Roger Simon has changed his mind:
I overlooked — or more exactly chose to ignore — the obvious. We would be going to war with a blind man as our commander-in-chief. And I don’t mean a physically blind man like the Japanese samurai Zatoichi, whose heroic exploits were magnificent despite his infirmity, if you remember the film series. I mean a morally, psychologically and ideologically blind man incapable of coherent policy, action or even much logical thought on any matter of significance, let alone on such a crucial one with life and death at stake.
Meanwhile, Norman Podhoretz wonders if the president is deliberately weakening our standing in the world:
So far as domestic affairs were concerned, it soon became clear—even to some of those who had persuaded themselves that Mr. Obama was a moderate and a pragmatist—that the fundamental transformation he had in mind was to turn this country into as close a replica of the social-democratic countries of Europe as the constraints of our political system allowed.
Since he had enough support for the policies that this objective entailed, those constraints were fairly loose, and so he only needed a minimum of rhetorical deception in pursuing it. All it took was to deny he was doing what he was doing by frequently singing the praises of the free-enterprise system he was assiduously working to undermine, by avoiding the word “socialism,” by invoking “fairness” as an overriding ideal and by playing on resentment of the “rich.”
But foreign policy was another matter. As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country’s power and influence. And just as he had to fend off the still-toxic socialist label at home, so he had to take care not to be stuck with the equally toxic “isolationist” label abroad.
And Walter Russell Mead notes that once again, the president has found the “sour spot”:
During his time in the White House, President Obama has repeatedly demonstrated a style of decision making that gets him in trouble. Especially when the stakes are high and the issue is complex, the President overthinks himself and tries to split the difference between tough policy choices. He comes up with stratagems that work beautifully on paper and offer well reasoned, moderate alternatives to stark choices. Unfortunately, they usually don’t work all that well in the real world, with the President repeatedly ending up in the “sour spot” where his careful approaches don’t get him where he needs to go.
This style of strategy is what’s boxed him in and tied him in knots over Syria. He didn’t want to intervene (too risky) but he didn’t want to ignore the carnage completely (too heartless) so he split the difference and proclaimed a red line. He didn’t lay the political preparations for war before the red line statement; again, too risky and too warlike. Instead, he split the difference once again: he made a threat without ensuring that he’d have the backing to carry it out.
It really is hard to tell whether this is malicious, or simply a sufficiently advanced cluelessness.
[Early-afternoon update]
Max Boot: Obama’s Syria blunder:
It would take a psychologist to unravel what the president was thinking in making this monumental blunder. I am still not convinced by those who claim he is consciously trying to diminish American power, because if the U.S. is less powerful so is our president. But even if he has no such conscious design, Obama’s actions are definitely leading in the direction of a diminished superpower–one that will be increasingly derided, not respected, on the world stage.
If it’s not his goal, he’s sure doing a good job of making it look as though it is.
This is the equivalent of the teacher announcing they will be out for the next two years and a substitute teacher will be taking their place. Get ready, the recalcitrant from around the world have already received the word and will be letting us know what they think of us and our nasty country.
In a world where there are no consequences, there is no restraint.
It’s hard to know where to start, as the magnitude of the blunders are staggering.
Among the latest brilliant stratagems Kerry has announced is to target the Syrian governments chemical weapon delivery systems while leaving the chemical weapons intact. Well, their delivery systems are designed for hurling their chemical weapons at places like Tel Aviv or Beirut, not five blocks down the street from where they’re stockpiling them, which is what they need in ongoing block-by-block urban combat in the heart of their own cities. Medieval catapults would meet the Syria’s WMD delivery needs quite well, as would pickup trucks and station wagons.
So now Kerry said “We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”
Well, I’m sure that’s stiffened world resolve… Why not just hit Assad with a $5000 fine? Then the US treasury would be $5000 to the good, whereas launching 200 Tomahawk land attack missiles at about $1.5 million each, not to mention the use of B-1′s, B-2′s, and B-52′s, is real money. Then we take the $5,000 and use it to hire a private investigator, who will fly to Damascus and ask the Syrian government what the heck happened. Charlie Rose flew in and asked Assad a bunch of questions, and Assad doesn’t seem really sure what happened either.
If his government was desperate enough to use chemical weapons, they’d have used them on a particularly tough target, something like a concentration of rebel forces armed with heavy weapons. If Assad’s enemies (on either side) were using chemical weapons to try and frame him and elicit a US response on the first anniversary of Obama’s red line speech, they’d have picked a particularly soft target, something like a neighborhood with lots of young children running around.
The head of the US intelligence committee, privy to our most classified data on the attack, says that we don’t really have anything other than that the attack was launched with rockets and we don’t think the rebels have access to those, so someone on Assad’s side of the war probably carried it out. Aside from Assad’s brother (who may wish him ill), in the early phases of the civil war the Syrian army had constant defections from high ranking officers who were fed up with Assad. Not all of them might have defected yet.
Meanwhile Kerry is out painting more red lines, giving Assad one week to hand over all his chemical weapons or we’ll attack, then adding that he didn’t expect Assad to actually hand over his chemical weapons.
Perhaps part of the US problem is that the administration keeps sending out bald-faced liars to make its case. Susan Rice is most famous for claiming Benghazi was a spontaneous protest over an Internet video, and John Kerry spent his life claiming he dropped off CIA agents in Cambodia in 1968 to fight the Khmer Rouge, probably right before he led a raid on the Island of Misfit Toys.
For Iraq we had a huge coalition, because most of the world, and the region in particular, wanted Saddam’s regime gone. This time around we’ve only got the staunch support of the Saudis, who are in it up to their eye-balls because for them Assad is a proxy of Iran, and Iran presents a very serious strategic threat to Saudi Arabia, possibly an existential one to the Saudi royal family.
