What Is Sanders’s Endgame?

By Charles M. Blow

April 20, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/opinion/campaign-stops/what-is-sanderss-endgame.html?comments#permid=18276762

As a long time Social Democrat, I have a lot of sympathy for Bernie Sanders' critiques of the current US social, economic and political realities.

However, to implement real change it takes more that spouting slogans and making grandiose promises, which he, Sanders must know he cannot accomplish. Senator Sanders has a quarter century of experience in the US Congress, and thus must know the difficulties of effecting radical change, or any change at all, in a representative democracy.

Senator Sanders claimed for himself the title of King of Amendments. His record is OK, as far as it goes, but it gives absolutely no indication that he has the ability to enact "revolutionary change". His record as Chairman of the Veteran's Affairs Committee during a time when much of the scandalous situations within the VA where coming to light, is anything but revolutionary - in fact, he often acted as an apologist for the dismal state of the VA.

Sanders' latest health care proposal, although admirable in its objectives, is blatantly misleading in terms of the costs to individuals. His $450 PER YEAR contribution is complete nonsense, and the attempt to allude to other tax revenue to cover the costs is purposely obscure, so that he can tout the $450 annual individual contribution vs. $5000 annual savings in insurance premiums - complete nonsense.

Yes, Sanders was initially important in shaping the discussion, but has become increasingly non-credible, and a liability to his stated objectives.

What to Look For in the Democratic Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/us/politics/democratic-debate-preview.html?comments#permid=18204450:18211243

Bernie Sanders deserves a lot of credit for focusing on topics, which have always been tabu among "establishment" politicians, and for embracing his "social democratic" background - perhaps after this election Americans will have learned enough not to equate "socialism" with "communism", something I, as a life-long Social Democrat in the German tradition, have been hoping for for years.

However, Bernie Sanders should be extremely thankful, that he will NOT become the Democratic candidate, and even more, that he will NOT be elected President.

François Hollande, President of France and a socialist of long standing, won his election by making outrageous promises to the French people, which even to an interested outside observer were completely unachievable. Bernie Sanders is making the same kind of unattainable promises ("We WILL break up the big banks", "We WILL implement Medicate for all", "We WILL have tuition free higher education for all", "We WILL reverse Citizens United"). None of his 25 years in Congress have shown ANY ability to implement such sweeping changes in America.

France, and Hollande, have a long history with Socialism, while most Americans still subliminally equate it with Communism. But even in France, Hollande could not achieve his policy proposals and he has now become pretty much of a joke in France.

If Sanders were to win, that would set back Americans' acceptance of social democratic ideals and goals, because he would end up a complete failure.

In Brussels, Europe Is Struck at Its Heart

By Roger Cohen

March 22, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/opinion/international/in-brussels-europe-is-struck-at-its-heart.html?comments#permid=17973588

 

I generally agree with Mr. Cohen when he writes about European affairs - he has lived there and knows and understands the "European Dream".

But whenever he opines about terrorism, he is, in my view, way off base. It is easy, cheap, to criticize the "inadequacy" of Obama's policies against ISIS, but what alternative can Mr. Cohen, and indeed all the current batch of GOP candidates offer?

The implication is that the US (talk about a coalition is, for the most part, wishful thinking) can mount a military campaign (boots on the ground), and "quickly" defeat ISIS. But there is not a smidgeon of evidence that military action can solve the problem - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya should be ample evidence of that.

In my view ISIS will burn itself out and any lasting solution will involve a very slow process of bringing a semblance of stability back to the Middle East, and the Islamic world itself dealing with the religious schism and the fanaticism of its religious leaders.

We need to remember that the bloodshed brought about by the Christian Reformation took several centuries to burn itself out.

In the meantime we, the West, need to protect ourselves the best we can, but not throw all our democratic, liberal traditions overboard in the process.

The immediate source of the terrorist scourge are not the newly arrived refugees, but the offsprings of legal immigrants, more often than not with a petty criminal record. Surely we can learn a lesson from that.

Obama's Flawed Realism

by Roger Cohen

March 18, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/opinion/obamas-flawed-realism.html?comments#permid=17937399

"It is possible to believe that the situation in Syria would be worse if Obama had followed through with punitive strikes?"

Conversely, Mr. Cohen, what evidence can you present, after Afghanistan and Iraq, that US intervention in Syria would have made ANY difference. It is now generally accepted that air power alone cannot make a decisive, lasting difference. The Russians are pulling out, not because they have "won", but because, they too, recognize the limitations of air power.

