In the past few weeks, a great many writers have said that the Russian star is on the rise. An American election crowned the openly pro-Russian Donald Trump, who has said he would like to collaborate with Russian interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. Other Eastern European nations have elected pro-Russian leaders, and the fate of the two rival organizations, the European Union and even NATO, may have their futures jeopardized.
But one key thing about Russia is often overlooked. It has weaknesses, ones that are not only structural and nearly crippling to the nation, but ones that Russians continue to ignore.
To understand the Russian Federation one needs to know how it became the way it is. Russia was once the core of the Soviet Union, the nation binding that empire together. Once the Soviets tried instituting reforms to match the economic successes of its ideological rivals, unintentionally dissolving the Union in the process, the Russian Federation was formed.
The Russian ruling class then had a choice when facing its new, post-communism fate. Should it try and join the capitalist community gradually, like China had? Or should it dismantle the government control of industry entirely, and jump headlong into this future, much like the Japanese in post-WWII?
The Russians chose the latter to great detriment. When most government organizations were dismantled, much of their workforce was left out of a job and income. The newly privatized corporations did not make up this loss in employment, and most economic gains were made by the very wealthiest of Russian society, now commonly referred to as the "oligarchs."
This led to the rise of Vladimir Putin. The past reforms had been made by President Boris Yeltsin (of both the Soviet Union and Russian Federation), who had become increasingly unpopular. When he decided to resign, his Prime Minister and ex-KGB Lieutenant Colonel Putin was made acting President.
Putin took advantage of his new power to make a deal with the oligarchs. The ones who supported his government were given special privileges with the state in exchange for their cooperation. The ones who resisted Putin were arrested or forced into exile. In the process, since Putin's inauguration corruption in the country has skyrocketed. On the corruption perceptions index Russia is ranked 120 out of 168 nations, more corrupt than China, Mexico, Colombia, and Vietnam.
But Putin did improve the economy. By taking advantage of Russia's newly discovered natural gas reservoirs and by rebuilding the government's state bureaucracy, the economy improved. And Russia remained powerful militarily, having inherited most of the Soviet Union's armed forces. By building a mostly state-run news medium, Russian support for Putin and the Kremlin remains incredibly high.
Now, here is where Russian weaknesses kick in. The past few years have been especially hard on Russian interests, both politically and economically.]
First was Ukraine. A nation that was also integral to the Soviet Union and has many historical ties to Russia diverted from its cousin. In 2014, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich diverted from his promise to pursue ties with the EU to instead work with Russia. The people revolted in the western and central areas of the country, booting Yanukovich from the presidency.
Putin soon responded. It is important to remember why the following happened; Ukraine was (and in Russian minds still is) part of Russia's sphere of influence, and any move away from Russia would inherently weaken it. Not only that, Ukraine was one of the few post-Soviet nations to remain close to Russia, as Poland, the Baltics, Hungary and Romania all turned away from the Federation.
Russian special troops soon entered and seized control of the Crimean peninsula, and rebels began popping up in Eastern Ukraine with Russian support. There is now an uncertain peace, but compared to the firmly pro-Russian Ukraine of the past, Russia now only has pockets of support in the country.
Next is Syria. Since 1956, Syria had received military support from the Soviet Union. It still remains one of the few allies Russia has in the Middle East, an area that is mostly affiliated with the United States, Europe, or has its own agendas.
When Syria began to be embroiled in its own civil war (mostly due to the mismanagement of its dictator), Russia again responded. Any attempt by the US or Europe to intervene through the United Nations was blocked by Russian veto power, and the Kremlin continued to support the Syrian government militarily despite its many humanitarian crimes.
Again, this has not proven very beneficial to Russia. Compared to the stable, reliable military ally of the past, Syria has become a mess. Only some government holdouts remain, while most of the country is controlled by rebels of various kinds, some US supported and others affiliated with ISIS.
