Edge of Chaos is a political podcast starring Joe Ryan and Neurotoxin. Its aim is to have a free-flowing discussion of news and current events that also examines the empirical outcomes of public policy, avoiding biases based on ideology and policy intentions. Listener discretion is both advised and encouraged.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Bounce Boehner

When Democrats had their asses handed to them in 2014 even more resoundingly than I predicted they would, I pointed out that this was, among other things, a message to Republicans that they did not need to do anything differently until Democrats acknowledge their political agenda and strategy are hopelessly obsolete and out of touch with the American electorate, oust their leadership, and re-brand themselves as a different party. However, I also pointed out that as soon as Democrats did this, Republicans would need to make significant changes to their own agenda, strategy, and leadership - or they would find themselves where Democrats are today. Put more simply, neither party really has anything substantive to offer Americans in their current incarnations; but Republicans are winning because Democrats represent the despised and failing status quo policies, whereas Republicans have re-branded themselves as blocking these from being funded, extended, and enacted further.

Democrats ARE Re-branding, However

To my significant surprise, the Democratic Party seems to have caught on to these trends and observations. First the DNC ordered a review of why they lost the election. Sure, DNC Chair Schultz completely refused to acknowledge Americans' fundamental disagreement with the party's agenda, framing the review as an evaluation of strategy and message. But, for one, as I pointed out in numerous pre-election posts, the Democrats' strategic practices desperately need to evolve into the 21st century; so this is still a reasonable, albeit partial, reaction to the problem. More importantly, common sense suggests that high-ranking politicians and committee chairs don't often order audits of their own failures and poor work outcomes, unless they are under pressure to do so. I don't pretend to know what's going inside the Democrats' party committees, but my guess is that after THAT election - Schultz and other high-ranking members are at the top of everyone's shit list. This audit is in many ways her attempt to prevent the likely cleansing of party leadership, which I still think may happen, and new leadership will bring not only updated strategy, but also an updated policy agenda that actually appeals to voters. Secondly, on the legislative side of things, we saw an overwhelming majority of Democratic legislators in the House and Senate abandon Obama in the lame duck session and refuse to vote for his spending bill, instead following the firebrand, Progressive-appealing Elizabeth Warren.

Are Republicans Ready For That?

I unapologetically remind our conservative readers that it took the intransigent, self-indulgent Republican establishment no less than 4 years after a similar electoral rebuke in 2006 to oust detached party officers, re-evaluate strategy, and begin to renounce the disastrous legacy of George W. Bush. In those 4 years, continuing to follow their bitterly despised President, the GOP endured another well-deserved electoral beating in Congress in 2008 - with Americans voting for Democrats to oppose the status quo of endless war and the police state, rather than because Democrats offered substantive new policy. That populist protest vote gave us the Democratic triumvirate that passed Obamacare in 2010, and even despite this, the Republican about-face in 2010 largely came through popular revolt - from the endless Primary lynchings of establishment candidates in favor of Tea Parties like Mike Lee and Rand Paul, to the eventual disowning of Neocon Michael Steele as RNC chair. And looking at the brewing battle over the Speakership of the House, the arrogance of the Republican establishment continues to stand in the way of party evolution into the 21st century, even as Democrats look poised to overtake them in this regard.

Conservative Warrior? More Like Neocon Lackey

Several Congressional Republicans, including stalwart Iowa conservative Steve King - whom I once had a lot of respect for - have come out in support of keeping John Boehner as Speaker on the grounds that ousting him would prevent the Republican Party from using its newfound Congressional gains and control of the Senate to enact the policy changes it has been fighting for. This begs the question - what reason do we have to believe John Boehner will actually do that? The House Speaker who used the phrase "we will fight the President tooth-and-nail" in regards to the December spending bill ended up being the President's only ally in the battle that ensued. Boehner led his own conference to pass the disastrous legislation that would have invariably failed otherwise, as even the President's party's own leadership in the House opposed it.

Why behave in such a cowardly fashion? Why follow Barack Obama in a polarized political climate when your own party base openly hates him, in many cases personally and unreasonably? Why do this when the election just demonstrated that causing gridlock is not a threat to your party as things stand?

I don't claim to be able to read John Boehner's mind, but I as a professional I can only see 2 possible explanations. The first is that Boehner succumbed to pressure from certain elements within the Republican establishment, particularly corporate donors that depend on Federal government payments such as defense and security contractors, as well as Wall St that is notorious for playing both parties. Every shutdown and even every threat of one causes these cartels of malignant scum to lose gargantuan amounts of money, and while in my opinion they could not be strangled out of existence fast enough, perhaps John Boehner - who receives campaign contributions from them - doesn't quite share my disposition. The other theory is that Boehner is genuinely that out of touch with the political preferences of the American electorate, particularly the base of his own party. After all, this poll indicates a whopping 60% of the latter do not want him retained as Speaker. I actually lean slightly toward the latter theory, as it would explain Boehner's overall clumsiness and its contribution to the shutdowns and shaky work of the House during his tenure, although I wouldn't attribute those trends to JUST him by any stretch of the imagination. Whether its corruption or simple incompetence, however, if either is true - Boehner does not belong anywhere near that Speaker gavel.

Scandalous Steve 'Smoochy' Scalise

Then there is the Steve Scalise embarrassment. Personally - and I have made this argument MANY times in defense of both Ron and Rand Paul - I realize that a speaking engagement or other similar association does not indicate political affiliation with a group nor ideology. I've worked in this field for a long time, folks, and politicians have to constantly engage and negotiate with groups and organizations they disagree with or even find odious; because people in those groups vote and have money to give. That being said, the new Majority Whip's history of associating with White Nationalists was a colossal exercise in stupidity and incompetence, because every first year intern in any political office or campaign knows that White Nationalists are toxic, and that no amount of money nor support received from them will balance out the resulting PR catastrophe. Again, in Ron Paul's defense, his association with these groups is quite dated - they were less toxic in the 1980s. In his recent Presidential campaigns, he also fully acknowledged this association while virulently renouncing these groups' views. Scalise admissibly made this mistake when he was very young - 36 is toddler-hood for a political career. But he did do it in 2002 when the toxicity of the association was undeniable; and today, as a Representative pushing 50, his response to it coming back to bite him in the ass was to pretend he didn't realize he was speaking at a White Nationalist conference. REALLY Steve? Even giving Scalise the benefit of the doubt that he did not in fact share the conference's views; his handling of this incident in comedic resemblance to a scene from the film "Death to Smoochy" demonstrates he is a narcissistic and incompetent politician - qualities that were evident to anyone that watches Capitol Hill as closely as I do long before his appointment to Majority Whip.

And that brings the issue back to Boehner. Why appoint such an incompetent, scandalous clown to what is arguably the most crucial position in your party's leadership in terms of political agenda? For those who don't know, the "Whip" is called that because his job is to keep the caucus voting in line with party leadership. And why continue to defend him even as this dirty laundry is taken up by Democrats and aired out for the country to see? Not only is this another indicator of Boehner's incompetence, but it also speaks volumes to the establishment's desperation and reluctance to accept its inevitable replacement by Tea Party conservatives. Scalise's one claim to fame as a Representative has been to consistently talk like a Tea Party conservative but vote with the establishment, and my only theory on why he was appointed was as a last ditch effort to mend the growing divide between these 2 sides. Let's not forget the appointment was made hastily following the Tea Party's unapologetic firing of Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the June Primary, and previous Whip Kevin McCarthy stepping up to succeed him. Again, whether Boehner genuinely expected that insulting the Tea Party's intelligence in this fashion would succeed in appeasing them, or whether he simply figured he was finished in any case if it doesn't succeed - these are more indicators his days in the leadership must come to an end.

Conclusion: Boehner HAS To Go, For the GOP's Sake

Unusually, I won't finish my post with a prediction of whether Republicans will keep or oust John Boehner as Speaker of the House on Tuesday; largely because the equation involves too many complicated variables not easily accessible for public review.
However, I WILL make the prediction that should Republicans keep Boehner, Democrats in the next 2 years will surpass them in terms of being viewed as the party that opposes the rotting status quo, attract a slew of disgruntled voters, and temper Republican success in the 2016 election - though I still highly doubt a Democrat could win the White House.

With the exception of some genuine Tea Party types, Republicans are NOT popular. What persistently keeps them in office is a variety of fringe elements, including libertarians and disgruntled independents, reluctantly turning out for them to keep the Democrats' from enacting more of their disastrous central planning agenda; while Progressives' disillusionment with the same agenda keeps them that demographic home. An agenda and strategy update in the Democratic Party that falls more closely in line with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders than with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would not only revitalize the Progressive base for Democrats; but would make the fringe elements again consider both parties. Libertarians and independents have a love-hate relationship with the likes of Elizabeth Warren - I know I do. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that we prefer a Democratic Party that follows Elizabeth Warren to a Republican Party that follows Barack Obama, which is what John Boehner has demonstrated he will do. And really, any self-respecting Republican should share that outlook.

It's that simple, Republicans. Bounce Boehner, or be bounced as the party of the 21st century by your allies.


Thursday, December 4, 2014

Eric Garner, Michael Brown and The Rest: "The Divide" In Action

With the rulings in both the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, and the protests that have followed, it seems like a natural time to open a discussion on police tactics and race, but I want to approach it from an angle that looks at the vast differences in how certain demographics deal with police, but most importantly how the police deal with them.

What gets lost in incidents like Ferguson, like Eric Garner and etc, is the difference between being white and middle class and being black and poor when it comes to interactions with law enforcement. And sometimes the black part is enough to make a huge difference, even when the person in question isn’t poor. Don’t believe me? Let Bunk from The Wire (otherwise known as actor Wendell Pierce) tell you a thing or two about this disparity.  Most whites simply do not live in the world he describes, and the divide is significant.

This flies over the heads of many whites from middle class backgrounds, and I include myself in this list (once upon a time anyway).  Whites are used to Officer Friendly who says things to them like “How are you today, sir?” and “Can I be of any assistance?” whereas the average black urban youth from the “rough side” of town has probably been asked where they're coming from, where they're going, why they're at a particular building and the like more times than they can count. Officer Friendly and Officer Inner City tend to dress differently also. Typically you aren’t arrested for the crime of standing in front of your own house after a long shift at work in a predominantly white suburb, but that totally happens in the inner city.  It's no wonder that the mantra is often "don't talk to cops" in the inner cities, with trust being at all-time lows on both sides for decades and decades now in many places.  How can you expect any cop and any average resident in one of these areas to have anything but a testy exchange with one another when they meet on the streets for some reason?  This doesn't happen only because the suspect is hiding something or resisting arrest.  Sometimes it happens because the person knows a particular cop is always busting heads in his neighborhood, whether the busted heads were actually guilty of something or not.  If you're white and middle class or above, have you ever had an interaction with a cop at a routine traffic stop like Wendell describes above?