They don’t really care if Assad, along with every Alawite, Shia, and Christian in Syria get slaughtered, as long as their side wins. If we attack, pointedly not targeting Assad, they’ll be right there with us, using Tornado attack aircraft firing British/French Storm Shadow precision land-attack missiles right at Assad, and they’ll probably have a pretty good idea where he is because they’re running much of the rebel opposition to him.
So we really don’t know who carried out the chemical attack. We’re going to attack Assad anyway, but take pains not to attack attack him, because we don’t want him toppled. We’re not sure who is on board with us except perhaps the Saudis, and they’re probably not on board because they want to stop the civil war, they’re on board because they want the jihadists to win it. We don’t know what the Russians will do, other than replace any Syrian equipment we accidentally destroy with our “unbelievably small” effort.
The best parallel I can find to the administration’s policy and handling of the crisis is perhaps one of those drunken Youtube FAIL videos. Every time Obama, Kerry, or Biden opens their mouth, US credibility and influence plummets.
I am really curious to get reax from President Obama’s defenders, mainly Jim and DC guy, on this whole Syria farrago. Do they think (a) he has handled it about as well as it could be handled, (b) it’s an f’d- up situation but it’s not really his fault because [insert excuse here], (c) Obama is a genius and he’s got some other play at work here that no one can see right now, or (d) Obama is normally a genius but he really screwed the pooch on this one?
I think that Obama could have handled it better, and that both he and the US might have come off looking better if he’d handled it better. But it was going to be a mess no matter what he did, and he’s avoided making it much worse (e.g. by making a major military commitment). Asking Congress for authorization was a good move — it’s the first time in a dozen years that the executive has surrendered some war-making authority to Congress.
I think he’s sincere when he says we should strike Assad, but just the fact that it’s him making the case has turned Republicans against military action (compare the polling now to a few months ago). I doubt that was his intent, but it’s a positive development.
Obama is only asking Congress for authority because he needs a scapegoat when he backs down. He has already indicated his willingness to back down by recanting on his “red line” statement.
If Obama is sincere that we should strike Assad, it probably should have been done about 90,000 dead civilians ago. Linking military action to the use of chemical weapons via a “red line” comment is like saying, “we’re not okay with you killing your own citizens, and this time we REALLY mean it!”
Why wait until 1,000 are dead from chemical weapons when at least 99,000 others were killed with conventional weapons since the “red line” bluff was originally made? Oh, wait, that’s because it WAS a bluff, and there was never any intention to do anything about it in the first place…
Why wait until 1,000 are dead from chemical weapons when at least 99,000 others were killed with conventional weapons
Long before Obama was born the world decided that chemical weapons are different. It’s hardly surprising that he’d try to preserve that distinction.
“Long before Obama was born the world decided that chemical weapons are different. It’s hardly surprising that he’d try to preserve that distinction.”
Except that he chose not to.
Except that he chose not to.
What do you mean? He’s treating the chemical attack differently than he treated all the conventional attacks that came before it.
He’s treating Syria’s chemical attack differently than he treated all attacks that came before it.
FIFY
And really its worse than that. He’s treating al-Assad’s chemical attack far less harshly than he treated Quaddafi’s conventional attacks.
“What do you mean? He’s treating the chemical attack differently than he treated all the conventional attacks that came before it.”
Yes, indeed. He’s decided that chemical attacks are not nearly as important as people being killed by conventional means, like, say, in Libya for which he ordered bombing attacks.
He’s been flip flopping all over the place and completely at odds with Kerry who is at odds with his own State Department.
Last night’s speech was a bundle of contradictions.
The blunders are never ending. The flip flops countless and growing by the hour and th eincompetence is colossal.
Asking Congress for authorization was a good move — it’s the first time in a dozen years that the executive has surrendered some war-making authority to Congress.
Except of course when Bush ’43 was given authority in 2001 to go into Afghanistan and again in 2003 to go into Iraq. Other than that, your statement is completely accurate. Obama not only didn’t have congressional authorization to attack Libya, the House voted against the action.
Obama didn’t have congressional authorization to attack Pakistan or Yemen either.
You’re right, I should have said ten years. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) has been used to authorize the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen, and Obama could have put a Syria attack under that umbrella. It’s a good thing that he didn’t. It’d be even better if he went to Congress for specific authority to operate drones in Pakistan and Yemen (or if Congress repealed the AUMF).
No, it wouldn’t have been acceptable for Obama to use the 2001 AUMF, which was about fighting against AQ, as permission to fight for AQ in Syria.
We do not need to be sullied by the war crimes of Syrian’s rebels just to protect Obama’s fragile ego.
it wouldn’t have been acceptable for Obama to use the 2001 AUMF
I agree, but it wouldn’t have been all that surprising. Administration lawyers would point out that Assad could give chemical weapons to Hezbollah, and so acting against Assad is part of the general war on terror. I am glad that Obama isn’t doing that.
So you’re response is somewhere between (b) it’s F-d up, but not really his fault, and (c) he’s really a genius, because by going to Congress he’s forced the Republicans to turn into pacifists just to oppose him. I’ve gotta say, that last bit is a very clever bit of ‘spin’ I’ve heard nowhere else! Expect it to become the MSNBC party line very soon…
Right, but the (c) element doesn’t seem intentional. I think Obama really wants the GOP to support military action.
Today’s developments — Syria offering to sign the chemical weapons treaty and put their weapons under UN monitoring — are better news than anyone could reasonably expect. It looks like Obama got lucky.