Both of these foreign entanglements have been detrimental to Russia's perception abroad. Entanglements in Ukraine have made much of Eastern Europe much more keen on allowing NATO to build up forces to protect them, and has made the military alliance mostly a check against Russian power. NATO, which had been thought irrelevant after the Soviet Union's demise, once again has a purpose. Middle Eastern nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have also moved farther from Russian advances, and stepped up their own military spending. And Europe has moved to sanction Russia as punishment for its meddling.
And lastly comes the final Russian weakness; the economy. Although Putin managed to patch up the worst effects of the Soviet Union's dissolution, thing have again worsened. The sanctions hurt the Russian economy, but far worse was the drop in oil prices (due to Saudi Arabian tinkering) which plunged Russia into a recession in 2014 (and is only now tapering off).
This is what reveals the biggest problem Russia has. Its economy is over-reliant on one industry, energy. This is economically very risky. The more diversified a nation is economically, the more likely it can ride out market shocks and jolts. Russia is only successful when energy prices are high. But its long-term future is even worse. Compared to European and North American nations, Russians are not as well-educated and prepared for emerging industries in computing and information. Russia also has a very low-rate for immigration. Immigration is necessary considering the country has a low-birthrate, meaning its workforce will continue to fall and the country will become more unproductive in the future.
And (as mentioned before) much of the economic success of Russia is siphoned off due to corruption. It is estimated that in the 2014 Olympics, a road built to connect Sochi to other Russian cities cost $6.8 billion (for comparison, the entirety of the Canadian Olympics in 2010 cost $1.5 billion). Analysts pointed out that normally road construction is not so astronomical in cost, and that for $6.8 billion another country could have paved such a road with caviar or Louis Vuitton bags. The only rational answer is that the companies hired by the Kremlin to build the road were given some hefty bribes.
Normally these problems alone do not spell disaster. Countries all over the world have these same issues. What is really relevant is that the Kremlin doesn't seem to notice the country's trajectory. Instead, Putin feels more and more pressured to continue to interfere in foreign entanglements that are getting diminishing returns, when the situation at home is spiraling into worsening straits.
The reason it hasn't gotten personally bad for Putin and his oligarchs is that the propaganda machine that is Russian news has been able to spin the economy problems as a Western plot to destroy Russia. Although this is partly true (the sanctions are designed to hurt Russia) most of the problems Russia faces are natural movements of nations turning away from it on their own volition, or are the unstable economic climate collapsing on itself.
Russia continues to see itself as a global power on the rise, when instead it is descending into deeper stagnation. To save it, there needs to be a radical shifting of resources away from military spending to leverage energy revenues into building better education and infrastructure, to spur investment and build a diversified economy that can succeed in the future. Sadly, under current leadership, this will certainly not happen, and it is only a question of when, not if, the Russian people turn on those who have wronged them.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a27243/russia-olympics-caviar-road/
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Globalism is Down in the 8th Inning
In political science, the past year has been nothing short of revolutionary. The conventional wisdom of political scientists everywhere was that globalism is not only pushing the world into further integration, but that the effects are accelerating.
What no one seemed to notice is that there are some people who aren't happy about globalism. And these people not only vote, they can win.
It started off in a few smaller countries where no one really noticed. In 2015, Poland voted for the "Law and Justice Party," giving the country a majority government for the first time since 1989. As you can guess by the name, the Party is tough on crime and wants to boost the power of the state by increasing the executive's power. They are also skeptical of the EU, want to limit immigration, openly disdain gay rights, and want to boost military spending.
Austria had the next election in April 2016. For the presidency, four parties ran for election, two of whom we established in politics, the other two being far-right and far-left. The two anti-establishment parties won the most votes, and qualified for the run off. This was the first time since WWII that a candidate from the established parties had not qualified for the run-off. The two remaining, was the nationalist Freedom Party of Austria, and the leftist Green Alternative. The run-off awarded the Green Alternative the narrowest of victories, which the Freedom Party succeeded in contesting. Austria will need to vote again for either of these two candidates in December.
The news did acknowledge how odd that election was, as the Freedom Party has openly mentioned the possibility of pulling out of the European Union. At the same time, the far-right part didn't really win, and it is Austria, a country that exists mostly on the periphery of importance.