Unfortunately, since the end of the cold war, American "projection of power" has served to destabilize rather than stabilize.

The last time American intervention served to stabilize was in the Balkan war, but here the situation was dramatically different - a forcefully held-together multi-state nation was disintegrating along well established cultural and religious lines, and US/NATO airpower served to shorten the inevitable outcome and thus reduce the number of casualties.

We, the US and "the West", finally need to recognized that the artificial boundaries established in the dying days of the British and French empires, through ignorance and arrogance, cannot be sustained, because the people themselves do not "live" these boundaries in any cultural and/or religious sense. 

The "Kurdish state" is an example of what needs to be encouraged throughout the region to finally come to some semblance of peace. This involves carving up Iraq and Syria. It would also, admittedly, open a huge problem Turkey.

Two interesting links regarding Kurdish "states":

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/world/middleeast/syria-kurds.html?ref=middleeast

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/opinion/the-kurds-push-for-self-rule-in-syria.html?ref=international

Profiles in Paralysis

by Ross Douthat

March 19, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/profiles-in-paralysis.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17949695:17949753

The huge mistake which the whole Republican "establishment" is making, is to pretend that the "sudden rise of Trumpism" is the cause of the current "existential" problems within the GOP and the "Conservative movement".

The truth is that for decades, indeed several generations now, the Conservatives and the Republican establishment have been knowingly and maliciously mining the worst instincts in all of us in their dogmatically crazed efforts to turn America into a fever induced vision of something that may have existed and worked 200 years ago, in the frontier days and the "wild west" era.

The Republicans have systematically undermined any belief in the need for civility, compromise, mutual trust and social cohesiveness. Their mantra, since "Saint Reagan" has been that the government is the problem, and they have now reaped what they have sown: a significant minority of Americans have come to believe this nonsense. 

First the Tea Party reared its ugly head, taking to heart the GOP mantra that government is the (only) problem, and this nihilistic fanaticism of the Tea Party, as most clearly personified by Ted Cruz, took over control of the GOP like a cancer - forcing John Boehner from office.

The lack of civility too, has been long in coming, exemplified by the Boehner/McConnell doctrine, that the highest priority was to make Obama fail, together with their tacit complicity in the hideous attacks on Obama as a "Nigerian-born Muslim".

Douthat helped create this monster.

Waiter, Where’s Our (Political) Spinach?

by Margaret Sullivan

THE PUBLIC EDITOR MARCH 5, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/public-editor/new-york-times-public-editor-presidential-campaign.html?comments#permid=17804540:17804569

The "print media", of which the NYT claims to be the preeminent member, was the last bastion of both substantive reporting and in-depth investigative reporting. That is now history. In their battles to survive, the print media are cutting budgets for actual reporting and trying to emulate the mindless drivel of the internet.

Here again we have a prime example of how competitive, profit motivated forces is some areas can lead to disastrous effects. In trying to stay economically competitive, the media are engages in "a race to the bottom". The TV news has long since reached the level of bottom-feeders, and now the print-media is fast sinking to the same level.

There are many areas in the social/political/economic sphere where the "free market" does not work, but indeed can lead to terrible conditions. The Flint water disaster is an extreme example, where "bean counters" were put in place to take control from elected officials, with catastrophic results. Heath Insurance, and health care in general is another example where free-market, profit driven structures do not work.

Journalism, in my view, is another area where, (like in health care, where a basic level is guaranteed by all other modern societies), a minimum guaranteed access to, in this case, reliable, factual information is necessary for democracy to function.

Americans tend to discount state supported media as un-free and un-democratic - they are stuck in the model of Soviet-style media. However, in most European countries state media is an integral part of ensuring a well informed electorate.

In Germany, for example, the success of the state media (ARD and ZDF) in terms of their news and information programming, has resulted in the commercial media emulating the state media in news and information broadcasting, resulting in a much higher quality overall.

US media, in their weird interpretation of the "fair and balanced" guidelines, and their fear of being seen as biased or non-PC, will allow public figures to spout non-sense, slogans and blatantly non-factual garbage, by and large without challenge. Having witnessed first-hand a number of political campaigns and political interviews in Germany, such "passivity" on the part of journalism would be unthinkable.