Jim– Can you really be naive enough to believe that Assad is going to “put their weapons under UN monitoring” and that this Putin-engineered outcome is “better news than anyone could reasonably expect?” You really have to be mayor of Cloudcuckooland to believe that! Nevertheless, prepare to hear this nonsense being put forth as the official Obamanista line. I think Peggy Noonan is spot on with this analysis:
http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/09/10/making-sense-of-syria/
I’d put it down as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cWnubJ9CEw
Add the nasal cut, and it’s about right.
So if George will create a blog in Rand’s comments section, I’ll read it. I’ll read the whole thing.
In response: at least Rudolph had a guiding light to lead him.
Thanks Leland,
Here’s a little spoof I wrote the other day.
Arab League, Arab League,
Arab League onward,
All in for a lunge to War,
Bode the committee.
‘Forward, the Lie Brigade!
Charge them with gas’ he said:
Into the valley of Death
Bode the committee.
‘Forward, the Lie Brigade!’
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the pundits knew
Some one had mumbled:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to answer why,
Theirs but to spin and lie:
Into the valley of Death
Bode the committee.
Lawyers to the right of them,
Lawyers to the left of them,
Lawyers in front of them
Holler’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shout and yell,
Boldly they scold and quell,
Into the mouth of Hell
Bode the committee
Flash’d all their fables bare,
Flash’d as they spun thin air
Twisting the logic there,
Sitting on armies while
All the world wonder’d:
Plunged by the chemical-smoke
Right o’er’ the line they stroked;
Shia and Sunni
Peel’d for the coming vote,
Chatted and wonder’d.
When we’d hold back, but not
Not the committee.
Butchers to right of them,
Butchers to left of them,
Lawyers behind them
Voted and bluster’d;
Storm’d at with shout and quell,
While town and city fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro’ the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Was the committee.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charges made!
All the world wonder’d.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Lie Brigade,
Nobel committee!
I don’t see Michael Oher, if he ever actually did, describing that poem and that brigade’s act as courageous.
And Kerry, being a blithering idiot, has done it again. Above I quoted where he said Syria must give up all their chemical weapons, and that he didn’t expect them to go for it.
They went for it.
So now, the Administrations push “to do something” has derailed itself, because the thing they claim they want to happen is best accomplished by them not attacking. And of course this is transpiring right before Obama’s speech and the Congressional votes.
Do you remember a couple years ago when Obama reportedly said, “Don’t call my bluff? Well, it looks like Putin is doing just that.
Obama and Kerry aren’t playing 3D chess. They aren’t playing regular chess. They aren’t even playing checkers or liar’s poker. They’re playing “Candyland”. To call them amateurs would be an insult to amateurs. They’re in so far over their heads that it isn’t even funny. They want us to fight “The War to Save Obama’s Presidency” but they may be in for some rude surprises if they do.
Longer take:
So now the Syrians and the Russians hold the reins of the diplomatic solution that actually produces the desired US outcome of stripping Syria of chemical weapons, something Obama’s planned military strikes aren’t even intended to accomplish. This goal is such an important element of the US position that there’s no way the US can reject it and have even the slightest shred of credibility left, and of course any US attack would forever torpedo the opportunity of lasting peace and stripping the Syrian regime of nerve-gas stockpiles that have been used on civilians.
This new Soviet initiative, of course, comes a day before Obama is supposed to address the nation and the world about the reason he wants to attack Syria with hundreds of land attack missiles, none aimed at Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile, in a strike that even John Kerry says is an “unbelievably small” effort. The Syrian offer will now be the backdrop to Obama’s speech, which will either be totally rewritten throughout the night or it will come off as mindless, idiotic war mongering. If Obama goes ahead and strikes, he will be condemned for all of history as the arrogant narcissist who forever destroyed any chance of stripping Assad’s regime of chemical weapons and finding a peaceful solution to the conflict.
Even the Saudis, our sole supporter, would undoubtedly much rather have Syria give up its chemical arsenal that suffer a pointless bombing that will just create more support for the regime. Not only would it prevent Assad, Hezbollah, Alawites, and Shia from using chemical weapons on Sunnis (and perhaps Saudis at some point down the road), but it more importantly removes any risk that such weapons will fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and any of the other thousands of random rebel groups who’d like to overthrow regimes throughout the entire region. Fear of that disastrous outcome greatly impedes building support for the rebel efforts, and inclines many countries, including the US, into making sure Assad’s regime doesn’t actually collapse. That reluctance is a thorn in Saudi Arabia’s side, and the Russians have just offered to remove it.
If we go for the offered negotiations, well, those take time and they’ll be run by the Syrians, the Russians, and the Chinese. They’ll be convoluted, and Syria will have months, if not a year, to figure out what to do next, and America will sit on the sidelines, because as Obama said, he didn’t “paint that line”, the international community did.
If you ever get a chance to play poker with this administration, make sure you take enough empty suitcases to take all your winnings home. John Kerry opens his mouth and issues another threat we can’t back up, and Syria says “Thank you. I’ll take your only ally now, and we think the negotiating table should be round, not square.”
Do you think the Russian will help Mr. Assad clean up after the chemical weapons stocks that “came in over the transom” in 2003 from Iraq, and that is good for Mr. Obama because it helps maintain the meme that Mr. Bush lied about Saddam’s arsenal?
They really have no need to. The key ingredient of a binary Sarin is a concentrated, legitimate pesticide (widely used everywhere). The other ingredient is isopropyl alcohol.
This leads down the exact same rope-a-dope path. “Chemical weapons? What chemical weapons? Yes, we have pesticides! Doesn’t everyone? And our shells happen to be designed to mix a binary agent in flight. But those aren’t chemical weapons either. They aren’t loaded! And we have nothing to load in them!”
Works fine.