The Philippines then elected Rodrigo Duterte in May, an increasingly erratic president who has threatened to pull out of the United Nations and abandon an alliance with the United States. It is believed that 3,000 people have been killed in his way on drugs since the election, all of which were without trial. Duterte has even called President Obama a "son of a whore," and has pledged to realign his country's interest with repressive China.
Then came the next bombshell; Brexit. The United Kingdom voted 52% to leave the European Union, an outcome not predicted by the polls and only supported by the most obscure of British politicians. The PM David Cameron resigned, and was a clear blow to the European project.
In November, Bulgaria elected openly pro-Russian candidate Rumen Radev, supported by the Socialist Party. And then Estonia elected Juri Ratas, another pro-Russian candidate as Prime Minister.
And the final nail in the coffin, is the election of Donald Trump as President of the most powerful nation on Earth. He is perhaps the most anti-establishment, anti-trade, anti-globalist person elected to that office since Andrew Jackson.
So... what does this all mean?
It is a pattern, showing a consistent rejection of traditional politics and politicians. It isn't defined by a particular ideology or policy, with Trump technically being conservative while others are more socialist. What is common is a clear rejection of the traditional party elites, a rejection of free trade and of immigration. There is increased tribalism and nationalism emerging, with parties like "Golden Dawn" in Greece and "the National Front" in France gaining popularity.
These result may have been inevitable. The events in the Middle East have led to a mass exodus of refugees and migrants, the most seen since WWII. There would of course be a negative reaction from Europeans nations that have mostly white populations. The UK is 87% white, France is 85%, and Germany 80%. Having to adjust to new, different people very quickly will always create negative reactions.
Add to the economic stagnation in most countries, and that there is a perception that crime and terrorism is on the rise (it actually isn't) and you have a common mindset globally. People different from us are moving in to take our jobs, and my culture is disappearing, and our jobs are disappearing to other countries, and our jobs aren't as good as they used to be, and the world is getting more dangerous and our leaders don't care about us and don't want to fix any of this.
No wonder people are choosing the most radical candidates, parties and directions.
This isn't new either. When the going gets tough, people vote tougher. Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Vladimir Putin were all chosen by the people (yep, Napoleon won elections) and were all immensely popular. They didn't emerge out of vacuums, but instead out of chaos and economic calamity. Telling people what they want to hear and promising to fix it will sadly succeed more than the gritty compromise building and maneuvering of democracy.
And the newest radical leaders have again another thing in common; stripping out democracy. For in order to pursue the people's will, they need to tear down the institutions that may keep their power in check.
The events haven't stopped either. Next year France has its presidential election, between the incumbent Socialists, the challenging establishment Republicans, and the anti-globalism National Front. With the Socialist favorability dismal, the next president is likely Republican. But Marine le Pen and the National Front is within striking distance, and them winning could spell the doom of the European Union, an institution that has maintained collective unity on the continent. Its end would make the future a lot more uncertain.
I don't think we are heading for a WWII type nightmare, as we leave in a very different world than 1940. But the parallels exist and are striking. Sadly, radical leaders of the past never met their voters promises for long, and often made more problems rather than less. Maybe this will be different, or the pattern will stop. What happens over the next year could indeed bring even more changes.
What no one seemed to notice is that there are some people who aren't happy about globalism. And these people not only vote, they can win.
It started off in a few smaller countries where no one really noticed. In 2015, Poland voted for the "Law and Justice Party," giving the country a majority government for the first time since 1989. As you can guess by the name, the Party is tough on crime and wants to boost the power of the state by increasing the executive's power. They are also skeptical of the EU, want to limit immigration, openly disdain gay rights, and want to boost military spending.
Austria had the next election in April 2016. For the presidency, four parties ran for election, two of whom we established in politics, the other two being far-right and far-left. The two anti-establishment parties won the most votes, and qualified for the run off. This was the first time since WWII that a candidate from the established parties had not qualified for the run-off. The two remaining, was the nationalist Freedom Party of Austria, and the leftist Green Alternative. The run-off awarded the Green Alternative the narrowest of victories, which the Freedom Party succeeded in contesting. Austria will need to vote again for either of these two candidates in December.