It is for this reason that whites from middle class backgrounds who haven’t had to grow up fearing police cannot comprehend why someone might be combative, defiant, agitated, or somewhat resistant when a cop comes along and starts firing questions at them. They can’t understand why the person doesn’t just immediately comply with every order the cop gives, the nanosecond he gives it. Surely the cop just wants to sort out the truth, and surely he’s not just trying to bust heads and pad stats for the commissioner downtown or anything right? Just do what the cop says! And you won’t get killed! It’s warped logic that just doesn’t compute on inner city streets, and while I’m not exactly advocating a “fuck tha police” stance like NWA suggested some years back, I am asserting that these interactions that make news, like Eric Garner for example, are not nearly as clear cut as the media makes them out to be. And frequently middle class whites lack the context for these interactions gone wrong. The fault surely must be squarely on the guy that died for getting killed. In their view there simply is no other explanation. To suggest otherwise is severely contradicting everything they’ve been raised to believe about authority and police power.

"Why don't they just..." is usually a phrase that starts off a comment that makes me, the one who has a tendency to notice and has researched cases of police abuse in the news, just cringe inside from the sheer ignorance I am about to absorb.  Probably the most disturbing part of this is the assumption that at any time, and for whatever reason a cop deems appropriate regardless of law or departmental policy, someone can be summarily executed on the streets without trial or representation.  I suppose this complacency is akin to how most Americans are OK with us using drones to execute people, including American citizens, in faraway countries without trial and most times without solid evidence aside from flimsy-sounding "intelligence" that indicated the person may be an "imminent threat."  That idea, of you being the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time, being seen with the wrong people, or stepping out of line in any way or even so much as seeming like you're anything less than Joe Good Citizen and thus deserving of execution meted out by police on the streets, is probably the most destructive thing about how American society functions today.  Let me be clear: if someone goes for a cop's gun, if someone places a cop under an actual imminent threat of death, the cop has a right to defend themselves.  But having said that, the definition of what is and is not an imminent threat on a cop's life has certainly broadened in the last decade or so, and to my eyes it seems like the policy now is "shoot now, ask questions later."  Ask yourself, can a cop determine within only a few seconds of arriving on scene that a 12 year old child is a threat to his own safety, even though he is twice the kid's size?  Even if he has a partner with him?  Judge for yourself.  What if I also told you this cop didn't exactly have the best judgment in the world?  What do you think now?

Tamir Rice "shouldn't have been pointing his fake gun everywhere."  I challenge you to tell me how many kids you think have ever wandered aimlessly around a city park during a boring day pointing fake guns at stuff and making believe they're some badass.  And I've heard people tell me it's a black thug thing, too.  Hell, I did these things as a 12 year old before, and I'm as white as you can get without going albino.  Should I have been rolled up on and shot within seconds by a "distracted," "weepy" cop who "couldn't communicate clear thoughts?"  Is someone's interpretation of a child pointing a fake gun at inanimate objects as some sort of thug pantomime enough to warrant that child's life being snuffed out on the spot?  Really?  Seriously?  Please help me to understand, America.  Do black lives matter?  Hard to say they do right now.

Michael Brown at least had a thug element to it, with the cigar theft and some of the witness testimony.  It was handled poorly, but a portion of blame does rest with him, I have to admit.  But I believe the cop got off with one there too, and he's lucky for that.  And thankfully he's forcibly retired from the streets now, so unless he goes Zimmerman on someone we should be safe from his trigger happiness from here on.  But what about the cops who killed these guys?  Or these?  Read the stories.  Did those people (some of them children) all deserve to die for what they did?  Did Eric Garner really deserve this for essentially dodging stupid state tax laws?  Did Luis Rodriguez really deserve to be beaten to death because his wife slapped his daughter in a moment of anger?  Or have we maybe become just a tad too OK with cops going from talking to someone to killing them within seconds as if there was no other choice?  Are we going to have a talk about police practices in this country that truly gets at the heart of the matter or will this be like Sandy Hook starting an entire nationwide pissing match over guns and numbers of rounds in clips while the whole discussion of how we ignore mental health care in this country sits around undiscussed?  Meaning that in the end nothing changes, and we go on with business as usual?

We imprison way too many people.  But we're also killing too many people, and at some point the police actually need to be held to the higher standard they supposedly uphold.  It's a nice platitude, but in practice it always seems to fall on the dead guy to do all he can to not be killed, not on the cop who pulls the trigger or wields the club.  Time was you only shot someone when you had no choice.  Now according to the masses you can cross some arbitrary line of etiquette and lose your own right to live.  But I am taking a stand now and saying no, and I think alongside the demands for body cameras, we ought to start asking for cops to actually live up to the mantra to serve and protect, and demand independent accountability to make sure they are.  Far be it for me to say I have all the answers here, but we should at least have the conversation.  If not now, when?  How many more need to die?


Monday, November 24, 2014

Ferguson WILL Explode

I don't pretend to know which direction the grand jury will rule regarding Officer Darren Wilson, and I contend that anyone who claims to know is blowing smoke. I also don't pretend to know which way it should rule, as all Joe and I have advocated for here is an objective, impartial investigation that requires Wilson to demonstrate lethal force was justified - amid a belligerent clown choir of pundits from both sides of the issue insisting they know what happened based on a slew of mind-numbing generalizations and stereotypes. But what I can predict, with absolute certainty, is that the grand jury ruling will be followed by days if not weeks of extreme, violent unrest. And I put the odds at about 30% that said violent unrest will not be limited to Ferguson or even to Missouri, but will spread to a number of other cities nationwide. This situation stopped being about Michael Brown within a week of his death.


I've been saying for a couple of years now that the US is a political powder keg just waiting for the right spark. The primary reason for this is the stubbornly stalled economy which is not anywhere near recovering from the collapse of 2008, Obama and his braindead groupies regurgitating the same obsolete and non-representative measures notwithstanding. Lack of financial resources - as a result of unemployment or underemployment, cuts to social safety nets that they were dependent on, and lingering debt from half a decade ago - leaves people with a penchant for civil unrest. As I've discussed in multiple posts and shows, compliance with the law is a function of cost-benefit analysis. The political system frustrates most people in some way, but they comply because generally speaking, taking it on is not worth risking the lives they have. However, when they experience years of economic struggle and insecurity with little hope of regaining stability, the balance in said equation begins to shift; and taking the frustration directly out on the system becomes a palatable option for enough people to overwhelm its resources and threaten it. This effect is especially acute when it involves large proportions of young people struggling for employment; as it leaves them with a lot of spare time and energy to direct toward addressing their political and economic misery.

Then there are more demographic-specific factors. The urban poor have been hit from every angle with cutbacks to the resources they normally rely on - from affordable housing to SNAP to service jobs. The middle class may not have been driven into poverty; but swaths of educated, middle-income earners have been forced into a perpetual focus on immediate survival - something the poor are used to, but this demographic finds unacceptable and will rebel if it does not see a way to remedy. Veterans - of whom we now have many due to over a decade of war - have been marginalized by the horrendous incompetence of the VA and cuts to other public services they utilize. And a number of political minorities - from civil libertarians to evangelicals - have found their ideologies and lifestyles endangered by the ever-growing cancer of Federal overreach, from the NDAA to Obamacare.

Of course most of the demographics involved don't lay this out in such clear-cut terms. In fact, many of them blame each other, particularly the urban poor continuing to hope for government assistance and accusing the far right and libertarians of having sabotaged it, and many in the latter demographic as well as the middle class in general blaming the urban poor and occasionally immigrants for relying on handouts and being drains on the system. But while they remain somewhat divided, all of these elements have a common enemy in our disastrously corrupt and intransigent justice system; which with every passing year becomes more of an unapologetic for-profit industry for private prisons, correctional and law enforcement unions, and defense contractors who now make their money selling military equipment to law enforcement agencies. You want to see a poor, urban liberal, a libertarian, an evangelical, and a disabled veteran get along? Put a cop in full combat gear in front of them.

Why It Hasn't Happened Already

In the past year or so, we have seen at least two manifestations of mass civil disobedience in the US, each of which I thought had the potential to become the spark to light the powder keg. But both fell short.

The first surrounded the government shutdown in late 2013, which involved a slew of blatantly unconstitutional antics by the obscure National Park Police - ranging from attempting to keep veterans from visiting memorials on Veterans Day to ordering people to leave their privately owned homes and businesses that sit on Federal land. These antics were widely and unapologetically nullified. Embarrassing and hilarious images of people walking around in Federal parks despite the barricades circulated on social media, along with stories of residents and business owners daring the National Park Police to arrest them, and the disobedience culminated in a group of veterans and activists dumping 100s of barricades from DC area sites in front of the White House in protest.

The second, of course, was the Bundy Ranch, and there is little need to discuss the details of that incident as we have already done so ad nauseum.

What these incidents had in common with each other that is unlikely to happen in Ferguson is that the government backed off. And while there are status quo apologists that will burst blood vessels in their heads saying I'm wrong - it backed off in both cases because the people making the decisions realized they were outnumbered and overwhelmed, and did not have the resources to win a violent clash. In the case of the shutdown, said decisions were likely made at local command levels. Low-ranking officers who instructed their operatives to shut down Federal sites and evict residents may or may not have been following general guidance from DC, but what they invariably did not have in the bureaucratic chaos of a shutdown is orders on what to do about the widespread disobedience. Contrary to popular conjecture, most law enforcement officers are NOT wanton killers that will engage in violence against civilians at the drop of a hat, and their officers were additionally deterred by the PR threat of engaging in such actions against veterans. Hence, when people laughed and told the NPP where they could stick their shutdown and their barricades, the officers mostly stood around and looked stupid for lack of a better plan.