George,
You’re on-target with all your assessments of this situation. Especially that POTUS’s expected missile strikes would have had little chance of eliminating Assad’s chemical arsenal, or even reducing it much. POTUS telegraphed his punch ages ago, and I doubt our “Intelligence” outfits know where the stuff is hour-to-hour or even day-to-day.
POTUS will absolutely grasp the lifeline Kerry blundered the Administration into, because it lets POTUS do what he’s best at: Continue to vote “Present,” while giving him and Valerie Jarrett more time to find and set-up one or more persons or groups to be thrown under the bus when needed. POTUS gets yet another reprieve from his foot-in-mouth disease (he’s so lucky he might just win at poker without having any skill), but the last act of this play is a long ways off.
BlueMoon
This new Soviet initiative
“New” and “Soviet” are adjectives that stopped going together in 1991.
Oh snap! They must not be our number one geopolitical threat anymore…
Obama should jump on that offer. Putin is dangling it there as a way for Obama to save face without flipping the crazy switch in what type of military action he takes. Since Obama is acting out of ego, he is unpredictable. Would his ego let Obama do a pinprick and go home or would he take actions as large as his ego?
At present the UK Guardian is reporting:
So no, the Obama Administration hasn’t even realized how badly they’ve blundered. They can’t even take credit for the initiative because the press reported it as an off-the-cuff remark. As the UK Daily Mail reported earlier:
About the only outlet that could even try to spin this one is MSNBC.
JJS: Even without military action, there will be consequences to the release of sarin gas. Let’s not confuse “consequences” with “punishment”.
Zatoichi reference! Nice!
Obama does want us weaker. Look to his unilateral disarmament on nukes, the refusal to negotiate a status of forces agreement in Iraq, or how he has handled missile defense programs. Obamacare even makes us weaker abroad by sucking such a large ammount of money out of our budget, leaving less money for defense. How many times have you heard Democrats say something like if only we spent less money on the military, we could do x social program? And now we have Obama gutting our aircraft carriers.
But the problem with Obama is not how he intentionally makes us weak but how he unintentionally makes us weak through poor decisions on the Russian invasion of Georgia, throwing ally dictators under the bus, supporting militant Islamists while fighting them in other countries, writing off the effort in Afghanistan while our troops are still there, and going weak kneed in authorizing a real time military response to Benghazi.
I predict that when Obama leaves office, he will tie the hands of future presidents in some way. Maybe on the use of drones in shadow wars or with changes in the NSA but he wont touch the IRS because he wants what they did to his political opponents to continue.
It really is hard to tell whether this is malicious, or simply a sufficiently advanced cluelessness.
At this point, what difference does it make?
Let’s face it, nobody voted for Obama- for either term- because they thought he would be patriotic or would advance America’s interests. This sort of thing, and the continuing support of Democrats for it in the face of manifest stupidity, comes as no surprise.
You really think that 53% (2008) of the voters didn’t want to advance the country’s interests? They were just 69,498,516 sleeper agents?
A significant number of those people have no clue as to what constitutes the country’s interests.
The question wasn’t whether they accurately perceived the country’s interests, it was whether they voted for Obama despite thinking he wouldn’t advance those interests. DaveP’s notion that most of the voters intentionally voted for someone they expected to harm the country’s interests is ridiculous on its face.
But pivoting to your argument — that Obama is president because too many voters don’t know what’s in the country’s interests, and in their ignorance voted for the wrong guy — that’s routine sore loserism and/or a routine complaint about using elections to pick leaders (aka democracy). Those voters are citizens of this country just as much as you are — who are you to say that your view of the country’s interests is more valid than theirs?
Obama didn’t campaign on America’s interests. He campaigned on race and gender. That turned out well.
Good job using the 2008 voting totals instead of the 2012 totals to make your point.
The absurd strawman of “sleeper agents” aside, 69.5 M people still only represent 22.4% of the total population of the United States. I would dare say that in any group of people, a 22% agreement on what to eat for dinner doesn’t even represent a plurality opinion, even if they represent the majority of the people who take the time to express an opinion.
Hey, it’s DaveP who specified “either term”.
As for the 22% figure, I agree that voter turnout is much too low. Let’s make voting mandatory, so we know we’re really getting the plurality view.
And here it is again, the left’s penchant to make everybody do what they think is good at government gunpoint.
Can’t just leave people alone, can you?
Can’t just reserve the government guns for going after criminals, and otherwise leaving people to make free choices for themselves, can you?
Making somebody vote in a free country is about the biggest contradiction in terms I have ever heard.
Voting isn’t just “what they think is good” — it’s the basis for our system of government. We force people to pay taxes to fund government; is it really such an imposition to have them also register an opinion on who should spend that money?
Force everyone to vote but none of them to have ID showing they are who they claim to be. I see what you did there Jim. We don’t need more voter fraud from Democrats. We need our elections to have integrity, something lacking in today’s environment.
LOL. Voter impersonation fraud — the only kind that voter ID even tries to address — would be even more pointless with 100% voter turnout.
The short answer is “yes”. It is a bad imposition when your philosophical starting position is that the ideal world is one where the government is not needed. But, because some people will violate your rights to life and property, there needs to be an institution to deal with those people, who are normally called criminals. But that institution should be restrained to only those roles lest it become the criminal itself.
The basis of our government is not “voting”. The basis of our government is the philosophy of individual liberty and the protection of such. Voting only is there to make sure government people are removable through methods other than war in case they become criminals with government authority.
A free country doesn’t ask “is this such a big imposition?” because the philosophical basis of the question comes from a place of making someone do something against their will.
Also, some people’s opinions just shouldn’t be heard. There is not really a way to know who those people are without causing even worse wrongs to be committed, so I am not talking about restricting blacks from voting and such. But, the point is, if there are people who do not wish to take the time to make their opinion heard at the voting booth, then their opinion shouldn’t be taken into account, at least not for the question being asked at the polls.