The news did acknowledge how odd that election was, as the Freedom Party has openly mentioned the possibility of pulling out of the European Union. At the same time, the far-right part didn't really win, and it is Austria, a country that exists mostly on the periphery of importance.
The Philippines then elected Rodrigo Duterte in May, an increasingly erratic president who has threatened to pull out of the United Nations and abandon an alliance with the United States. It is believed that 3,000 people have been killed in his way on drugs since the election, all of which were without trial. Duterte has even called President Obama a "son of a whore," and has pledged to realign his country's interest with repressive China.
Then came the next bombshell; Brexit. The United Kingdom voted 52% to leave the European Union, an outcome not predicted by the polls and only supported by the most obscure of British politicians. The PM David Cameron resigned, and was a clear blow to the European project.
In November, Bulgaria elected openly pro-Russian candidate Rumen Radev, supported by the Socialist Party. And then Estonia elected Juri Ratas, another pro-Russian candidate as Prime Minister.
And the final nail in the coffin, is the election of Donald Trump as President of the most powerful nation on Earth. He is perhaps the most anti-establishment, anti-trade, anti-globalist person elected to that office since Andrew Jackson.
So... what does this all mean?
It is a pattern, showing a consistent rejection of traditional politics and politicians. It isn't defined by a particular ideology or policy, with Trump technically being conservative while others are more socialist. What is common is a clear rejection of the traditional party elites, a rejection of free trade and of immigration. There is increased tribalism and nationalism emerging, with parties like "Golden Dawn" in Greece and "the National Front" in France gaining popularity.
These result may have been inevitable. The events in the Middle East have led to a mass exodus of refugees and migrants, the most seen since WWII. There would of course be a negative reaction from Europeans nations that have mostly white populations. The UK is 87% white, France is 85%, and Germany 80%. Having to adjust to new, different people very quickly will always create negative reactions.
Add to the economic stagnation in most countries, and that there is a perception that crime and terrorism is on the rise (it actually isn't) and you have a common mindset globally. People different from us are moving in to take our jobs, and my culture is disappearing, and our jobs are disappearing to other countries, and our jobs aren't as good as they used to be, and the world is getting more dangerous and our leaders don't care about us and don't want to fix any of this.
No wonder people are choosing the most radical candidates, parties and directions.
This isn't new either. When the going gets tough, people vote tougher. Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Vladimir Putin were all chosen by the people (yep, Napoleon won elections) and were all immensely popular. They didn't emerge out of vacuums, but instead out of chaos and economic calamity. Telling people what they want to hear and promising to fix it will sadly succeed more than the gritty compromise building and maneuvering of democracy.
And the newest radical leaders have again another thing in common; stripping out democracy. For in order to pursue the people's will, they need to tear down the institutions that may keep their power in check.
The events haven't stopped either. Next year France has its presidential election, between the incumbent Socialists, the challenging establishment Republicans, and the anti-globalism National Front. With the Socialist favorability dismal, the next president is likely Republican. But Marine le Pen and the National Front is within striking distance, and them winning could spell the doom of the European Union, an institution that has maintained collective unity on the continent. Its end would make the future a lot more uncertain.
I don't think we are heading for a WWII type nightmare, as we leave in a very different world than 1940. But the parallels exist and are striking. Sadly, radical leaders of the past never met their voters promises for long, and often made more problems rather than less. Maybe this will be different, or the pattern will stop. What happens over the next year could indeed bring even more changes.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
What Does This Mean?
Ok, it is November 9th. And the number one question people have asked me is; "What does this mean?"
Let me be frank here. I was wrong. I didn't think he would win (though I knew he could). In my defense, no one really thought he could win, because all of the data was wrong.
Last night, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.
Electorally, it was an important win. It showed that with today's demographics, Republicans can win the Presidency. But that has its limits too, as it looks increasingly likely that Trump will lose the popular vote after it is all tallied, meaning they have only won more votes once in the past seven elections. And there was more than one state where the amount of third-party voters could have changed the state's outcome.