The Strong Man and the Weak Party

by Ross Douthat

Feb. 4, 2016

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-strong-man-and-the-weak-party/?comments#permid=17788014

For some (perhaps obvious - they are part of the "establishment") reason, the Conservative pundits cannot face the reality, that the current splintering of the GOP is of their (the GOP's) own making, going back to Reagan and before. The GOP has used any and all measures to sow and reenforce discontent in their irresponsible grasp, by all and any means, for power, starting with the Southern Strategy, via Reagan's "the government is the problem", all the way to allowing the Tea Party to hijack and paralyze them. They have played to the most mean, greedy and uninformed tendencies to mobilize the most uninformed and ignorant to their cause. The outcome of this decades long effort to appeal to the lowest emotions, meanness and ignorance has now come to full bloom, as graphically and disgustingly demonstrated in last night's "debate".

It is ridiculous to try and blame the implosion of the Conservative Movement and some fictitious lack of leadership - their leadership is who encouraged and engineered this disaster, unwittingly, of course.

The GOP "base" has finally realized that "the government", which is supposedly the cause of all evil, according the the GOP deity (Reagan), are, at least half the time, the GOP establishment itself, as evidenced by the dismal antics of the GOP in both houses of Congress. And now this awakened GOP base is ready the "throw the bastards out".

From Obama to Trump

by Russ Douthat

Feb. 27, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/from-obama-to-trump.html?comments#permid=17720886

This is without doubt THE dumbest column from Douthat yet.

What a harebrained, ignorant, dumb way to try and deflect from the self-destruction of the Conservative movement, which has been in the making since Ronald Reagan, at least, as evidenced not just by Trump, but by the "our greatest goal is to make Obama fail" Republican mantra.

The ONLY reason Obama has had to resort to "executive privilege" is because of the absolute blockade by the GOP of ANYTHING going through Congress - see their refusal to even give the Obama Budget a hearing or to even consider any Supreme Court nomination - not to mention the several "shutdowns" engineered by the GOP.

Geese, Douthat, get a life!

The Case for Rubio-Katich

by Ross Douthat

Feb. 23, 2016

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/the-case-for-rubio-kasich/?comments#permid=17666778

More wishful thinking, or desperate daydreaming on the part of Conservative pundits -- Brooks in today's blog has given up on even that, speculating about what makes marriages tick, pop psychology at its worst.

Just listening to Kasich talk, he seems to be the only sane person left in the clown car - unless he goes off on the conservative issues, like Planned Parenthood or ObamaCare; then the crazy comes out in full force even with him.

All this speculation is really only so much hot air - the GOP has to learn to deal with the monsters it has created through its vicious negativity over the past several decades. Even Rubio, who is probably the only one left who would be an acceptable candidate for "the establishment", sounds like a fanatic when he gets into some of his pseudo-religious stump speeches - he sound more like a Christian caricature of the Islamic State than a sane, rational leader of the USA.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the almost certain GOP nominee, is inciting his followers to violence ("I'd like to punch him in the face", "in the good old days these guys would have been taken out on a stretcher"). 

And Cruz seems to be leading the GOP back to the "dirty tricks" era of Richard Nixon, with the almost daily revelations of little nasties his cmapaign orchestrates.

This is the group that many pundits have labeled a "strong GOP field" at the outset of the campaign...

A Little Reality on Immigration

By David Brooks

Feb. 19, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/a-little-reality-on-immigration.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17628223

It is interesting, that the token Conservatives on the NYT blogosphere seem just as frustrated by the hardening of the (brain) arteries we are seeing in the GOP today. Both Douthat and Brooks oftem write columns, which correctly describe the current dogmatic positions of the GOP as completely insane. One almost has to feel sorry for them.

This analysis of GOP immigration "policy" is correct in that it shows that the GOP's position is completely nonsensical, but it misses the essential point that Conservative positions in general float in a "fact free" universe, where either ignorance or purposeful falsifications rule the discussion. This is true of immigration, of climate change, of their tax policies, and the list goes on and on.

Aside from the dogmatic ignorance of many politicians, I blame the media to a large extent for the persistence of these fact free polical discussions. In the insane media policy of "fair and unbiased", which is interpreted to mean that journalists never challenge patently rediculous statements by politicians, the public is left holding the bag when a politician makes rediculous assertions about immigration, climate change, taxes, etc. The "after the fact" fact checks which are oftem made are too little too late. Journalists should be prepared to challenge statements made during interviews with hard facts, and not let them weasel out with canned political statements. Of course that would take courage and hard work in preparing for interviews...

The War After Scalia

by Ross Douthat

Feb. 16, 2016

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/the-war-after-scalia/?comments#permid=17594323

By refusing to even consider ANY Obama nomination for a Scalia replacement, it seems to me that Mitch McConnell is violating his oath of office to "defend and uphold the Constitution", and thus guilty of an impeachable offense.