5% turnout is considered “significantly high” turnout for most School Board elections, even though the results have a profound effect on the lives of everyone presiding in said school district via property taxes and educational quality for the future of the country.
The irony, of course, is that people complain all the time about how public unions influence local politics vis a vis electing their own negotiating partners. When 95% of the voting populace can’t be bothered to turn out to contest the election, how can one expect the result to be any different?
there needs to be an institution to deal with those people
And that institution needs to be responsive to the will of the people.
Voting only is there to make sure government people are removable through methods other than war in case they become criminals with government authority
No, it needs to do a lot more than that. Someone needs to decide what the punishment for murder will be (for example). That someone needs to be accountable to the population at large. It isn’t criminal for a legislator to favor the death penalty, or to oppose it, but if the people disagree they need a way to make the legislator listen.
then their opinion shouldn’t be taken into account
Aha, so it isn’t really about giving people the freedom to not vote, it’s about purposely ignoring lazy people’s views, because their views aren’t as valuable. It stands to reason that the more difficult you make it to vote, the more motivated the resulting electorate will be. So why shouldn’t we make it very, very difficult to vote? That way we’d just get the very best opinions.
If the state is meant to serve all the people, all the eligible people should vote. Poor voter turnout is a bug, not a feature.
so it isn’t really about giving people the freedom to not vote, it’s about purposely ignoring lazy people’s views, because their views aren’t as valuable.
It’s so nice to see so many strawmen this early in the month of September. It helps me look forward to cooler weather, pumpkins, and the harvest.
If the state is meant to serve all the people, all the eligible people should vote. Poor voter turnout is a bug, not a feature.
Given the premise that the state is meant to serve all of the people, then those who harbor an opinion and choose to express it by voting should not be prevented from the opportunity to express it at the polls.
Conversely, those who don’t have an opinion, are undecided, or who choose not to vote because they don’t feel that they can live with a choice among poor options presented to them, should not be coerced or forced into expressing a false opinion or an opinion that they don’t actually agree with.
Poor voter turnout is, indeed, a bug. However, forcing people to vote for the sake of improving voter turnout ignores the myriad reasons for low voter turnout.
And if one thinks that compulsory voting is a good thing, then who decides on the cut-off for who is compelled to vote? Convicted felons can’t vote in most states, should they be allowed to vote now? If not, who will be their voice at the polls? The mentally handicapped? The elderly suffering from dementia?
If the voting age is 18, is anyone who turns 18 prior to the election thus compelled to vote, even if they weren’t of majority age for the Primaries and had no say in the final candidates? Do they gain the right to vote early in the primaries if they turn majority age before a General Election but are still a minor during the Primaries? How onerous would it be to verify recent deaths to prevent voter fraud and/or prosecute those who failed to vote? What would the punishment be?
Would compulsory voting only be required for national elections, or also for state and local elections, local special ballot measures, etc.?
The only reason I would ever support compulsory voting would be to satisfy my morbid curiosity as to what would happen when 60% of the electorate voted “none of the above”.
People who are too lazy to drag themselves to the polls do have less valuable opinions. But, it is them who is devaluing their own opinions through their choice of inaction, not me or anybody else. Like I said before, I am not in favor of putting in place artificial barriers. I do not really have a strong opinion on the voter id thing, although i think the fears of it are also overblown. But if someone makes the choice to stay home and watch football instead of taking an hour to at least vote for the representative in the government , I have zero sympathy if they complain about who was voted in.
Your last paragraph betrays your philosophy of “should be this way” means “threaten with death if is not this way”. If everyone should vote, but they don’t, you are willing to kill them for it.
Instead, start from this: the state exists to secure the individual natural rights of the populace, which includes liberty. Does threatening someone with death for not voting seem consistent with that starting axiom? The answer of course is “no”.
I agree with someguy’s thoughts about threatening people with force for not exercising their individual natural rights; it seems axiomatically broken, and I have a feeling the Founders would agree.
However, if we ARE going to start compelling people to exercise their rights, either natural or enumerated, can we at least start with the NSA and the 4th Amendment? Oh, wait, that would be compelling people to NOT INFRINGE on the rights of others, not the other way around.
But, still, If we’re compelling people to exercise the rights of the 15th and 19th Amendments, I wonder how many additional bureaucratic institutions we could create, and how much money we could waste, if we started issuing printing presses and guns to everyone at birth so that we could compel them to exercise their First and Second Amendment rights?
FWIW, Australia has compulsory voting, and it doesn’t seem to be a big logistical problem, or the death of freedom. You vote or pay a fine, and they have 95% voter turnout.
I think it’s interesting to compare voting to 1st and 2nd amendment rights. As it happens there is no explicit right to vote in the Constitution, presumably because the framers didn’t believe in universal suffrage. So a first step would be to pass a Constitutional amendment explicitly stating that the right of eligible citizens to vote shall not be infringed.
@ Jim,
No, our system depends on an *informed* electorate.
If someone is clueless on a subject, their vote is harmful, not helpful. Let’s look at a simple example; in my state, judges are elected. But, if I’m clueless about the judge and I vote to either retain or dismiss them, my vote is harmful, not helpful, because it dilutes the votes of people who actually do have knowledge about that judge (his record, case history, etc.). My vote would be as bad as rolling dice. So, of course I don’t vote on most judges, because I don’t know enough to do so. Doing otherwise would be very harmful. It’s the same on anything; a clueless vote is harmful. We need an informed electorate, not a larger one full of clueless votes that are no more useful than a chimp rolling dice – and every bit as harmful. Mandatory voting would thus further undermine a system already infected by far too many clueless votes (This isn’t a partisan issue; there are clueless types on both sides).