But there are very real consequences. The Republican Party controls all our branches of government, with the Presidency, majorities in Congress, and will soon have a majority in the Supreme Court. The last time this happened was FDR in World War II. Essentially, if Republicans agree, they can do whatever they want.
That's the key though. "If Republicans agree." That is the biggest decider of what the future holds, if the party can actually hold together when their are such clear differences of opinion. Let's take a look at some key Trump promises;
1. The Wall
Can this actually happen? Sort of. Logistically building Trump's wall is going to be a challenge (the U.S-Mexican border goes through towns, mountains and rivers) but can technically happen in many areas. And this is something that most Republicans can agree on; tougher border security. So... this could happen.
2. The Muslim Ban
This is less likely. There were some big objections in the Republican party to this proposal, and although it could technically by done by Executive Order, this probably won't happen. What is more likely, is a complete shutdown on any refugees from the Middle East, something Republicans are fairly united on.
3. Taxes
Although Trump occasionally drifted into saying he wanted higher taxes on the rich, the Republican platform he ran on doesn't say that. In fact, these are bigger tax cuts than Reagan's. And these are likely to pass. The Republican party has long ran on saying that the only way to grow the economy is to cut regulations and taxes. This is true, but America also has some of the lowest income taxes in the world, and most experts agree the economy would need to grow by 6% to balance the budget. It is highly unlikely that the economy will triple in production because of tax cuts alone.
4. Climate Change
Republicans have long agreed that even if climate change is real, that it isn't worth the regulations. So we may see Trump himself pull out of the Paris agreement, and if he doesn't lawmakers will simply ignore it.
5. Gay Marriage and Abortion
OK the Republicans aren't going to ban gay marriage and abortions, as they have long said it is a State's issue. At the same time, they get to regain their majority on the Supreme Court. But they had a majority one year ago, and gay marriage and abortion are still legally allowed (there is a swing Republican judge who maintains both are legal). So this is unlikely to change... unless the oldest judge, Ruth Ginsberg, retires, meaning the Republicans could expand their majority further.
6. Trade
Republicans are really torn on trade. It is unlikely that the Party is going to risk starting tariff wars with other countries by ripping up trade deals and taxing imports, even if this is a centerpiece of Trump's campaign. But the Trans-Pacific-Partnership is not happening, at least for America. If Trump wants to nix it he can... although other countries can easily approve it without America's membership.
7. Obamacare
There is actually some disagreement here. Although every Republican agrees Obamacare = Bad, there is disagreement over whether it should be replaced. Some maintain it shouldn't be replaced at all, just kill it. But most Republicans don't want to alienate the voters who benefit from it, and want something to keep key aspects of the law, such as stopping discrimination of pre-existing conditions. What they actually do will be interesting, as it will be difficult to get everyone to agree on a replacement.
8. The Welfare State
It's getting slashed, and Republicans will be happy about it. It is in the platform and is necessary to balance the budget, even though the tax cuts are so extreme I'm guessing the deficit will likely expand.
9. War on Terror
Ironically, little is likely to change here. Although police and the FBI are likely to get more funding and ignore civil liberties, this probably won't change lone wolf attacks very much. And the war against ISIS will probably get more funding, but is unlikely to speed up the victory if there are no American troops. Since Trump doesn't want troops in Iraq, and it would be very unpopular, this is about the same.
10. Syrian Crisis
An odd silver lining here. Although Republicans won't like it, Trump doesn't need to consult them here. He has long said he would like to work with both Putin and Assad to fight ISIS, meaning that there will be more coordination between various factions in the area. It also means Assad (who has killed millions of Syrians) will maintain power.
11. Infrastructure
Another silver lining! Republicans and Democrats have long talked about teaming up to tackle America's crumbling infrastructure. Now, Republicans can fix it however they choose, by either increased funding or even privatization.
12. Jobs
The government can't make jobs unless they actually hire people, and Republicans want to shrink government not grow it. Even if there are tariffs and trade agreements are removed, most manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, and if they do, they will be engineering jobs managing machines. Most of the unhappy, jobless working class are likely to stay that way.