The Constitution seems to be to be pretty clear (and Scalia himself stated that his guiding principal in interpreting the Constitution is that it was written to be understood by the average voter), that the Senate has an OBLIGATION to give advice and consent to Presidential nominations. Refusal to even consider such a nomination for "advice and consent" is a clear violation.

It is not surprising the Douthat takes the "scorched earth" approach on this issue. It has become obvious, even before this current crisis, that the Supreme Court is not the scholarly, unbiased final arbiter of Constitutional issues, but that it is just another tool to further the social prejudices of one side or the other. Thus, not only is Congress completely paralyzed by the dogmatic intransigence of Conservatives (shutting down the government is, to them, a valid tool in this dogmatic battle), no they are ready to paralyze the Supreme Court also.

Just one more sign, that the US no longer has a functioning Democracy...

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Democracy-America-Claus-Gehner-ebook/dp/B005...

Antonin Scalia, Conservative Legal Giant

by Russ Douthat

Feb. 13, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/antonin-scalia-conservative-legal-giant.html?comments#permid=17568128

My heart goes out to Justice Scalia's family, as they mourn the death of their husband and father. 

That said, I can only hope that the disastrous effects his decisions have had on the US can now begin to be reversed. 

His decision on Citizens United officially changed the US from a democracy with one person, one vote to one in which the amount of money one has determines the degree of influence one has on elections and public policy, essentially back to a country where, for all practical purposes, only propertied persons have a vote.

His decisions on the 2nd Amendment have accelerated the decline of the US on its path of random and not so random gun violence, causing more than 30,000 deaths a year. In that decision, after stating that his guiding principal is that the Constitution was written to be understood by the average voter, Justice Scalia launches into the most convoluted arguments, defying fifth grade reading and comprehension skills, to argue that the "prefatory clause" has no influence on the intent and meaning of the entire Amendment, that it was, in essence, only a meaningless appendage.

Later in his opinion Justice Scalia engages in an equally convoluted set of arguments to show that "Arms" in the Amendment refers only to hand guns and possible long guns for personal protection, not all the weaponry needed by a State Militia to protect itself from Federal encroachment. Even Justice Scalia did not want tanks and machine guns in the hands of individuals.

When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism

Maureen Dowd, Feb. 13, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/when-hillary-clinton-killed-feminism.html?comments#permid=17565643

Feminism is a side show in this election. It is certainly true that Millennials (meaningless and simplistic label) see the world much differently than the "feminists" of 50 years ago. Women today can assume for themselves opportunities and rights which women of 50 years ago could only dream about and had to fight for.

What characterizes primary voters both right an left is their frustration with government which seems not to be able to govern anymore. Judging by "people on the street" interviews, primary voters on both sides and of ALL ages are looking for simplistic answers, which Trump/Cruz on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left are providing.

Ignoring the GOP primaries, because, quite frankly, they are embarrassing, on the Democratic side, for all the balcony about Hillary Clintons untrustworthiness and dishonesty, she is the one who is actually trying to provide honest assessments of what needs to be done and how it can possibly be done.

This, of course, is boring compared to Bernie Sanders' simplistic slogans ("we WILL break up the big banks", "we WILL provide free college for all", "we WILL implement Medicare for all", etc.). But these claims are fraudulent. His Congressional record is anything but "revolutionary", accomplishing nothing. His health care plan is so full of optimistic and unrealistic assumptions as to be laughable - Hillary Clinton knows more about single payer health care plans, and knows first hand the difficulty of implementing it.

The Orphaned ’90s

by Ross Douthat, Feb. 13, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/the-orphaned-90s.html?comments#permid=17565165

What Ross Douthat seems to forget is that 20+ years have passed since Bill Clinton's presidency. As in any administration where a Democratic President had to deal with a GOP dominated Congress - remember the "Contract with America"? - what was actually achieved was the result of compromises between the GOP Congress and the Dem President.

Since then we have had "W", the dumbest and most destructive President in my lifetime, and we have a GOP which is exclusively interested in waging dogmatic wars ("the highest priority is to make Obama fail"), rather than govern the country.

The "establishment" GOP wants to return to the Reagan years - note that the Reagan Presidency was the most corrupt in history, in terms of government officials indicted and convicted, and he popularized the notion that "government is the problem", which has now come back to haunt the GOP "establishment" itself.

The mood of the primary electorate has shifted to the extremes on both ends of the spectrum, with Trump/Cruz on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left. But that electorate has always in the past come to its senses and nominated candidates on both sides who actually had a clue on how to govern. I'm not sure on the GOP side, but on the Democratic side it will become increasingly obvious that Bernie Sanders, for all his skill at highlighting the ills of current American social, economic and political realties, has no clue on how to actually implement change, other than shouting slogans.