And Australia is less free as a result. What happens if I refuse to pay the fine? Do men with guns show up at my house?
I don’t know how you seem to be missing this. Your philosophy represents the death of personal freedom, because something that must be done at government gunpoint because “it should be this way because someone else thinks so” is no longer a free exercise of one’s own will. Do you not see the abject evil in this philosophy? Where does it end?
Let’s turn it a around.
Let’s say that I think everybody should be a Republican. Let’s say I think it would be better if everybody was. Now I see that you are not acting in the way I think you should because you are not a Republican. Should I have the government fine you if you choose to not be a part of that party? What happens if you refuse to.pay the fine?
Or another one. I think everybody should donate to my church. The church could do so much more for the poor if the surrounding community were made to have to donate to the church. I mean, why are people so selfish that they won’t donate to my church so it can help poor people? We should pass a law making people donate to my church.
Making people vote is in the exact same vein. It is an infringement on someone’s individual natural right to liberty.
Well, a big chunk of that percentage voted D because of skin color racism; a chunk voted D because of a percieved favoritism to infanticide… nobody voted D because they thought Obama would be good for America, just for their tiny subsections of it.
Sorry to tell you, but in the words of at least one Big Name Democratic TV Wonk: Republicans, conservatives have a lock on patriotism.
You have five years of the results, Jim. For you to continue arguing otherwise is like a kulak extolling the virtues of Communism.
Jim probably works for a college and/or a union that hasn’t felt the Obama Economy pinch yet.
Hey. FWIW, I’m one of those job-creating business-owning entrepreneurs that Republicans love to idolize.
Oh really Jim?
What is the name of your business?
What does it do?
Oh really Jim?
Yeah, really. If you are shocked that a businessperson could be a Democrat, you should get out more.
What does it do?
It’s a software company, founded in 2001. Before that I did work for a college (as a computer programmer). No doubt that explains my politics….
Jim worked for the Obama campaign.
Oh, this is the part where I defend Jim. It doesn’t matter what his job is or what type of business he runs. His words stand on their own merits.
I volunteered for the Obama campaign (in 2007-2008 and in 2012). I wasn’t a campaign employee.
What is the name of yrou business Jim?
Got a web page?
” If you are shocked that a businessperson could be a Democrat, you should get out more.”
Nice straw man. Not shocked at all.
Just intrigued by your reluctance to provide any solid details about it…as if it’s something to hide.
Just intrigued by your reluctance to provide any solid details about it…as if it’s something to hide.
It isn’t, I’d just rather not have political arguments spill over onto my company’s customer support forum.
While I would like confirmation that Jim actually has a business (or for that matter actually exists as a person), he does have a valid reason here for hiding such information. Suppose I flipped out and as a result of this knowledge started harassing Jim and his employees (and not just on the customer support forum).
Or maybe I happen to be in a decision making position at one of Jim’s customers and abuse that position. That’s the sort of thing that can happen here.
I’ve seen people take petty disagreements on the internet escalate to ridiculous levels. For example, back in the late 90s, someone briefly shut down internet to Hawaii. This happened while I was working at UNC at Chapel Hill. A neighboring department had a hacked PC which was being used for IRC and the selling of “warez”, illicit information of some kind. Someone connecting from Hawaii got booted and started a DoS attack. The hoster of the IRC system retaliated with their own DoS attack that was several times larger than the pipe to Hawaii could manage. End result was that Hawaii lost internet access till the machine could be shut down.
“I’d just rather not have political arguments spill over onto my company’s customer support forum.”
Well that seems reasonable…you wouldn’t want anyone you actually hope to profit from to know you are such an illogical oaf.
nobody voted D because they thought Obama would be good for America, just for their tiny subsections of it
Most people who think that a candidate/policy/etc. would good for people like them, also think (or at least tell themselves) that it’d be good for the country as a whole. You don’t hear trial lawyers saying “tort reform would ruin me, but it’d be a good thing for the country.” They sincerely think that what’s good for them is good for the country. Likewise tobacco execs, bankers, teachers, homeschoolers, journalists, farmers, payday loan officers, porn vendors, union officials, doctors, realtors, etc.
Your picture of voters-who-disagree-with-you as schemers and racists out to hurt the country to their benefit, while voters-who-agree-with-you are self-sacrificing patriotic saints, is simplistic and childish.
Hey, stop the presses! Jim just revealed he’s not a job-creating entrepreneur! What a shocker!
Huh?
President Obama is setting up his excuse for doing nothing with Iran.
Well, the rock, scissors, paper player-in-chief just faked himself out again
“President Obama on Monday took a sharp turn away from his “red line” threat to Syria on the eve of taking his case to the American people, saying in an interview with Fox News that he’s open to negotiations on an alternative plan that could avert a military strike.
The president was responding to a proposal, formally put forward by the Russians, to have the Assad regime turn over its chemical weapons to international control.
“We will pursue this diplomatic track,” Obama told Fox News. “I fervently hope that this can be resolved in a non-military way.”
The president indicated he still wants Congress to debate a resolution to authorize a strike against Syria. “I think it is important for us not to let the pedal off the metal when it comes to making sure they understand we mean what we say,” Obama said.
About the only reason Democrats were voting in favor of authorizing strikes was to support Obama’s politically, but his position is now to pursue the Russian diplomatic initiative, so he’s against strikes, which he still wants Congressmen to vote in favor of… Why would they show support for Obama by voting for something he doesn’t favor anymore?
Maybe he’s playing rock, scissors, paper, lizard, Spock. Does Spock choke lizard or does lizard eat Spock? Obama seems confused. At this point its hard to imagine anyone voting in favor to strikes because nobody thinks the administration has a clue as to what that they mean by strikes, or even if they want them at all.