The Bundy Ranch was far more interesting in that it involved an actual armed standoff with a meticulously organized coalition that had clear objectives and leadership. It's difficult to know the precise size and scope of said coalition, but it obviously involved very diverse elements from libertarian and nationalist militias from all over the Southwest to high-ranking and wealthy officials and organizations within the Mormon Church. Said coalition demonstrated tremendous amounts of discipline and restraint, reportedly expelling several members that behaved in a trigger-happy, provocative fashion toward law enforcement. By the account of one EoC contributor, the two clowns that murdered two Las Vegas police officers several weeks later were present at one point; and were asked firmly to leave for trying to provoke a gunfight. It also helped, of course, that many of the Federal agents involved - from the even more obscure BLM - were from the same small, rural community; and also demonstrated commendable restraint and dedication to resolve the conflict peacefully. Hence, in both cases, the government side of the powder keg acknowledged just how powerful and diverse the opposition it was facing was, and chose to defuse the situation by backing down.

Ferguson Is Disastrously Underestimated

Compare this to Ferguson. I don't know particularly what to attribute this to, but the executive politicians making the decisions for how to deal with the Ferguson unrest - ranging from police chiefs to Governor Jay Nixon to Obama - appear to be engaged in a contest of who can make the dumbest one. Every time the government throws more law enforcement resources at the situation, it escalates further, with more violence and higher numbers of more diverse people on the streets. And yet the executives' response continues to become more belligerent with each step, from the St Louis County PD rolling out in full combat gear and shooting stun grenades into the backyards of random houses in proximity, to Jay Nixon's unconstitutional "pre-emptive" declaration of a State of emergency last week.

It's tempting to formulate very ugly theories about why the government can't respect the Ferguson protesters the way it did the Bundy Ranch militias or the veterans during the shutdown. Is it simply because it's Missouri, and most of the protesters are black and poor, whereas the officials involved are predominantly white and affluent? Is it because the protesters' coalition hasn't demonstrated the same amount of cohesion and restraint; being unable to rein in the small fringe of idiots throwing bricks and setting fires? Is it because the government agencies involved are high-profile ones from all levels, and have a difficult time coordinating any sort of stand-down order, but feel compelled to back each other or even one-up each other? I don't know, and I don't pretend to know.

But what I do know is that the size, diversity, and resolve of the Ferguson coalition are all enough to make the Bundy Ranch one into an historical footnote. And every time executive action tries to stop this coalition via disorganized, haphazard intimidation; the coalition gets bigger, angrier, and more diverse. I believe we have passed the point of no return in terms of avoiding violence when the grand jury ruling is finally announced, I just hope that someone on the government side of the equation has the sense to react in an effective fashion. But judging by the 'competence' in dealing with this situation they have all demonstrated so far, I highly doubt it.


Monday, October 20, 2014

Bureaucracy's Last Stand

What Is Bureaucracy?

For the purposes of this post, "bureaucracy" does NOT refer to government agencies. Assuming most readers have not taken classes in sociology, business management, or a related field, the broader definition of "bureaucracy" is a form of organizational structure founded on precisely defined standards and protocols, usually outlined in governing documents. Bureaucratically organized institutions have rigid internal lines of command and authority, clearly outlined qualifications and responsibilities for employees and other participants at all levels, including procedures for promotion and discipline, exact prescriptions for response to most situations, and a slew of other policies aimed to create standardization and uniformity. Most government agencies are in fact organized in this fashion; but so are the majority of large corporations, unions and professional organizations, and many larger political, non-profit, and religious entities.

In fact, this method of organization is so ingrained into modern society that most people simply take it for granted; not recognizing it's a system that was designed by sociologists and unable to imagine the types of institutions I listed above being organized in any other way. However, without getting unnecessarily deep into organizational theory and its history, suffice it to say that bureaucracy was only the first organizational system intentionally outlined by professionals in the industrialization era; and these professionals were none other than the masterminds of socialism and communism - Max Weber and Karl Marx. Further, at least 10 more competing theories have been outlined in the 150 years since bureaucracy's conception, most of them tested and proven far more efficient and compatible with human nature. As you have probably guessed, I'm highly critical of this system and believe it to be obsolete and detrimental to human society, and in this post I'm going to attempt to convince you of my outlook, and posit that the global political unrest we are witnessing largely surrounds a shift away from it.

Basics of Bureaucracy's Pros and Cons

The benefit of bureaucracy is equality before the system. Its uniform standards are aimed at identifying the optimal choice for any variety of decisions - hiring, lending, outlawing, education curriculum, medical treatment, criminal penalties, etc. What pre-dated organizational systems designed by professionals, in the pre-industrial world, was of course organization based on the whims of small and entrenched elites - consisting of rampant nepotism laced openly with bigotry in all forms; and a significant purpose of uniform standards was to counter the devastating effects of these practices on productivity, although Marx and Weber clearly outlined their ideological opposition to bigotry as well. Choices that follow objective, clearly outlined, specific standards aimed to identify the best cadre for a job, best hours for productivity, best law for society, are theoretically blind to ulterior motives, personal favoritism, and race, gender, and other such characteristics.

The costs of bureaucracy are inflexibility and corruption of standards, in that order. In theory, uniform standards sound both equalizing and effective; but standards that will outline the optimal choice are extremely difficult if not impossible to identify. Think about all the factors that truly influence an employee's work competence and performance, or a leader's ability to handle a difficult situation, or a criminal's likelihood of recidivism, or even a parent's capacity to raise their child. Is it truly possible to account for all of these in a standardized policy that prescribes how to make decisions in hiring, promotions, incarceration, or even taking children away from parents? Hence, in practice, the ideal choice mechanism of the bureaucratic system is a blunt instrument, treating individuals and individual situations based on loose categories they can be easily placed in and prescribing the best choice for a majority or plurality of members of that class. Examples of this include everything from educational standards like No Child Left Behind and Common Core, to treatment prescriptions for various diagnoses in health care and psychology, to standardized wages and minimum wage and benefit laws, to credit reports, to legislatively prescribed minimum sentences and sex offender registries. The generalizations that go into making the allegedly optimal choices in each situation are based on approximate correlation rather than causation, and ignore so many confounding variables that they are extremely poor predictors of actual outcomes. In fact, characteristics like race and gender can be compared to bureaucratic standards, in that they are gross generalizations and make terrible predictors of human behavior and capacity. The across-the-board effect is that discretion is taken out of the hands of the people with specific contact to the situation - teachers, doctors, business owners, juries, etc. and placed in a standardized prescription of what would be best in "most" loosely similar cases. Outliers with higher potential - whether they are excelling students, unusually productive workers, or even rehabilitable criminals - have very low incentive to perform under such standards, because their reward will be no more than the average person in the class. On the other hand, outliers with special needs are likely to find themselves left out in the cold because the standardized response does not meet these; discouraging individualized accommodations for students or workers with disabilities, or even exceptionally harsh sentences for especially heinous criminals.

The second cost surrounds the power of the standard setters and standard followers. Bureaucracy is based on the presumption that whoever is performing these functions does so faithfully and is not influenced in their choices by ulterior motives they would like to rationalize through standards - which can involve anything from personal profit to nepotism and bigotry. Much like the expectation of faith-based cooperation in Marx's theory of Communism, this presumption is prohibitively incompatible with human nature, and most modern sociologists that favor bureaucracy accept that a certain degree of corruption will pervade in any bureaucratic system. Their argument in favor of bureaucracy is not that this limitation does not exist, but that the benefits still outweigh these costs.

Why Bureaucracy REALLY Doesn't Work

What really makes bureaucracy the enemy of humanity is not these two costs, but the counter-intuitive interplay between them. A relatively simple bureaucracy where standards are few and general is not prone to high levels of corruption, because it will be easily identified and those charged with setting or enforcing them relieved of their duties. But few and simple standards lead to blunt and inefficient choices that stifle productivity and create unnecessary costs, and bureaucracy's invariable remedy for this is to create more of itself by complicating standards. When standards fail to produce the optimal outcome they're expected to; the bureaucratic response is to refine and update them to account for more factors and fit more potential cases. This would include separately standardized classes for gifted and special needs students, pre-set bonuses for extra work and mandated accommodations for disabled workers, prescribed special conditions for sentencing that can increase or decrease the penalty, and so forth. While these more complicated standards do accommodate a higher proportion of cases, they make the system even less palatable for cases that remain outliers, leading to an invariable further revision. More importantly, however, the perpetually more complex system becomes far more prone to corruption, as special conditions and prescriptions turn into loopholes that can be abused with relative ease, and people charged with setting them become more powerful and less accountable the more specialized and less widely understood their rationale is.

The common remedy for this increasing corruption, in turn, is to create new levels of bureaucracy to standardize the setting of standards - whether these manifest in regulations at higher levels of government to make up for lack thereof at lower levels (such as State vs Federal in Obamacare), or institution-wide policies in private organizations to make uniform the operation of sub-organizations and departments. The end result is a level of complexity so esoteric that even those who have the faith to set standards adequately and follow them simply do not have the understanding nor the capacity to do so; and ignoring or highjacking the standards becomes not corruption aimed at specific ulterior motives, but widely tolerated practice that is only abandoned when following standards becomes temporarily necessary (such as an inspection) or momentarily useful (such as the need to fire a difficult employee). This widespread nullification, in turn, overwhelms the bureaucracy's enforcement resources for its own standards.

The problem with the modern world is that 150 years after its inception, this self-replicating cancer has grown so large and infused itself so deeply into every facet of human society that it is literally strangling global efficiency and productivity. Its immense and often contradictory complexity drives and enables corruption and standard-setting for ulterior motives at the highest levels imaginable - banks and monetary policy, health care cartels and the very definitions of medicine, energy producers of various kinds and policies on climate change and conservation, and so forth. What we are witnessing in the developed world is a return to the cronyism, corruption, economic disparity, and social insecurity of the 19th century that bureaucracy was meant to counter; and these phenomena have domesticated bureaucracy and highjacked its institutions for their own purposes. This problem is actually LESS pervasive in the United States than in most places used for socioeconomic comparison such as China, Europe, Canada and Australia; which is why our economy remains more efficient and productive than those places; but the tradeoff is that we suffer from less apologetic nepotism and bigotry.

Why I Believe Bureaucracy Is On Its Deathbed

Again dishearteningly but unsurprisingly, the response to this trend of various leaders, and especially politicians, has been to double down even more on bureaucratic standards; making them more complex and conceding to higher levels of authority even as the existing ones buckle under the pressure of excessive complexity. Here are a few illustrations.