Bill Clinton Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders

By JONATHAN MARTIN

FEB. 7, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/bill-clinton-after-months-of-restraint-unleashes-stinging-attack-on-bernie-sanders.html?comments#permid=17498441

We need to introduce reality into the analysis on Senator Sanders' campaign promises, but I'm not sure Bill's impassioned comments are helpful in that regard.

Sanders, on the left, is using the mirror image of the same frustration which Donald Duck is using on the right, and using meaningless slogans to fire up his supporters. Sander's promises ("I WILL break up the big banks", "I WILL end income and wealth inequality", "I WILL implement Medicare for all") are just as cynically unrealistic as Donald Duck's promise to "build a wall and have Mexico pay for it".

The Sanders' "revolution" is a complete mirage - we are still a representative democracy - just calling for a "social revolution" is cynical nonsense without the years of hard work to make it happen; his many many years in Congress are far short of actually working on a revolution. His much recited tenure as chairman of the VA committee was a complete flop in terms of "revolutionary change"; at best it was a compromise to fix some of the worst problems, and even Sanders admits it was too little, too late.

Even worse, as part of his revolutionary rhetoric (because he KNOWS it cannot be implemented), Sanders is calling for mob rule. Here an excerpt from the most recent Democratic Debate in NH:

"No, you just can’t negotiate with Mitch McConnell. Mitch is gonna have to look out the window and see a whole lot of people saying, 'Mitch, stop representing the billionaire class. Start listening to working families.' "

Europe's Huddled Masses

by Roger Cohen

Feb. 5, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/opinion/europes-huddled-masses.html?comments#permid=17454798

Another column by Mr. Cohen which I agree with almost completely - contrary to most other American journalists, who write about Europe as some strange and faraway place, to be shunned as a collection of "failed socialist states", Mr. Cohen writes with on-site experience and a real first hand appreciation of the true miracle that is the EU.

The one area where I disagree with Mr. Cohen is in his implicit and explicit assumption, that the US has the power, and the intellectual understanding of the issues, to "lead" Europe out of the current crisis.

The sad reality is, that the US, since the end of the Cold War, has played a mostly destructive role in terms of peace and stability in the world. As far back as the 1950's, with the CIA's overthrow of a legitimate Iranian government at the behest of US oil interests, the US has sown the seeds of Middle East chaos, coming to a catastrophic climax of destruction with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As with the US-caused financial collapse of 2008, Europe is now left to try to pick up the pieces from chaos left by US ignorance and short-sightedness.

Europe, to survive, needs more cooperation and more coordination, not retrenchment from the Euro and Schengen. But as long as Europe sits back and waits for the US to come to the rescue (as it did during the breakup of Yougoslavia) there is little incentive for Europe to pull closer together. So in a perverse way, this crisis may be good for Europe - ok, wishful thinking, maybe.

2 Questions for Bernie Sanders

by Nicholas Kristof

Feb. 4, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/opinion/2-questions-for-bernie-sanders.html?comments#permid=17454387

Finally someone in the media is asking the right questions!

As someone who became politically conscious as a high school student in Germany in the 1960's, I have always considered myself a "Social Democrat", and as such, I agree with all of Bernie Sanders' criticisms of the current US social, political and economic ills.

However, given the realities of today's social and political environment in the US, there is no way that Mr. Sanders' "promises" (I WILL implement Medicare for all, I WILL implement tuition free college, I WILL break up the big banks, etc.) can be implemented. And the sad reality is, that, given his decades of experience in the Congress, he KNOWS that those promises cannot be realized, and he is thus knowingly misleading his followers.

Take his much self-praised work on a "landmark" Veterans Bill. Given the continuing desaster that is the care for veterans, even he admits that this bill is too little and too late. And the composition of Congress will not appreciably change in this election cycle, even with his much ballyhooed "social revolution".

In some ways, Sanders' simplistic promises are even worse than those from Trump. Sanders has enough experience in Congress to KNOW that he cannot implement his promises, while Trump is ignorant enough to actually believe that he can "build a wall and have Mexico pay for it".

Trump, Sanders and the Revolt Against Decadence

by Ross Douthat

Jan. 30, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/campaign-stops/trump-sanders-and-the-revolt-against-decadence.html?comments#permid=17401833

America, the US, is bumping up against the limits most other countries have had to learn to live with for a long time - our resources, both natural and human, which in the past seemed limitless and lead to our hubris of "exceptionalism", are reaching their limit, we are no longer the "best" and "greatest", instead by most measures that count, we are middling and often at the tail end.