Meanwhile McCain, who supports strikes probably more than anyone, has been calling Kerry’s remarks “unbelievably unhelpful.”
“let the pedal off the metal” ?
He really doesn’t get American idioms, does he?
Dinesh D’Souza seems to think so.
And who would know more about what Obama is really thinking than Dinesh D’Souza?
So unilaterally getting rid of nukes, giving in to Russian demands on misslie defense, or giving Russia classified information on our allies nuclear weapons isn’t designed to make us weaker?
How many more carrier groups must we mothball before we can say Obama has some policies designed to make us weaker? How many more men and women must be cut from the Marines before we can say Obama has some policies designed to make us weaker?
Part of Obama’s foreign policy is to make us weaker as a councilitory gesture to our enemies, hoping that it will buy us good will. This is the same form of bad thinking that is leading to us fighting on the side of Islamic militants in Syria and previously led to installing and defending the MB in Egypt.
The funny thing is that Obama keeps gutting our war fighting capabilities while getting us into more wars. Oh wait, that isn’t funny at all.
hoping that it will buy us good will.
That sounds like a deliberate attempt to strengthen our standing in the world, i.e. the opposite of what Podhoretz and D’Souza are alleging. Obama’s approach may or may not be effective, but it’s silly to think he’s hoping to make things worse.
Historically, the US suffered huge losses of international standing as a result of our involvements in Vietnam and Iraq. But it would be crazy to argue that Johnson and Bush were trying to harm our standing — their intentions were exactly the opposite. It’s too simplistic to say that pursuing military options makes us stronger, and avoiding military options makes us weaker.
“That sounds like a deliberate attempt to strengthen our standing in the world”
By making us weaker in certain areas. Strength through weakness is the new leading from behind? The way Russia has responded to those efforts shows that it was a bad idea. We have to look at the results of Obama’s policies not just the fickle rhetoric.
“But it would be crazy to argue that Johnson and Bush were trying to harm our standing ”
Sure, sometimes we lose some standing without intending to and Obama has done plenty of that in addition to what he intended to do.
“It’s too simplistic to say that pursuing military options makes us stronger, and avoiding military options makes us weaker.”
I was just throwing out some foreign policy decisions made by Obama. There are others not strictly related to the military where Obama has also sought to weaken America.
“I’m one of those job-creating business-owning entrepreneurs that Republicans love to idolize.”
I think by now we’ve all figured out your one of those job-destroying statists who’ve taken over the Democratic Party.
Looks like Obama’s blunder opened the door wide for Russia to send more conventional arms to Assad in order to “Crush the Rebellion”.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-shipping-assad-more-weapons-to-crush-rebels/
When the Syrians bomb Pearl Harbor, I’ll support military action against them. Otherwise, no.
Meanwhile, the Iranian nuclear program is off the radar due to this sideshow. This administration is hitting all the high notes.
And the IRS…
This was an incompetent mistake by Obama, not a plan.
How do we know. Obama plans ONLY to make himself look good.
This embarrassing episode exposes the rank incompetence and arrogance which pervades his entire administration.
Help us Obi-Vlad! You’re our only hope!
Well, I watched Obama’s speech. That’s 20 minutes of my life I can’t get back. He said a lot of stuff, then contradicted that stuff, then talked about something else. My guess is that the speech was put together by splicing several drafts that were trying to keep up with unfolding events.
Putin has said that the UNSC won’t vote until they get a firm promise from Obama to forswear any strikes, and considering the box Obama is in, I don’t see how he can avoid it, though I’m sure he’ll couch any such statement in gobbledygook and diplomatic language. Obama claims he reserves the right to strike if the UN route proves unworkable, but doesn’t seem to realize that he can’t order a strike simply because he refused to promise not to strike, which is what that situation boils down to. Putin says “check”.
So the UN route is a given, and however they phrase it, someone has to put boots on the ground to secure the CW sites, and Obama, Kerry, and McCain have sworn to the American people that they will not put US boots on the ground. So the boots will be primarily Russian. Iran might offer some, but nobody on the UNSC is really wanting their help these days. So Russia is on the ground and Americans aren’t. Putin says “check.”
Obama also made a point of saying he reserves the right to strike at a future date if Syria doesn’t comply fully with whatever the UN decides, or if they fail to meet the requirements set by the US for control or destruction of their chemical weapons. That sounds reassuring, except that it shows Obama is a fool who hasn’t thought about what happens next.
Russia, and perhaps China and some token Western forces are going to go into Syria, whose CW sites are scattered, hidden, and defended. The locations of all their munitions are simply the places where they’ve decided to put munitions. Where ever they’ve put munitions will become a location with Russian boots on the ground. Those Russian boots are human shields, under the auspices of the United Nations. We can’t strike those, ever. Putin says “check.”
To take charge of any chemical weapon site, the Russians would have to augment (working with) the Syrian forces previously in charge of guarding such weapons, or supplant them. The Russians, UN, and Obama would of course argue that it would be best if the UN forces went ahead and supplanted the Syrian forces. This is good because it will free up a lot of Syrian forces for front line assaults, easing their manpower problems.
That leaves Russians and perhaps some other UN forces exposed to potential rebel or terrorist attacks, so they’ll have to dig in. Given the grave danger of having CW munitions falling into Al Qaeda hands, they might even have to call in lots of air support to carry out their vital UN mission of guarding the stockpiles. And of course the stockpiles are located where ever Syrian needs a stockpile located, or Russian troops located, or just a good series of air strikes. The Russians could even move the CW around to “more secure” locations as needed to meet tactical challenges presented by the rebels. Keep in mind, the munitions are where ever the Russians or Syrians say they are, and they’re highly mobile so a quick trip in the trunk of a car can make such weapons appear anywhere, even if the US sends in some non-boot wearing inspectors to verify that nobody is lying. Putin says “check.”
