous civil society or reform movements of each country.

Morocco, they argue, would be a particularly good place to establish such links. The king, who is 40 years old and took power just four years ago, claims he favors multiparty democracy, a free press and respect for human rights. So to make aid and free trade contingent on progress toward those goals would only be to take him at his word.

To this, administration officials protest that U.S. free trade agreements don't contain such provisions, that they weren't included in the 2001 trade deal with Jordan, that to demand them from Morocco would merely undermine the deal. But Morocco signed just such a deal seven years ago, with the European Union. One article of its "association accord" commits it to progress toward democracy and respect for human rights, and it gives European governments the right to raise these issues -- though the EU, being the EU, never has.

Robert B. Zoellick, the U.S. trade negotiator, makes another argument: Free trade invariably helps build the foundations of a free society through requirements for open rule-making, through the growth of a middle class. So why make the progress you hope for a juridical requirement? "Democracy and openness is our goal," he told me. "If democracy is seen as blocking access to trade, I worry that what you will plant is not the seeds of democracy but the seeds of resentment." Zoellick has big plans for the Middle East: He sees Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain -- a Persian Gulf state next in line for a free trade deal -- as anchors for free trade across the region. It's a great idea. But what's to stop existing Arab regimes from using the resulting economic boost to refresh their hold on political power?

Okay, some other administration officials then say, here's the real deal. The United States isn't popular in the Middle East these days. But King Mohammed has been a true friend. He's done everything we've asked in the war on terrorism; his intelligence service has been a gold mine. He's refused to break with us on Iraq. And so now we're going to reward him by telling him to give up his throne for democracy? We can't -- and the free trade deal is the one positive we've got going for us in that country.

It's not a bad argument. Maybe that's the right conclusion for now. But it raises the question about that old Middle East policy, the one President Bush has renounced three times. When Morocco's friendly king seals his strings-free trade agreement, will the Arabs -- will Ali Mrabet -- get the message that America is committed to their freedom or to their rulers?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know anybody who grew up in NY that has this view and I know a ton of New Yorkers (unfortunately, many of them are related to me). I didn't see it, but my brother did and called me - he couldn't believe what he had just seen (i.e., that Russert had set her up like that). He said that he totally caught her off guard.

I doubt I would go out of my way to post this in defense of a non-comrade, but (a.) everybody in New York has an opinion about what is "real NY" and what is an inferior good, and this includes everybody in Western and Upstate New York; and (b.) I know people personally who harbor strong feelings against the Jets and Giants because of the move; and (c.) this woman can't win, because she takes hits for being insufficiently feminine, but any hint of a feminine characteristic (like not giving a rat's ass about sports) will be played to maximum ill effect.

I have no idea whether she was dumb, playing dumb, or smart, but Ty's explanation remains in the universe of possibilities consistent with my experience of New Yorkers.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
Only a lawyer could draw that conclusion. And I'm sure she didn't mean it that way, because that would piss off, well, about all of NYC and surrounding areas - in other words, her most supportive constituency.

I don't necessarily think this was fair of Russert, but I can definitely tell you that DiFi, for example, would know all of California's pro teams.

I saw the interview [killing time while waiting for the Gingrich interview].

IMHO, Russert neither blindsided her (but for the fact that it is an inane question) nor did Hillary answer improperly, as almost all NYS politicians [not NYC politicians] stand by the "Buffalo is the only team playing in NY" mantra.

More important was the Hillary suggestion that we need to send more troops into Iraq.

[sgtclub]

[WJC to support Newsom in SF mayorial race]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...8/lo_kpix/8592

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Newt Gingrich is a shrill, Krugman-reading leftist now.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
For you, absolutely.

I think the situation with Morocco is a pick-your-fights kind of deal. We cannot change the world all at once and right now the top foriegn policy concerns are the war on terrorism and Iraq, followed by Korea and Iran and then the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If we can get Iraq up and going economically and politically, that will go a long way toward bringing democracy to the middle east. But it will be a slow road and one that cannot be accomplished all at once.

[ltl/fb]

Apparently, in addition to spending, it puts in what Bush wants w/r/t overtime and media ownership (didn't both the House and the Senate vote to overturn the FCC decision?).

"It is also loaded with decisions about numerous federal policies, mostly decided in favor of President Bush's proposals. These include rules governing overtime pay, media ownership, and the destruction of records of gun purchases after 24 hours."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...-Spending.html

Edited to add that this is what was passed by the House; the Senate may not approve it. Bush, of course, is pressuring them to put it thru but the Senate usually has a bit more sense. Apparently it also has more pork than a British sausage. I say "apparently" because I have not actually read the bill (it is rather long) and am relying on media (no doubt media with a liberal taint) reports of stuff that's in there.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[WJC to support Newsom in SF mayorial race]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...8/lo_kpix/8592

That would be a killer for the Dems if a Green party candidate wins. I mean they are getting clobbered by the Repubs in middle America and now if they start to loose the Left Coast to the independent parties, that will pretty much leave only the North East and the rust belt for the Dems.

[Not Me]

I don't have a cite but I just heard it.

[Not Me]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031208/D7VAF64G0.html

Cite above. I bet Hillary doesn't like this one bit.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
That would be a killer for the Dems if a Green party candidate wins. I mean they are getting clobbered by the Repubs in middle America and now if they start to loose the Left Coast to the independent parties, that will pretty much leave only the North East and the rust belt for the Dems.

As the City and County of San Francisco goes, so goes the City and County of San Francisco.

[Edited to add: I was going to say, "As the City of S.F. goes, so goes the County," but it seemed a little Inside Baseball.]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

[Edited to add: I was going to say, "As the City of S.F. goes, so goes the County," but it seemed a little Inside Baseball.]

True dat, but as it is it's obviously (as opposed to non-obviously) tautological.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think the situation with Morocco is a pick-your-fights kind of deal. We cannot change the world all at once and right now the top foriegn policy concerns are the war on terrorism and Iraq, followed by Korea and Iran and then the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If we can get Iraq up and going economically and politically, that will go a long way toward bringing democracy to the middle east. But it will be a slow road and one that cannot be accomplished all at once.

I don't disagree with you, but W. was sounding a different tune in his recent speech. These sorts of exigencies are why we've often not tried harder to promote democracy.