Ebola: We now have several documented cases of Ebola in the United States. According to the bureaucratically organized CDC, these resulted from medical protocols for dealing with the infected being both inadequate (blunt), and ignored (too complex and cumbersome). So, the CDC is now authoring new, Ebola-specific protocols (for health care professionals to ignore as they add complexity), and President Obama appointed a new bureaucrat specifically to set standards for how to set these standards (more uniformly and bluntly). Republican politicians, not to be outdone, have recommended everything from travel bans standardized to certain countries to health screening protocols at border crossings and airports - more blunt, work-complicating generalizations completely incapable of containing the virus that can be easily manipulated for power abuse and bigotry. Thankfully, Ebola is not very contagious, and the inevitable failure of these protocol updates is unlikely to result in a catastrophic nationwide pandemic. But rest assured, IF a virus as scary as hysterical Americans imagine Ebola to be actually materialized, it would claim 100,000s of lives, and bureaucracy would be powerless to stop it.

ISIS: Despite over a decade of standardized and bi-partisan protocols for dealing with "terrorism" and bringing stability to the Middle East to eliminate safe havens, and unthinkable amounts of resources poured into this effort, we are arguably less safe from acts of violence on our soil than we have ever been in the last 70 years. Islamic Fundamentalists have only gotten more radical and violent, as Boko Haram and ISIS now make Al Qaeda and Hezbollah look reasonable, and the region has only become more unstable and hospitable to them. However, Republicans and Democrats only disagree on which failed protocols from the last 13 years to double down on; tyrannical military occupation that pisses off the local population and drives more of it to radical Islamism (bluntness), or funding/arming/supporting double-dealing regional leaders who, after defeating the problem du jour, BECOME our new problem (corruption). Whichever of these we choose, we are likely to defeat or contain ISIS and create a new, ever more extreme movement that makes them look like altar boys; and if we keep this up we will eventually create one that poses a very serious threat to us. This is perhaps a policy domain where inefficiency and ulterior motives have fused to the point of inseparability because of its esoteric nature and drummed up sense of urgency.

Elections: This effect can even be observed in political campaigns. As I touched on in a previous post, the Democratic Party is poised to again have its ass handed to it by a poorly organized assortment of nay-sayers that pander to disgruntlement with the establishment even within its own party. This disgruntlement is largely driven by the compounding effects of bureaucracy I have outlined here, which actually has little to do with partisanship. And yet its leaders continue to double down on a campaign strategy based on uniform optimal choice standards that perpetually fail to appease outliers (bluntness) and enable localized and specific abuse by challengers (corruption).

What I see the political re-alignment in this country evolving into is a stand-off between the believers in bureaucracy and those so disillusioned with it they want to see it fail at any cost. It's tempting to claim the Democratic Party embodies the former, and it has certainly moved itself closer to that position; but the majority of Republican politicians are guilty of it as well, even some originally elected on promises to oppose it. However, what this does explain is Americans' propensity to keep electing ever-more incompetent and sometimes odious politicians who promise to obstruct and derail the system; in some cases to replace politicians that are now part of it who made the same promises only 4 years earlier. I've been accused by many of supporting the Tea Party and its ambiguous, contradictory, and often infantile and detached agenda. But the reality is that with the exception of a few politicians like Amash, Huelskamp, Massie, and Paul who have always genuinely leaned libertarian - I think the Tea Party's proposals are predominantly insane, like any other reasonable person. However, bureaucracy was failing us long before the Tea Party materialized, and continuing to double down on it is just as insane; no matter how desperately any Progressive tries to blame the Tea Party for what it's a natural response to, or tantrums that bureaucracy "would" work if only humans did not behave the way we naturally do, in truly Marxist fashion. And for this reason, I believe the Tea Party's divisive and obstructionist effect is a positive one for this country; it uses bureaucracy's own shortcomings to cause it to fail more egregiously and undeniably, turning more people against it and speeding its inevitable collapse.

As we have already witnessed, and in line with the shortcomings of bureaucracy I outlined above, it does not take anything close to a Tea Party majority to strangle this monster using its own intransigence; and there is enough popular disillusionment with the system that the Tea Party is NOT going away until said leviathan is dead at its feet. Similar arguments can be made for fringe movements in other developed countries, but this post has gotten long enough and I believe you get the point. The global political gridlock is an enema for a deeply flawed system of societal organization that absolutely has to die for humanity to survive; and while enemas are never pleasant, sometimes they're the only way to purge shit.


Friday, October 10, 2014

The Myers Shooting: The Last Straw For Police Excess?

When Trayvon Martin was killed, the right and the left habitually wrestled over characterizing him as a hardened criminal that deserved it and a cherubic under-aged victim of racism and 'gun violence'. I said firmly from the get-go that he sounded like a juvenile delinquent and probably contributed to the confrontation, but that Zimmerman's deadly force was likely unwarranted.

When Michael Brown was killed, as the same ridiculous conjectural tug-of-war was only shaping up, Joe was yelling at me for saying that he sounded like a thug, but that I saw no reason to believe lethal force was legally justified.

In the case of Vonderrit Deondre Myers, - who, for those that live under a rock, was gunned down by an off-duty St. Louis police officer Wednesday night - I really don't foresee that tired battle over character. He was arrested on June 27 for unlawful use of a weapon, a felony charge, and resisted arrest. At the time of his shooting, he was carrying an illegally possessed firearm, and at least according to the officer's account - fired it at the officer 3 times. There is little question as to whether Myers was a criminal, and even less to say in defense of a man who gets shot by the guy he opened fire on. At least so far, even the protesters seem to agree, as I see hardly anyone defending his innocence. That is what makes this case so unique, and indicative of serious looming political turmoil. A homicide by police that looks justified from all angles is nevertheless spawning protests, garnering nationwide attention, and looks likely to escalate to more violence and confrontations between citizens and police in planned actions this weekend.

Contrary to some abjectly racist assumptions disgustingly popular in the United States; violent crime and assault on police are NOT widely accepted behaviors in our poor, urban communities populated overwhelmingly by minorities. I know this from personal experience working in such communities, as well as from reviewing sociological studies. Like most reasonable people, the average poor, minority American believes that if you commit a violent crime - you deserve to go to jail, if you engage in violence - you have no business complaining about receiving violence in return, and if you open fire on a cop - you should expect to die. In fact, if such communities truly believed anyone killed by police that is poor and a minority is innocent; there would be protests and riots in this country almost daily.

The protests are also being joined by swaths of young, middle class activists concerned with civil liberties and law enforcement excess. While this demographic is more consistent in its distaste for law enforcement and government in general; it is often accused, quite rightfully, by the very poor and minorities it's joining of only complaining from the safety of its suburban homes. Yet this seemingly justified is bringing them out into the streets in ways that only the most unjustified ones have in the past.

Unlike Martin and Brown, Myers is not the kind of police homicide that usually receives this kind of reaction. So why is this unlikely coalition protesting an off-duty cop shooting a man with a documented history of violence who opened fire on him first?

Because to the poor minorities involved in the resistance, every officer is now a bigot and every act of police violence driven by racism. And because to the middle class protesters concerned with overreach and civil liberties, every officer is now a sociopath drunk on power, representing and relying on a corrupt structure of tyranny and incompetence. Both generalizations are grossly misled as the overwhelming majority of officers and agencies meet neither stereotype. But the unlikely bedfellows are united by a simple and destructive consensus that police can do no right. Or, in more social science terms, they are fed up enough with law enforcement engaging in violence with impunity to think compliance with law and order is no longer worth the trouble of putting up with this. There is no reasoning with that mentality, and in extreme cases it leads to the violent ousting of government - as we witnessed recently in Egypt and Ukraine.

I'm not quite predicting outright revolution will occur in the United States within the next couple of months, but I do believe the critical mass has been reached to create significant and permanent policy changes. CNN contributor and civil rights activist Van Jones attributed this to a "wholesale breakdown of trust [between citizens and police]", and I agree completely. No law enforcement agency in the world has the resources to keep everyone in its jurisdiction obedient to the law by force, it is the simple logic of police being outnumbered 1000s-to-1. Most people follow the laws of our own volition, save minor infractions like speeding or littering which predominantly go unpunished, leaving police with enough room to pursue criminals that actually threaten public safety and law and order. Further, law enforcement relies significantly on citizen cooperation in maintaining law and order and apprehending criminals; ranging from supplying information to summoning police to situations of conflict rather than taking the law into their own hands. Both of these elements require a certain widespread faith in both law enforcement's motives and its capacity. So when a critical mass of the population - and this does not require anything close to a majority - begins to see the police as a greater threat to their safety than criminals; law enforcement not only becomes useless and incapable, but law and order itself is threatened as the benefits of non-compliance outweigh the costs in the eyes of enough people to overwhelm its resources. If my estimates of the magnitude of this disobedience movement in coming weeks are accurate - the politicians confronting it will have no choice but to enact significant concessions to its demands to maintain law and order. It helps that many on both sides of the aisle have indicated a desire to take up many of the causes in question, such as demilitarization of police, repeal of multiple laws authorizing police overreach, and accountability measures such as mounted cameras for law enforcement. I believe this eruption of civil unrest, coupled with the upcoming election, may finally spur enough support for their doing so.

Like most large collective reactions to a negative event, this one is coarse and in many ways irrational - seeking retribution against a class for grudges over both real and perceived injustices committed by a few of its members. However, meaningful and lasting social change is rarely achieved through precise and rational action, it certainly was not in the 1890s or the 1960s. So despite its brash nature, I believe this development is overall positive and beneficial for this country. Bringing the authority and political influence of law enforcement agencies in line with the Constitution is LONG overdue, as is bringing their funding in line with economic reality. While we may not all agree on the specifics of how to do so, that statement is one people from across the political spectrum today can get behind, leaving it in need only of a catalyst that pushes reluctant politicians to respond. If you are involved in this, I salute you; but also implore you to keep the violence to a minimum. Remember that the most successful from of civil disobedience is not giving a beating, but being willing to take one.