This is frustrating and difficult for Americans to deal with. In response, both extremes of the political spectrum are responding to simplistic "solutions" in expressing their frustration. Trump appeals to the ignorance and fear of those left behind with slogans like "Make America Great Again", while Sanders appeals to the equally simplistic notion that all our ills are the fault of the 0.1% and their greed.

Trump is an opportunist in using these fears.

But Sanders, too, is being disingenuous by claiming everything can be solved by simply breaking up the banks and taxing the super-rich. Sanders' notion of "Socialism" is stuck in the 50's and 60's of Europe. Today's Social Democracies of Europe are much more defined by "social market economy", where corporations are held responsible not only to their share-holders, but also to their employees and to society at large.

"Corporations are people, too", and thus they have a responsibility not just to maximize profits, but to be "good citizens" and show concern for their employees and society at large.

Friends and Refugees in Need

by Thomas L. Friedman

Dec. 27, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/opinion/friends-and-refugees-in-need.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17359467:17359555

I take issue with many of the statements in Mr. Friedman's column - as pointed out by @craig geary, the US is indeed largely responsible for the current catastrophic mess in the Middle East, starting with the CIA operation in Iran in the 50's, all the way to the criminal invasion of Iraq under W, which Mr, Friedman wholeheartedly supported.

Now we have another half-baked "solution" from Mr. Friedman - a "safe zone" in Syria. How would a safe zone INSIDE Syria be any better than the huge refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey? The people would still be refugees, displaced and living in extreme depravation and poverty. But these existing "safe zones" have the distinct advantage of not requiring a huge military effort on the ground in order to establish and protect the safe zone.

It is certainly true that the refugee crisis from Syria has brought to a head the general flow of displaced people from the Middle East and Africa into Europe, and that today the grad vision of a open Europe is in danger of collapsing from the refugee strain. As someone originally from Germany, who has lived and worked in Europe for many years, I have experience first hand the immense benefits which the EU has brought, not only to Europe but to the world - an example of what can be achieved with a vision and the political will to implement that vision.

I do not see how this simplistic solution of a safe zone in Syria, which by the way will effectively require another US ground war in the Middle East and an occupation lasting decades, will have any impact on the refugee crisis in Europe. On the contrary, the military effort required will only serve to worsen the destruction in Syria and the outflow of more refugees.

Sarah Palin, Rage Whisperer

by Nicolle Wallace

Jan 25, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/sarah-palin-rage-whisperer.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17340017

As a GOP campaign adviser, you not only should have seen the conservative rage coming, but you are complicit in generating that irrational rage. Rage is most often based on fear and resentment, and Conservative campaign strategies have long been based on accentuating, magnifying, and if necessary creating new and unfounded fears and resentments among American voters.

The GOP is now reaping what it has been sowing for decades. The Conservative voter has now fully internalized the GOP rhetoric that "government is the problem", and they are coming back with a vengeance to punish the "establishment", that is ALL the people, not just Democrats, who are part of that establishment, part of the government. 

Sarah Palin is an ideal shill for that any, vengeful voice against "the establishment" as she is not hampered in her speeches by facts, rationality, intelligence, or even an intelligible English sentence - as long as the correct trigger words are spouted, the crowds will roar.

Donald Trump, being the very smart, intelligent person that he is, recognizes already, I think, that, like McCain, he may have let loose a very destructive genie inside his campaign. I'm betting that we won't see too much more of Palin at the side of Trump.

My Sarah Palin Romance

by Ross Douthat

Jan 20, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/opinion/campaign-stops/my-sarah-palin-romance.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17287069

I do not mean to be blasphemous, but the Bible verse occurs to me - "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" - when Ross and Co. do not appreciate their pivotal role in creating the monsters of Trump and Cruz and Palin and Huckabee with books like “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream”, which espouse a populism based on fear, distrust, prejudice, and simplistic solutions.

In general, the GOP today is reaping the dysfunction it has been diligently sowing for the last many decades, ever since they first discovered that spreading fear and distrust as part of their "Southern Strategy" could actually win elections for them. Once you let that genie out of the bottle, it is hard to get her back in...

What If?

by Thomas L. Friedman

Jan 20, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/what-if.html?comments#permid=17283809

Sheer ignorance on the part of Mr. Friedman...

"What if our 2016 election ends up being between a socialist and a borderline fascist — ideas that died in 1989 and 1945 respectively?"