At some point Obama might actually wise up enough and demand the removal of the Russian troops, but of course they can’t be removed because their guarding the critically important chemical weapons stockpiles, so that Assad can’t use them, and of course Assad can’t guard them himself because all his guards got sent to the front lines when the UN demanded that Assad relieve them of guard duty. We wouldn’t want to risk having the weapons fall into Al Qaeda’s hands, certainly. Besides, Obama can’t order Russian troops to do anything. Putin says “check.”
So Obama has opened the door to a massive Russian reinforcement of Syrian positions, acting as a reserve Syrian force in the conflict, and done it in such a way that the world will celebrate Russian involvement instead of condemning it. Genius.
He can’t turn around and note that the plan was a sham taking advantage of Kerry’s gaffe, because now Kerry is out there proclaiming that it was his brilliant idea, following up on some brilliant discussions that Obama brought up with Putin over the preceding months, along with a side conversation at the G-20 summit. Putin says “check.” Obama says “scissors!”
They have been so badly outmaneuvered, out thought, and out right played that it’s almost a work of art. The rebels really thought that Obama was going to be sending missiles to blow up their enemies any minute now. And that’s actually what Obama intended, too. Instead he’s sending Assad a bunch of Russian reinforcements who will double as human shields and guarantee that the US can’t do a single thing in Syria except stand by and watch Obama’s jihadists lose.
WIth Obama’s fecklessness and emotional reactions, and Kerry’s unswerving stupidity, Putin couldn’t have possibly gotten Russian forces into Syria without a massive international outcry and huge risks of initiating a major confrontation. Now Putin can send them in with Obama’s stamp of approval. Two more moves and Putin can probably con Obama into paying their hotel bills and travel expenses.
Not to mention that they’d be able to “discover” new sites at will.
1) “Hey, the fuel depot seems underdefended.”
2) Moves 55 gallon drum of pesticide to site. (CIA-approved “not a chemical weapon Dammit!”)
3) Moves 55 gallon drum of isopropyl alcohol to site. (CIA-approved “not a chemical weapon dammit!” Duh.)
4) Claim “Chemical weapons! Just mix ’em! Look!”
5) Russian troops sent.
Meaning: If we’re playing 3-D Chess, one side gets a free move on every single turn now.
Another good post George.
I’ll give Obama bone and note Obama managed to quickly kick his fingers out and yell “paper!” before checking himself on the war powers act. A “no” vote from Congress would suggest they don’t consider the recent attack to be an imminent threat to the US. So postponing that vote keeps the options open for doing something really stupid.
As a coworker noted, Cameron is looking like a genius now despite having lost his vote. At least Cameron accepted the will of his people and is acting accordingly.
I was listening to the top-of-the-hour news a bit ago, and it sounds like Obama is trying to own the Russian solution. Given what I said above, it’s like watching a cheap horror movie and hollering “Don’t go in the basement! Don’t go in the basement!” knowing full well that the idiot is going to head down the steps, because that’s the kind of bone-headed idiot the character is. Of course, that’s if you are identifying somewhat with the character. If you’re not, then the feeling is “Yeah, head down those steps you moron…”
Rand is right to wonder if this is malicious or cluelessness. We are asked generally to not attribute to the notion of malice, but to Obama, we’re the kid being lead into the basement yelling “I don’t want to go down those stairs”, and Obama is telling us “but it’s ok, nothing here will hurt you”.
“Rand is right to wonder if this is malicious or cluelessness.”
As a line goes in an episode of Family Guy: Can’t it be both?
Well, if Obama realizes how bad Putin played him, perhaps he’ll step up and tell the Russians that we’ll have to reconsider their access to the ISS and, and…
Oh snap.
But keep this in mind:
http://www.thelookingspoon.com/106-jared-mca/photos/photo.html?albumid=12&photoid=1952
As he usually does, Mark Steyn sums it up nicely:
“Both guys are using writers, but Putin’s are way better than Obama’s — and English isn’t even their first language. With this op-ed Tsar Vlad is telling Obama: The world knows you haven’t a clue how to play the Great Game or even what it is, but the only parochial solipsistic dweeby game you do know how to play I can kick your butt all over town on, too.”
And Steyn knows what every schoolboy knows:
that if you have to TELL people you are great, you are not great:
“Nobody, friend or foe, wants to hear about American exceptionalism when the issue is American ineffectualism. On CBS, Bashar Assad called the U.S. government “a social-media administration.” He’s got a better writer than Obama, too. America is in danger of being the first great power to be laughed off the world stage. When the president’s an irrelevant narcissist and his secretary of state’s a vainglorious buffoon, Marco Rubio shouldn’t be telling the world don’t worry, the other party’s a joke, too.”
There will be hold-out sychophants right to the end – like our beloved Jim. Some will never recognize the shambles they are sitting within. It’s amazing to me how the sychophants cannot see incompetence when they are being beat over the head with it but, well, that’s love for you.
Obama is still out there pretending he’s above it all, and that his focus is on getting the policy right. (this blog needs an animated ROFL emoticon. Just sayin’.)
He and Kerry are still clinging to the line that they could still strike, which shows just what amateur boobs they are.
They trying to set a timetable for the destruction of chemical weapons in maybe six months when they haven’t even done a site survey. In the US, it would take ten years just to get through all the paperwork before they could even start. If Putin is feeling really, really vicious, he’ll let Kerry “win” the issue of having the US conduct the destruction, which will push the timetable out to about 2025 or so.