Monday, September 15, 2014

The Looming Decline Of the Democratic Party

Months ago, I settled for predicting a disappointing, lackluster election season in which incumbents reign supreme in all phases, and in which Republicans make modest gains in the Senate but the overall balance of power does not shift. I never said the re-alignment I've been talking about for years had been derailed, but in the Primaries it did feel slowed to a disappointing pace, and moved from the ballot box to backroom deals. South Carolina saw genuine Tea Party hopeful Mick Mulvaney announce he wasn't going to challenge intra-party enemy #1 Lindsey Graham, citing significant policy concessions and the latter's immense war chest. Other genuine hopefuls like Glenn Jacobs in Tennessee also declined their potential bids. Campaigns thrown together top-down by big corporate donors, like Matt Bevin's challenge to Mitch McConnell, failed to engage grassroots fervor and fell flat. Yes, Mississippi lifer Thad Cochran was so cornered by Tea Partier Chris McDaniel that he had to do the unthinkable - appeal to black voters, and yes there was that Democratic mischief that unseated Majority Leader Eric Cantor. But it's still difficult to compare these ripples to the earth-shattering upsets of 2010 or 2012. However, looking at the polls and dynamics of the upcoming general election, for once I'm happy to think I was very wrong.

Another Coming Wave Of Red

Firstly, the polls now show the Democrats having their asses handed to them on November 4th. Republicans maintaining control of the House, even without further gains, IS a victory, not a draw. They already control it by a significant margin, and seeing as most Congressional districts in the US are gerrymandered to death - this essentially means projected victories in a grand majority of contested ones. That's no small feat for a party that's controlled the House for the last 4 years.

Then there's the projection of Republicans managing to take control of the Senate. Guaranteed pick-ups in States with open seats - WV, MT, SD - are not as easily dismissed as the media's lack of attention to them would make you think. Despite being safely red in Presidential elections, all 3 have very mixed records in terms of who they elected to Senate in recent history. In 2 of them, the other Senator that's NOT up for re-election is, in fact, a Democrat. Republicans saw Montana's other seat as a safe pick-up when it was open in 2012, and suffered an embarrassing upset. In light of these facts, the looming sweep of circa 20% advantages for Republicans in each State is an indicator of a trend being gloriously ignored by elements for whom its inconvenient.

This same trend is evident looking at the 4 seats where Republicans look likely to defeat incumbents; Alaska, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana. All 4 are, of course, also red or at least red-leaning States, and with the exception of LA's Mary Landrieu - they're represented by relatively conservative Democrats that often defy their caucus and claim they must to stay in office. Yet despite voting records that should be somewhat palatable to conservatives, they're losing; when only 2 months ago they seemed almost safe re-election projections. On the other hand, the 2 States where Democrats seemed to at least have a fighting chance at pick-ups in July - Georgia's open seat and Kentucky with McConnell somewhat damaged by his Primary fight - now appear extreme long-shots at best.

What happened? Haven't NBC and internet gossip rags like politicususa been telling us since Obama's re-election in 2012 that the Republican Party is on its deathbed, because it's too extreme and can't hope to appeal to minorities? Weren't Republicans supposed to get blamed for the Fall 2013 shutdown and take an electoral beating in reprisal? What's really happening to the political landscape of this country is far more complex and far more rooted in wonkish civics than the story polarized partisanship tells, but the facts of this election are all the evidence I need to demonstrate I've been right in my predictions - for years.

The Democrats' Identity Crisis

For those of you that associate top-down campaigning with Republicans and think of conservative organizers as taking orders from large, powerful donors and caucus leaders - I tell you adamantly that you're looking for this in the wrong party. That is in no way an endorsement of Republicans; merely the wisdom of someone with significant experience in this field.

Sure, Republicans get more corporate funding, and sure, in the last few years this trend has increased with the rise of Super PACs using Citizens United to funnel money to Tea Party candidates. However, the strings attached to that money are not what many imagine them to be, and it's intuitive if you think about it for yourself rather than trusting popular stereotypes. The corporate Republican donors of 10-20 years ago were defense and law enforcement contractors; large corporations dependent entirely on government spending for their profits. Hence, the politicians they supported and funded had to sell a very specific policy line of interventionism and various restrictions on civil liberties - from the War on Drugs to the Patriot Act. Conversely, they could compromise with Democrats in funding the Welfare State so long as the money for weapon systems and border walls kept flowing. There you have the socially moderate, big spending, warmongering Neocons.

Today's Republican donors - most notably the Koch Brothers, but also a significant tide of young E-Millionaires - are industrialists that draw their profits from private spending. Politically, they benefit primarily from derailing government intervention in their business operations; whether that intervention be in the form of taxation, regulations, laws that buttress unions, or simply funding for the agencies that enforce these policies. This contrarian agenda can be accomplished from a variety of angles - libertarians citing government inefficiency and unaccountability, religious and anti-Federal interests seeking various types of autonomy, white nationalists denying discrimination exists and opposing workplace laws intended to address it, even simple obstinacy that slows down government operations to a crawl. And there you have the Tea Party; dynamic and diverse in its political principles, but united by its stubbornness and aversion to compromise, and unapologetic about winning by causing stalemates and shutdowns. Trying to keep this analysis as neutral as possible, my point is simply that today's Republican donors only have a short list of what the politicians they fund must OPPOSE - they can do so however they want, and take whatever positions suit their fancy on issues ranging from abortion and gay marriage to drugs, the border, and war.

Let's compare this with today's Democrats. In the time of the Neocons, Democrats were actually the more internally divided party - ranging from solid liberals like Al Franken and Dennis Kucinich that adamantly opposed war and endorsed civil liberties but also favored a large and unaccountable welfare State, to moderates like the Clintons and John Kerry that sought compromise solutions on all of these issues. The Democratic Party was then significantly bigger than the Republican in terms of voter registration, and it was normal for various regional funding camps to duke it out in the Primaries. They endured decades of this internal division because campaign spending was far more tame, and also because they were the contrarian party of the era. In general elections, funding funneled centrally through the Party's top-down apparatus would be used to mount standardized campaigns aimed at moderate voters painting Republicans as greedy, war-mongering, Bible-thumping extremists - and this would succeed when swing voters were angrier about these trends than about political correctness, or regulatory and welfare-state excesses. This strategy became an integral part of the generally top-down organized Democratic Party, and campaign strategies came to rely ever more heavily on standardized data analysis being used to develop scripts and pitches that maximized appeal to center demographics.

But, since the Republican Party shed the Fascism-lite (I said it) of the previous two decades and reinvented itself as the "leave me alone" party, Democrats have taken repeated electoral beatings; and this will continue until they update their strategy to modern day. Put plainly, Republican candidates in general elections are now extremely diverse, and politicians and campaign professionals with nationally standardized specifications of what to say and support have a very difficult time competing for votes against opponents with only loose guidelines on what to oppose. There is, of course, also the factor of general dissatisfaction with government and Republicans' propensity to fan its flames through harsh criticism of the status quo; but like it or not, this stacks up perfectly with their dynamic, contrarian style.

I posit, confidently, that Democratic leaders' obtuse resistance to adapting their strategy to these modern trends is largely responsible for the electoral pattern described above. The campaigns of the relatively conservative Democrats in question are trying to appeal to the standardized national profile of a moderate voter. They fearmonger about Tea Party extremists that want to shut down government, and they try to talk up the general accomplishments of Democrats in compromise and of government in providing public services. This same strategy is invariably behind propaganda campaigns peddling the over-generalized criticisms of the Republican Party and predicting its extinction. Meanwhile, the Republicans facing these candidates are far from monolithic, and mount aggressive campaigns tuned into local preferences and exposing specific weaknesses and foul-ups of their opponents. In many places, the standardized fascination with moderates also alienates the more liberal base of the Democratic Party; discouraging those already fickle demographics from turning out, and making them more likely to vote third party if they do. The known shortcoming of central planning is its inflexibility and excessive standardization; only allowing it to succeed when used for united opposition against something very specific.

Yet rather than rethink their approach to politics, the Democratic Party has done nothing but double-down on these strategies. The most evident example of this, of course, is the increased role of OFA - an organization that grew out of Obama's overrated 2012 field campaign and now performs statistical voter analyses and develops standardized scripts for a slew of Democratic campaigns nationwide. As we have seen this organization fail to reproduce results that were erroneously attributed to it 2 years ago, it seems Democrats have switched to an emergency strategy of dropping out of races they are sure to lose and endorsing Independent candidates; such as the Kansas Senate and Alaska Governor races. While OFA's propaganda rags try to spin this as doom for the "extremist" Republicans, I say it reeks of futile desperation. OFA has run these Democrats' campaigns so deep into the toilet that they've been forced out of the running, and rather than acknowledge its failure - it is now tripling down on appealing to moderates. This is unlikely to make up for their lack of grassroots appeal and local understanding, but it will further alienate their already disillusioned base.

The incompetence of this approach mirrors the general sloppiness and inefficiency of Obama's Executive Branch - riddled with scandals and bureaucratic mishaps to extents we have not witnessed since the 1960s. So perhaps his own rosy-eyed faith in central planning is what it can be attributed to, but I don't claim to know. I do know, however, many dedicated, experienced political professionals who work on Democratic campaigns that are deeply frustrated with these tactic restrictions and demands for adherence to them in order to receive centrally concentrated campaign funding. But the inflexibility of central planning bureaucracies extends to their receptiveness to constructive internal criticism, and these professionals are unlikely to reform the system.

The Emerging Partisan Alignment

What we will see, soon, as a result of these political trends, is what I've been predicting since as far back as 2009; long before the launch of Edge of Chaos on my all-but-forgotten individual blog at As the Democratic Party loses more seats and struggles to appeal to moderates while further alienating its base, those crafty Republican contrarians will begin turning out candidates that lure the latter. After all, Progressives and solid liberals are, by their nature, contrarians as well - averse to compromise, adamant in their ideologies, and in many ways distrustful of government. They are also fervent defenders of civil liberties and opponents of interventionism; which had been deal-breakers for their joining the Republican Party during the Neocon era. Republicans who appeal to them will come from traditionally blue States, and are likely to resolve the economic rift by advocating generous safety nets at sub-Federal levels where they are palatable, and also more accountable. In the meantime, we are already witnessing with Obama's ISIL plan that the Democratic Party has absorbed a large proportion of Neocon elements, and without its base it will become an odd assortment of aging modern moderates - blubbering simultaneously about the glory days of 'generous' hyper-Federalism, 'law and order', and 'national security'.

If such an assortment seems unlikely to you, it is because you are unaware of just how shifty our history of partisan alignments is. Before the 1960s, anyone predicting minorities overwhelmingly favoring the Democratic Party, while stalwart big-government social conservatives from the South and limited government types from the West awkwardly share the Republican, would have come off as a raving lunatic. And just as the Republicans in the previous 50 years, such a party can mount opposition to change to protect the status quo or pass extreme policies during times of crisis like the 1980s and the post 9/11 era; but it has a difficult time holding on to power and managing lasting policy hegemony. THAT is where the Democratic Party is headed, likely irreversibly, and those angry at my prediction only have this Administration, with all its centralizing glory, to blame.