Bernie Sanders is a Social Democrat, like the social democrats who have influenced Europe - for the better, for the most part - ever since 1945. And the demise of the Soviet Union has NOTHING to do with a failure of socialist ideas. 1989 was the demise of Soviet Communism, which has NOTHING to do with social democratic ideas!

To the other "what if's", as they pertain to the 2016 elections, Americans are, by and large (willfully) ignorant of the world outside. Mr. Friedman's comments about socialism attest that only too well, as does "W"'s "Axis of Evil" simplistic view of the world. But at some level Americans recognize that a lot of "stuff" is going on in the world, which they do not understand, and thus, puts fear into them. And having been brainwashed into believing that there are simple answers, not requiring much though or effort, to all their personal ills (instant diets, pills for everything real or imagined which ailes them, etc.), they are easy pray to demagogues on the right and left who promise easy answers - build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, carpet bomb ISIS, miraculously implement a single payer health system.

But there is hope. The successful negotiations with Iran, carried out with infinite patience and intelligent mistrust, is a positive sign that not all is lost.

Health Reform Is Hard

by Paul Krugman

Jan 18, 2016

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/health-reform-is-hard/?comments#permid=17260636

As someone who became politically conscious during high school in Germany, I have always considered myself a Social Democrat in the European tradition. So I tend to agree with most of Bernie's criticisms of the extreme laissez fairs market economy practiced in the US, including the free market emphasis of the US health care system.

Where I part ways with Bernie Sanders is his almost exclusive reliance on a "huge social revolution" when he is asked for policy specifics on how he will implement his ideas - that just is not going to happen; quite the contrary, the Congress will most likely remain unde GOP control.

When finally pushed to actually come up with specifics on how he would fund "Medicare for all", his numbers are complete fantasy. His promise of $500-$600 total annual out of pocket cost for health care for the average American family is completely disingenuous. In typical politician fashion he also obfuscates the true cost for health care by combining various taxes in a completely non-transparent way. Just like Medicare (and like many European single payer systems) the taxes for healthcare should be explicitly and transparently collected through a payroll tax, separate from income tax.

Hillary is right - given the political reality of US politics, trying to replace ObamaCare with a single payer system would endanger the very precarious gains that have been made in the US health care system under Obama.

Ten Theses on Immigration

by Ross Douthat

Jan 13, 2016

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/ten-theses-on-immigration/?comments#permid=17216856:17216924

This article shows that anti-immigrant, and in many ways racist views are not restricted to the nut-cases in the GOP, like Trump and Cruz.

The argument by Mr. Douthat starts with the completely false premise that the "nation states" existing today constitute a racially, religiously and culturally homogeneous grouping of peoples going back to the beginning of history. Virtually every nation state in existence today is made up of very diverse ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds, many of which exhibiting themselves in intra-nation-state ethnic, religious, cultural, and thus political conflicts. The US itself is a prime example of such a nation state of very recent origin with a very diverse mixture of ethnic, religious and and cultural groups - and for the most part these diverse groups get along quite well - but for the purposeful, politically motivated fear-, distrust- and hate-mongering by "conservatives", many of whom claim to be devout Christians, of the catholic or evangelical variety.

In European nation-states this intermixing of ethnicity, religion and culture is, for the most part, further in the past, but such "mixing", integration and assimilation has been going on for 1000's of years.

If Spain is a homogeneous "nation-state", as Mr Douthat implicitly postulates, forming a bulwark for stability and national identity, then how do we understand the Catalan separatist movement?

Similarly, if Great Britain is a cohesive nation-state, with a cohesive ethnic, religious and cultural identity, what does the Scottish separatist movement tell us about the homogeneous nations-states so immutable and important to Mr Douthat.

Germany's history as a nations-state is in some ways even more recent than that of the US. Italy is a relatively recent addition to nation-states as well, and its history is testament to a huge melting of different ethnicities, religions and cultures.

It is certainly true that a large, uncontrolled influx of "foreigners" can cause huge strains on existing nations, and Germany specifically, and Europe more generally, is testament to that. The large influx into Germany of first Italian, then Greek, and most recently Turkish "guest workers", who ended up staying, have been integrated quite well - the Italians and Greeks have assimilated very well, to the point that German cities today would not be complete without their popular Italian and Greek restaurants; Turkish assimilation is still incomplete, but making progress, to the point where a number of prominent German MP's are of Turkish decent.