Thursday, August 21, 2014

Mike Brown's Innocence Is Completely Irrelevant

When the Ferguson protests were only kicking off, before the tear gas and rubber bullets and national attention, Joe and I had a heated conversation regarding Mike Brown, and my point boiled down to the following (be careful not to get offended, because I don't give 2 shits if you are):

"This kid sounds like a wannabe thug to me. According to his own mother, he barely finished high school with a delay into the Summer. According to his own friend [and only witness that had come forward at the time], he was walking down the middle of the street and mouthed off to the cop that dared ask him to move to the sidewalk. He's being accused of shoplifting [this was how police described the corner store incident with the Swisher Sweets at the time]. And they're spinning his planning to go to a vocational school to be an HVAC technician as 'starting college', which sounds to me like grasping at straws to build up his character. In a few weeks, his true character will become public, and that will completely undermine what SHOULD be a legitimate case against police belligerence."

Welcome to the future. We have video of Brown intimidating a store clerk half his size in a robbery as opposed to a shoplifting incident, and we have witnesses attesting to various degrees that he not only mouthed off to the cop, but struggled physically with him. As I predicted, the "poor innocent victim kid" bullshit went up in flames, and now every apologist for police militarization is hammering on this character assassination in a desperate effort to make Americans stop asking questions about police behavior.

The objective reality is, Mike Brown's character and the petty crimes he is suspected of are completely irrelevant to the issue in question. Seeing as he's dead; whether or not he robbed a corner store, jaywalked, and failed to comply with a lawful order from, or even assaulted, an officer - are hardly questions of judicial concern. What matters is whether or not his actions warranted the officer's use of lethal force. The burden of proof for THAT is on the police. That's not only US Justice 101, it's common sense; unless you believe in police having carte blanche to open fire on anyone suspected of a petty crime and being disrespectful - in which case I recommend relocating to Belarus or North Korea. And so far, I've seen 0 case the use of lethal force was justified. Although there is no shortage of speculation and spin based on evidence that in no way logically supports that conclusion, and no shortage of the clowns vomiting it getting their panties in a bunch when the logical integrity of their arguments is questioned.

The lesson herein - whether you're a liberal focusing on race and poverty, a libertarian focusing on Constitutionality, or a conservative realizing the similarities to the Bundy Ranch and that government is not above bullying you - is to focus on the questions you want answered and not let pundits frame the debate. Apologist spin is failing miserably because the police response to the protests has been so egregiously incompetent and unlawfully forceful that it has drawn in 1000s of diverse, previously unaffiliated Americans for whom this is not about Mike Brown. But had the various law enforcement agencies involved in the aftermath shown a morsel of professionalism or restraint, I guarantee you the Rush Limbaughs would convince most Americans that because Mike Brown was a bad kid, the Constitution somehow doesn't apply to him and police should not be held accountable for their actions. This has happened over and over and over, and the most vocal elements in opposition of law enforcement abuse of power perpetually allow themselves to be highjacked by the Al Sharptons and Benjamin Crumps of America. These so-called "activists" flat out LIE about thugs like Brown being victimized innocent children to perpetuate racial divides that serve as their job security, and when the right exposes them, accurately - the actual root of the issue is completely forgotten, and people continuing to question the police are seen as marginalized lunatics.

I don't care if Mike Brown was black, white, or green with pink polka dots on his back. I don't even really care if he manhandled that store clerk, and was generally a jerk that liked to use his size to intimidate and bully others. I care whether or not he did anything to warrant a trained, sworn officer of the law shooting him 6 times and killing him. The police are not authorized to do that barring very extreme and specific circumstances; and when they do, they are required to demonstrate those circumstances to the public. Put down the race card, shut up about Mike Brown's personality, and keep protesting and rallying and refusing to comply with orders to disperse until law enforcement fulfills this legal obligation. Otherwise, we will get swept under the rug and send law enforcement the message, for the umpteenth time, that it's open season on any person who looks at them wrong.

And Sharpton - put a cork in it.


Friday, August 15, 2014

Today's Mediacrity Award: Rush Limbaugh

Today's Mediacrity Award goes to the one and only Rush Limbaugh.  Why, you ask?  Could it be his legendary charm on the airwaves? Could it be his irrepressible wit and the aplomb with which he skewers the LIEberal media on his show every Monday through Friday? Nope, today's Mediacrity Award goes to Limbaugh because even though he has proven himself over and over again to be a slimy demagogue with a cadre of moronic, mouth-breathing rednecks and neo-Conservative fraud assholes as fans, he proved this week that he can still hit new lows by implying that Robin Williams may have killed himself because of his "leftist worldview." He swiftly walked back these comments one day later, if you could call turning an actual audio clip into being "taken out of context" and turning the whole thing around by accusing the media of "glorifying suicide" and speculating that the "laudatory" coverage might inspire others to commit suicide also "walking back" his remarks. The fact that he managed to do this in the same week he apologized for police crackdowns on citizens in Ferguson, MO and basically argued that reporters who were arrested should have just complied with officers' unlawful instructions and surrendered their rights as citizens and journalists because of the unrest going on (I won't link it here because the transcript is hosted on his site and I refuse to send it traffic, but look it up if you want to) is nothing short of amazing.

Does this fat, obtuse slimeball actually believe the average person thinks they would garner three to four days of coverage in the media if they also killed themselves as Robin Williams did, or is this the same sort of make-believe culture warrior bullshit that he and his ilk continually peddle to their increasingly psychotic fans in order to hold their short attention spans for one extra moment? Mr. Limbaugh, I believe someone with a worldview like yours, should you actually hold it in real life, is suffering from some serious psychological problems and you may want to investigate treatment options for this disorder right away before you begin to harm yourself or others. Either way, shut the fuck up already, will ya?


Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Michael Brown Shooting in Ferguson: A Plea For Patience and Logic

As the details surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown slowly emerge from Ferguson, Missouri, we find there is still much we cannot know for sure, at least until a full investigation and possibly a trial is allowed to happen. The danger in what’s going on right now, with both sides squaring off both in the media and in the streets much like the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, is that certain facts get clouded amidst the rhetoric flying around. But let me try to piece things together and give my opinion on what we know so far.

Michael Brown, an 18 year old that was about to start college this week after just graduating high school, was walking down the street with friend Dorian Johnson. At some point they encounter an as yet unnamed officer and member of the mostly white Ferguson police department and are reportedly told to walk on the sidewalk instead of the street, to which both youths respond that they are already near their destination, Dorian Johnson’s own house. From here narratives differ, and the officer either slammed his door open so hard it bounced off of Michael Brown, after which the officer choked him, and then shot him, causing him to run away. After this the officer shot Michael once more and when he fell to the ground, he reportedly held both hands up and said “Don’t shoot me, I don’t have a gun.” The officer ignored this and shot him dead anyway.

The police department’s version says that Michael Brown engaged the officer physically and reached for his firearm, discharging one round into the cruiser. The officer then responded with force and eventually shot Michael Brown dead. Quite obviously with these two stories the end is the same: a young man is dead, and a community has lost one of their own. Obviously we cannot take anything said so far, by the police, by witnesses or by Dorian Johnson, at face value. Everyone has an angle, and just as the police are likely going to portray the shooting as a regrettable but necessary act that was unavoidable and to portray Michael Brown as a dangerous and violent individual, the friends and family of this young man are also going to portray him in the best light as a 100% innocent person with no violent impulses. Similarly, the right wing media will go overboard to portray this young man as a thug, just as the left wing will play up the race issue. The outcome of this is predictable because a lot of the same names, Trayvon Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump and activist Al Sharpton among them, are the same. In my opinion we do need to treat this with the seriousness it deserves, but let me lay out a few reasons why the looting, rioting and supposed incitements of violence are grossly inappropriate and misapplied, if that weren’t already obvious.

Simply put, we have no choice but to let the system work from here. Federal oversight is already being applied, and simply race baiting on either side will not help us discover the facts. Above all, I want to know who did what that day, and mete out consequences accordingly. Now, having said that, the facts we already know, to me, already speak volumes. What business does an officer have shooting a youth dead who was not armed himself? Whether he tried to grab the officer’s gun, and obviously failed, or not is immaterial. Anytime we condone a police officer shooting someone who is unarmed and running away from them, we take one more step away from constitutional protections for citizens of this country. Was there really no other resolution to this? To me this, aside from racial bias, indicates once again that police departments in this country are poorly trained, and now thanks to post-9/11 militarization, are too heavily armed. Give a man a toolbox with only a hammer in it and suddenly the whole world is full of nails. Time and time again we see that the police in the US have simply become too trigger happy, and seem to have lost all capacity to deal with threats in any way other than simply shooting them down with weaponry. This needs to change.

On the subject of race: yes, I think it is relevant here. But I think that obvious grandstanding charlatans like Al Sharpton are using race in this case not just to discover truth, but to cloud the issue with their own politics. I think he tacitly encourages the looting and the other violence we have seen in the wake of the initial shooting, and I think his mere presence is interfering with the search for truth that everyone ultimately wants to happen here. Those who condone violence in response to violence are no better than those who commit the original act of violence. Dr. King knew this well. The non-violent protests, which had citizens of Ferguson stand with hands raised high in the air and chanting “Don’t shoot, we’re unarmed” are a much better idea, and more clearly demonstrate what is at issue here. Predictably though, the police have responded as you would expect, with all of their military toys and combat gear on display. This is the very reason why looting and violence will not solve this. Simply put: the cops are better armed than you. Your only play is to at least be shot with your hands raised, a helpless and innocent victim that will hopefully serve to finally show the brutality of the Ferguson police to the world in unmistakable fashion. This scenario is more along the lines of what Dr. King would have wanted to do here.  Please do not conflate this point with Fox News' penchant for using Dr. King against protestors in this type of situation, all the while lecturing African Americans on their own history though.  It does seem that in Ferguson there was indeed one night of isolated looting and violence, which many people said was precipitated by the police cracking down on an otherwise peaceful protest, and that the level of violence and damage that has occurred since is being exaggerated by the police in an obvious political move to discredit the protests themselves.  Obviously, once again, truth is difficult to come by, but some of the stunning video of police using their riot gear, flashbangs, and etc to crack down on citizens in otherwise peaceful looking neighborhoods sure does not help to inspire confidence in their motives.  Again, the citizenry has no choice but to document, to peacefully protest, and to hope the country is paying attention.  I certainly am, and you should be too.

With the recent police homicide in New York due to a misapplied choke hold, and the Michael Brown shooting, and all of the other cases we have discussed on Edge of Chaos, it is obvious that police are out of control, and that African Americans, and other nonwhites, seem to encounter this problem more. But above all, what we need is an organized movement that sticks to the facts: that over policing is a problem, that police militarization is a problem, that shooting unarmed citizens dead in the street is a problem, that using combat gear equipped, military grade vehicle driving foot soldiers to shut down entire cities and neighborhoods at will and for flimsy reasons is a problem, and that ubiquitously searching, accosting and arresting citizens, particularly those of color and/or in poor neighborhoods, in search of “meeting quotas” is a problem.  Citizens are not the enemy, and the police ought to return to the mantra of "serve and protect."  We need to stay focused on these things if we are to see substantive change.


Friday, August 1, 2014

Israel/Palestine: The 0 State Solution

"Oh, THAT. Of course it's safe. This stuff in Israel, it's like someone getting shot in Los Angeles."

-My Israeli friend and Edge of Chaos contributor, on traveling home.

I've hesitated to comment on the latest Israel/Palestine drama because quite frankly, I'm bored of it. It's not that I don't care, it's just that this incident has very little long-term political significance. It's always the same story:

Divides within the minority leadership between moderates and radicals. An act of terror against majority members attributed to the radicals. Hawkish elements of the majority using this act to pressure minority moderates to disown the radicals. The radicals responding with violence. The majority rallying behind the hawks for return violence. The minority rallying behind the radicals as an unintended consequence. Egypt a crucial factor. Lots of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, horrendously disproportionate toward the minority. And finally, heaps and volumes of propaganda from both sides distorting global political opinion so hopelessly that hardly anyone realizes what I just described ISN'T the current crisis - but a regular occurrence in the Middle East that is literally as old as time.

I can also tell you EXACTLY how this will end. The IDF's incursion into Gaza will deal devastating short-term damage to Hamas, eradicating its leadership and significantly reducing its military capacity; then lock Gaza back down and leave. The result will be a couple of years of relative calm as Hamas recovers. But, the memories of airstrikes and tanks in the streets will increase its popularity, allowing it to grow new leadership and restore its arsenal. Then, when the time is right, the rockets will start flying again; and history will repeat itself.

Despite the political insignificance and predictability, however; if either side's behavior seems stupid or short-sighted to you, it is because you lack an objective understanding of the conflict. This is an extremely common affliction because of the oceans of propaganda, and my rationale for this post is simply my frustration with the widespread ignorance. If you're looking for me to take a side or convince you who the good guys are, look elsewhere. The Middle East is, in essence, the axis of global political conflict; and consequently the crux of collective human stupidity - war, nationalism, superstition. Only when all the myths are dispelled, and when people all around the world begin to hold their governments accountable for their invariable contribution to this cyclical insanity will there be any chance of calm; and my hope here is to put a few drops in that bucket.

Myth #1: Peace

The best way to identify someone talking about the Middle East as completely full of shit is if they make rosy references to a time when everyone there lived peacefully - whether it's Palestine advocates talking about pre-1947, or Israel advocates talking about 4000BC. The historical record simply does not indicate there was ever a time without 2 or more entities laying claims to the land in question, and entities powerful and balanced enough for this to result in perpetual, violent conflict. If anything, the entities in question being officially local to the conflict is somewhat of a recent development. A short, incomplete list of past claimants to Israel and particularly Jerusalem, all of whom fought drawn out, bloody wars for this purpose, follows:

Ancient Egypt
The Philistine Empire
Judea/The Ancient Israelites
Alexander the Great of Macedonia
The Roman Empire
The Umayyads
The Abbassids
The Mongols
The Marmalukes
The Holy Roman Empire (the Crusades)
The British Empire
Napoleon Bonaparte
The Ottoman Empire
The Russian Empire

and in modern history, by proxy:


Looking at this list, it becomes evident that the land in question is a coveted possession for virtually every superpower in human history, and that with such titans clashing over who it belongs to - it will persist in a perpetual state of war. Interestingly, based on my own experiences with both Israelis and Palestinians, most people living there seem to recognize this condition. They refer to the periods of relative calm accurately as temporary cease fires, knowing full well they live in a war zone and violence will resume. It's narcissistic politicians from global superpowers that like to announce they have "brokered peace" by negotiating yet another cease fire agreement; and the media leaves out the context to allow these clowns to mislead their constituents for short-term political gain.

Myth #2: Ancestral Homeland

This insanity is the propaganda method of choice for BOTH sides in the modern era of the conflict, and it is horrendously and intentionally misleading.

Modern pro-Palestinian propaganda often complains that Palestinians were displaced by the establishment of the Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan in 1947; quite intentionally planting the seeds for the flatly inaccurate assumption that pre-1947 Palestine was a country independently governed by the Palestinians. However, the reality is that the precursor of the modern era was "Mandatory Palestine", a territory of the British Mandate ruled by an appointed Governor from the British Empire, much like most of the greater region in the period following WWI. And Mandatory Palestine's borders were mostly preserved from its status as a province in the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI - an autocratic and often murderous regime ruled from a capital 1000s of miles away by monarchs wildly ethnically different from the locals in Palestine. In fact, the last self-ruling state in Palestine existed around 3000 years ago, and since then it has changed hands with varying frequencies and degrees of violence, but a pretty uniform indifference to the preferences of local residents. Considering the Jewish migration to Palestine began as far back as 1830, and that by 1947 Palestine was home to 100,000s of Jews born and raised there - not including them under this "locals" label amounts to blatant antisemitism. Unless, of course, the claimant advocates for forcibly reversing the outcomes of all human migration in general - such as shipping all Europeans and Asians back from the Americas.

I'm going to assume most readers are familiar with the religious "ancestral homeland" argument made by pro-Israel propaganda, and I adamantly refuse to entertain arguments founded on scripture as logically valid. However, it's important to recognize that Israel supporters who subscribe to this religious argument are actually a minority. For the most part, the Zionist movement is a nationalist movement that calls for a State ethnic Jews can call home; where they will not be persecuted and repressed as had been happening for centuries in various countries with large ethnic Jewish populations such as Spain, Russia, and Germany. While a noble cause, this really provides 0 foundation for the idea that the particular land in question ought to belong to Jews, and the Jewish Kingdoms that once ruled it - like, 1000s of years ago - rightfully don't convince any reasonable person, including Palestinians not wishing to live under a nationalist Jewish State. The fact that Palestinians also have not ruled Palestine in 1000s of years does not constitute an excuse for treating them as second class citizens as Israel has done since its inception. I contend that comparing this to genocidal regimes such as Hitler's Germany is an exaggeration, but it IS comparable to discriminatory policies like Jim Crow laws in the US South or, disturbingly enough, apartheid laws in places like the Russian Empire many of the Jews migrated to escape.

Nationalism is the pinnacle of collectivist stupidity. There is 0 reason to believe race and ethnicity are even objectively tangible concepts - they are predominantly post-enlightenment myths that were coined to justify slavery in the New World and then took on a life of their own in the pseudo-science of Eugenicism. Further, this disturbing figment of our collective imagination has never served any purpose other than to manipulate people to hate, repress, and kill other people that have never done them wrong. Both Jews and Palestinians had been victims of others' nationalism long before they were perpetrators of it, but have come to project it on each other in a gruesome parade of violence with roots stoked by much bigger forces. Despite my disgust with nationalism as the fuel of the conflict in the modern era, however, it in no way explains the conflict pre-dating it by 1000s of years.

Myth #3: Religion

Though largely replaced by the nationalism I described in the previous section in the modern conflict, religion has been used as a means of motivating people to fight for the land in question for millennia. Yet despite this, it too does not adequately explain its origins.

I have come across people that refer to the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict as "the manifestation of centuries of Jewish/Muslim animosity"; a theory slightly discredited by the fact that Jews and Muslims DON'T HAVE a history of centuries of animosity. In fact, Jews and Muslims lived peaceably side-by-side for centuries, even in times when Muslim-ruled Empires conquered Jewish enclaves - and let the Jews practice their own culture and religion while paying tribute. And even if there were some mythical rivalry between Jews and Muslims, that STILL wouldn't explain the perpetual conflict over this land that pre-dates the origins of Islam in the 7th century AD by 1000s of years.

If any religion has a history of intolerance and persecution toward other religions - it's Christianity. It was the Spanish and French Inquisition and the theocratic Russian Empire perpetrating the persecution that led into the formation of the Zionist Movement; not some made-up Muslim savage. The Crusades - religion-inspired wars that sought to bring, among other things, this same religious intolerance to the land in question - were also Christian endeavors, and ones aimed indiscriminately at both Muslims and Jews. But before you dismiss me as some Bible-basher that simply wants to blame Christianity for all of history's problems, it helps to remember that the conflict even pre-dates the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theocracies by 1000s of years, and that it has continued despite their decline in recent centuries.

And before Christianity, religion was rarely a significant factor in war and conflict. Pagans, whether they were Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Nordic, or anything else - tended not to fight over religion. They killed each other plenty, but on religion they historically compromised by adopting each others' gods and customs, or merging matching ones. Monotheistic Judaism that forbids the worship of others' gods certainly stood out in this sense, but most historic accounts even demonstrate its capacity to find ways to compromise. It's not a coincidence that all 3 major Western religions have married themselves to the location, as well as a slew of others and their derivatives such as the Ba'hai faith. However, to claim that religious strife is at the root of the problem is missing the point entirely; and makes no sense in light of the fact that the conflict is older than every religion involved in it.

Miscellaneous Myths: Zionist Conspiracy, Free-Masons, GMOs, Chem-Trails, Lizard Aliens, etc.

I won't waste much time addressing these psychoses, all of which have been tied to the Israel conflict in some form, because I am of the firm belief that anyone who actually takes them seriously will not be convinced by anything I say. Suffice it to say that there is 0 empirical evidence whatsoever for any of them, and those that target specific groups of people such as Jews or Free-Masons as conspiring in secret ploys to take over the world constitute bigotry. I remind you that BOTH of these groups were targeted by Hitler's holocaust, and that his propaganda machine stoked the same superstition and libel surrounding them to extract compliance from the dumbest sectors of the population. If you believe in any of this horseshit, THAT is the kind of company you are in, and I strongly recommend for you a psychiatric evaluation. With organized religion in significant decline in the Western world, my theory on these beliefs is they are simply the modern crutch for weak-minded people uncomfortable with the inherent ambiguity of reality. Every such crutch has historically become the useful idiocy of international conflict - it's not terribly surprising these are any different.