In Germany the primary opposition to "foreigners" is from the nationalistic, right-wing fanatics of PEGIDA and the constantly morphing and rightward drifting AfD. In the US this role is played by the Tea Party wing-nuts, for whom Mr. Douthat has now chosen to be a spokesperson and propagandist.

Germany on the Brink

by Ross Douthat

Jan 9, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html?comments#permid=17173940

It seems Ross Douthat is auditioning for a cabinet position with Donald Trump - his nutty "Merkel must go" fits right in with the craziness of The Donald.

To be sure, Germany has probably bitten off more that it can comfortably digest. Although 1.2 million refugees is a very large number, one needs to keep in mind that a fair number of refugees are being sent back, especially from some of the Balkan areas, which are not consider war zones. Also, the large numbers that flooded in during the second half of 2015 will not continue for a number of reasons - the path through the Balkans is being increasingly shut down, and negotiation with Turkey are starting the slow down the flow through that country.

The assimilation/integration process will be extremely difficult - Germany, and Europe in general, do not have a good record for integration, especially of Muslim immigrants and refugees. Many of the apocalyptical scenarios painted by Douthat are certainly possible. But instead of reacting in the Trump/Cruz and general GOP hysterical fear-mongering fashion, it would be good to encourage Germany in its attempts to deal with this huge issue.

It is interesting to speculate about the holier-than-thou column Douthat might have written had Germany closed its borders and we would have had to watch on TV the chaos and misery of starving refugees at the borders, or, for that matter, if Germany now chose the follow the "Trump Doctrine" and shipped all 1.2 million refugees back to Syria.

Germany’s Post-Cologne Hysteria

By Anna Sauerbrey

Jan 8, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/opinion/germanys-post-cologne-hysteria.html?comments#permid=17165825

I left Germany in 1963 to become, ultimately, an American Citizen, I have spent many years living and working in Germany with my (American) family, in the 80's and 90's. I am thus an (interested) outside observer of events in Germany.

In general, I am very impressed with the way Germany has developed since I left, not just economically (everyone knows that), but, more interestingly, socially. In that context, I think Germany deserves a lot of credit for the way it has dealt with previous waves of "immigration", the Italian, Greek and Turkish "guest workers", European integration, the strains of reunification, and now the refugee crisis.

It is true, that "integration" is not a strong suit in Germany, or in Europe - even people there in the second generation are still often referred to as "foreigners". True integration of new arrivals has been one of the great success stories of the US - with notable exceptions (African Americans).
But while Americans seem to be getting increasingly paranoid about the "outside world", Germany is showing an amazing openness, both for European integration and accepting refugees.

The hysteria after the Cologne events are disturbing, but to be expected, and not at all pervasive. By contrast, given a similar event in the US today, I would hate to see the reaction of the current batch of Republican candidates, in their haste to claim positions on the farthest right, fanning hysterical paranoia and fear.

How Donald Trump Loses

By Ross Douthat

Jan 7, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/opinion/campaign-stops/how-donald-trump-loses.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17149708:17149928

There are two main reasons for the continued high poll standings for Trump:

First and foremost, Trump's success is the logical conclusion of a decades long strategy by Republicans to ruthlessly use fear, fueled by outright mis-information and propagandistic fear-mongering, to energize subgroups of the population to vote based on their worst instincts. This started with the Nixon "Southern Strategy" and has now culminated with the under-educated, economically despondent and hopeless middle-aged whites, who, with the exit of most manufacturing jobs, see no hope for the future.

There is some "divine justice" in seeing the hapless and increasingly desparate hand-wringing of the "Republican Establishment" trying to figure out a way to stop the floodwaters of the raging tea-party element they themselves heedlessly fostered for all these years. Their brainless slogans, like "The Government is the problem" are now coming home to roost.

Donald Trumps continued success also lies with the (news) media itself. Focused as they are on the sensational rather than the substantive and factual, they ignore the fact that virtually all of Trump's policy proposals, like building a wall and having Mexico pay for it, are complete nonsense - they merely obliquely refer to "fact checkers" and the none-sense "pants-on-fire" ratings, rather than engage in what used to be known as "journalism", by pinning Mr Trump down during the endless interviews with "facts".

Every time Trump makes a nonsense statement (Cruz is not a natural born citizen), instead of just reporting it (which, I suppose they must), followed by an embarrassed (because this nit-with is actually a "serious" candidate for Preident of the US) silence, each such statement is followed by hours of "analysis" and "expert panel discussions", giving Trump exactly what he wants - free media exposure.

Trump has recognized that the Madison Avenue adage that "any publicity is good publicity" applies not only to crappy products and Hollywood personalities, but, in his case, also to politicians.