My Toxic Theory

I meet very few people my own explanation for the conflict does not infuriate, and in light of the overwhelming dominance of propagandist hysteria - I find that to be a huge compliment.

Put simply and brutally, the conflict is exclusively geopolitical, and has never been anything else. The land in question is the most important geographic bottleneck in the world. East to West, it is a very narrow land bridge between Eurasia and Africa, and more historically between Mesopotamia and Egypt - the 2 first human civilizations. There are places on this land bridge that have been turned into a stereotypical "lunar" desert, with nothing left but sand from all the caravan traffic that has depleted the water and natural vegetation beyond regrowth. North to South, the ports on the Mediterranean coast - Sinai, Gaza, Tel-Aviv (Jaffa), Haifa, Akko, and Beirut are the only reasonable places to dock or set sail when traveling between populous Europe and the resource-rich Arab Peninsula. Other routes are lengthy and have included passing through significant amounts of hostile territory in every era. Bottlenecks in general tend to be centers of perpetual conflict with colorful histories of war - like try the Balkan Peninsula, the Crimea, the Korean Peninsula, Panama, the Iberian Peninsula (particularly Gibraltar), you get the point. Whoever controls the bottleneck can establish a monopoly on trade and political hegemony, support the latter with the former by charging tariffs and the former with the latter by boasting peace and calm for business; and live a life of luxury, power, and praise. And when it comes to what is currently known as Israel/Palestine, there is simply no more lucrative location of this kind in the world, attracting the advances of every superpower in human history.

What about Jerusalem? Well, this city, with its absolutely disgusting weather hardly hospitable to agriculture or human survival, is a perfect natural castle in the middle of an otherwise flat and non-defensible terrain! It sits inside a little circular mountain range in the desert, surrounded on all sides by insurmountable sand cliffs and having only 2 very narrow entrances that resemble the "hot gates" from the movie "300". Before the age of airstrikes and spy satellites, this location was virtually impenetrable; the entrances allowing small, lodged squads to keep out overwhelmingly larger armies. Whatever regional power established control over Jerusalem could then comfortably take over the ports and land routes surrounding it, knowing the advantage of its land castle would give it a massive edge.

But if you're not a Philistine or Egyptian god king that commands 1000s of slave subjects indiscriminately in labor and combat, how do you motivate any sufficient number of people to live in and sacrifice themselves defending such an inhospitable place? How do you do so in the age of classical reason, when human self-determination and autonomy are being celebrated; and cheaply enough to keep the entire endeavor profitable? Oh, I know, you tell them it's what god wants! There you have it, Edge of Chaos fans, the origin of all modern Western faith in a nutshell, which explains not only its fascination with Jerusalem, but also its peculiar intolerance toward other faiths and propensity for religious warfare. There is no shortage of brutal and pointless conflicts in the histories of East Asia and the Americas, but when was the last one fought over religion that didn't involve a Judeo-Christian faith? Yea, keep thinking about it....

The post-enlightenment decline of religion as a political force has made motivating people to kill each other for their leaders' profit extremely problematic. As war has become more and more unpopular and politically costly for this and other reasons, governments have grown more enamored with having others fight conflicts on their behalf - be it insurgencies, tributary States, or other proxy agents. This is abundantly apparent in the modern and Cold War eras, but it is older than many think. The civil wars in Eastern and Southern Europe leading into WWII are easily viewed as proxy conflicts with clashing guerillas supported by the various superpowers that would eventually fight the war, as are the tributary conflicts leading into WWI. Even colonial wars, such as the French and Indian War that set the stage for the American Revolution, is easily seen as an exported conflict between two European Empires whose monarchs knew that fighting on their own soil would cost them not only their crowns, but their heads. The prevalence of proxy conflicts has, in turn, made nationalism the new motivator of choice, as to motivate people to kill each other on behalf of superpowers they now have to be led to believe that they're fighting for their own identity and ethnic survival; and nowhere is this effect more evident than Israel and Palestine.

In the mid-19th century, the Zionist movement and the associated ethnic Jewish migration were strongly encouraged by the British and Russian Empires; and both promoted it not only with cultural support for the Jews' nationalist rhetoric, but also by stoking centuries-old antisemitism at home to make conditions more hostile and unbearable. These empires had a vested interest in undermining their common enemy, the Ottoman Empire; by building a pillar of opposition that they hoped would eventually destabilize its hold on the land in question. When both the Ottoman and Russian Empires collapsed outright in WWI, the remaining British Empire no longer needed to support a Jewish State as it emerged victorious, controlling the lucrative bottleneck now called "Mandatory Palestine" as part of the British Empire. But the betrayed Jews quickly found a new friend in the USSR - to which most of them traced their roots, that had very similar economic proposals to their agricultural communes at the time, and which was at its inception very sympathetic to their cause as most of Lenin's original Politburo (Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev) were Jews; resistance to the Russian Empire's repression of Jews having played a huge part in the revolution. You're unlikely to find mention of this in propaganda mills for either side, but the 1920s in Mandatory Palestine were plagued by violence from Jewish Communist guerillas demanding the British withdraw and grant them a Jewish State, guerillas funded and supplied by the USSR. To maintain control of its prized possession, the British Empire began flirting with Palestinians, who at the time were predominantly nomadic tribes - investing in infrastructure and pseudo-independent institutions, but also stoking fear and mistrust in Jews using the worst bigoted stereotypes and marginalizing them with the small minority of guerillas. Recall that in the 1920s and 1930s, antisemitism was a commonly accepted global political trend, and the British Parliament contained a slew of Nazi sympathizers before relations soured due to Hitler's aggression.

When WWII effectively retired the British Empire (as well as France) from superpower status, it's difficult to deny the disastrous legacy of their mandates on the region in general. The borders of the new Arab countries were drawn with further economic colonization in mind and 0 heed to the needs of the locals, and weak, unpopular monarchies were loosely crafted out of tribal relationships with 0 consideration for rivalries that had been stoked for decades. As a result, just about every emerging country has alternated between civil war and brutal dictatorship ever since: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. But the fight in the UN over partitioning Mandatory Palestine was the longest and most vicious of all; with the British and its newly established Arab puppet monarchies insisting on another monarchy just like them, and the USSR with its Eastern bloc in tow insisting on a pseudo-democratic Nationalist Jewish State ruled by the extremist bandits it had been supporting for the previous 30 years. The US, along with its South American bloc, surprised the world by siding with the USSR, and the geographically unsustainable 2-State clusterfuck drawn in 1947 was the final compromise. Both countries commenced ruled by their worst respective radicals, and unsurprisingly violence ensued within a matter of months. The Jews had the 2 richer and more powerful foreign backers, so they emerged victorious and pushed the Palestinians to the 1949 armistice lines. Fact-cherrypicking pro-Palestinian propaganda will hammer on this event to paint the Jews as the aggressors. But the violence was mutual and the outcome determined by foreign support and funding - it could just as easily have gone the other way, and losing a conflict doesn't make you the victim or the good guy. Stalin's extreme paranoia in his final years would then turn on Israel in the 1950s, severing ties and leaving it a unilateral US colony. But the entire region soon evolved into a Cold War front, with Stalin's successors orchestrating Arab Nationalist military coups in the surrounding countries, and then together with emerging dictators (Nasser, the Assads, Ghadhaffi) supporting and funding Palestinian nationalist guerillas such as Fatah and the PLO. The decline of the USSR in the late 1970s and 1980s brought relative calm and the opportunity for some negotiations, but then the Ayatollahs took over Iran and became the newest challenger to US hegemony - funding and growing the variety of Islamic Fundamentalists that are our #1 enemy in the modern era, with Hamas being only one manifestation. It's worthwhile to mention the one Arab monarchy that remains successful and powerful, that of Saudi Arabia, that has played all sides in the conflict for its benefit for the last several decades.

The No State Solution

As I have hopefully demonstrated, the conflict in question is not between Jews and Palestinians nor between Israel and Hamas, but between global superpowers as has been the case for 1000s of years. The land in question is arid and generally unable to sustain the 12 million Israelis and Palestinians living on it, but the governments of both subsist off foreign aid which also loads them up on weapons they would never be able to afford. This situation makes it very difficult for moderates on either side to take and maintain power. Overtures toward peace and disarmament alienate the patron powers whose interest is hegemonic control and who also supply sustenance, and the competing patron power tends to capitalize through aggression. In 2008-9, for example, war weary Israelis leaned heavily toward more dovish parties in their Knesset, to the chagrin of US defense contractors also suffering from war fatigue back home. But Hamas, supported by Iran, pounced on this - seizing unilateral control of Gaza and engaging in a campaign of violence that invariably brought the hawkish Netanyahou to power and kept him there. Today, the tables are somewhat reversed. Motivated partially by the decline and domestic problems of Iran, the government of the West Bank has made strides in building democracy and resolving its differences with Israel using a peaceful, diplomatic process. But US interests and Netanyahou blew an act of terror out of proportion to justify a campaign of violence to seize more control, violence that will invariably revitalize Hamas and erase the political gains in the West Bank.

While I despise both Hamas and the hawkish elements of the Israeli government for perpetuating this situation, it's also important to recognize that long-term solutions are off the table for both. Castrating Hamas buys Israel a few years of relative calm that it otherwise would not have, even though it realizes the cancer will grow back. For Palestinians, aggression is the only way to force such nationalist politicians to the negotiating table and advocate for better than second-class citizenship status. If moderates could come to power in both places, they could theoretically solve both problems simultaneously and also establish the economic cooperation necessary for any hope of independent sustenance on the land. But invoking the basics of game theory, such an outcome is highly unlikely when lucrative, rich superpowers are constantly prodding both sides toward war.

Cheesy as it sounds, peace between Israel and Palestine will only happen if and when there is peace on earth; a condition that would also require the end of superpowers and the belligerent, overreaching, unaccountable modern State. While I'm hopeful that such a time will eventually come to pass for reasons I will discuss in a different post, it's not quite on the horizon before us, and anyone claiming to have a solution that will create lasting peace in the existing situation is just blowing smoke.