13. Deporting all the Illegals
There are literally millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Although Trump is in his legal rights to enforce the law, this is a logistical nightmare. Some families could literally be torn apart, with illegal parents and American-born children. He can try and do it, but it will be very, very messy, and will not look good.
So... if your a Democrat, what do you learn from this? Well there is little for you to be happy about. At the same time, Trump is falling short of most of his promises. Historically, sitting President's lose Congress seats rapidly in midterm elections, though the gerrymandering of Congress may ensure it stays safe for some time. But I might be more worried as a Republican. It is hard to imagine Trump winning reelection if he fails to meet expectations, and that is a steep promise. And what is your party going to become? Can it remain the Party of Reagan, or is it now the Party of Trump?
I don't know. But for once, progressives get to retake the easier job of railing against the government and explaining why it is doing it all wrong. I'm going to love Fox News explain the screw-ups that are incoming.
Let me be frank here. I was wrong. I didn't think he would win (though I knew he could). In my defense, no one really thought he could win, because all of the data was wrong.
Last night, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.
Electorally, it was an important win. It showed that with today's demographics, Republicans can win the Presidency. But that has its limits too, as it looks increasingly likely that Trump will lose the popular vote after it is all tallied, meaning they have only won more votes once in the past seven elections. And there was more than one state where the amount of third-party voters could have changed the state's outcome.
But there are very real consequences. The Republican Party controls all our branches of government, with the Presidency, majorities in Congress, and will soon have a majority in the Supreme Court. The last time this happened was FDR in World War II. Essentially, if Republicans agree, they can do whatever they want.
That's the key though. "If Republicans agree." That is the biggest decider of what the future holds, if the party can actually hold together when their are such clear differences of opinion. Let's take a look at some key Trump promises;
1. The Wall
Can this actually happen? Sort of. Logistically building Trump's wall is going to be a challenge (the U.S-Mexican border goes through towns, mountains and rivers) but can technically happen in many areas. And this is something that most Republicans can agree on; tougher border security. So... this could happen.
2. The Muslim Ban
This is less likely. There were some big objections in the Republican party to this proposal, and although it could technically by done by Executive Order, this probably won't happen. What is more likely, is a complete shutdown on any refugees from the Middle East, something Republicans are fairly united on.
3. Taxes
Although Trump occasionally drifted into saying he wanted higher taxes on the rich, the Republican platform he ran on doesn't say that. In fact, these are bigger tax cuts than Reagan's. And these are likely to pass. The Republican party has long ran on saying that the only way to grow the economy is to cut regulations and taxes. This is true, but America also has some of the lowest income taxes in the world, and most experts agree the economy would need to grow by 6% to balance the budget. It is highly unlikely that the economy will triple in production because of tax cuts alone.
4. Climate Change
Republicans have long agreed that even if climate change is real, that it isn't worth the regulations. So we may see Trump himself pull out of the Paris agreement, and if he doesn't lawmakers will simply ignore it.
5. Gay Marriage and Abortion
OK the Republicans aren't going to ban gay marriage and abortions, as they have long said it is a State's issue. At the same time, they get to regain their majority on the Supreme Court. But they had a majority one year ago, and gay marriage and abortion are still legally allowed (there is a swing Republican judge who maintains both are legal). So this is unlikely to change... unless the oldest judge, Ruth Ginsberg, retires, meaning the Republicans could expand their majority further.
6. Trade
Republicans are really torn on trade. It is unlikely that the Party is going to risk starting tariff wars with other countries by ripping up trade deals and taxing imports, even if this is a centerpiece of Trump's campaign. But the Trans-Pacific-Partnership is not happening, at least for America. If Trump wants to nix it he can... although other countries can easily approve it without America's membership.
7. Obamacare
There is actually some disagreement here. Although every Republican agrees Obamacare = Bad, there is disagreement over whether it should be replaced. Some maintain it shouldn't be replaced at all, just kill it. But most Republicans don't want to alienate the voters who benefit from it, and want something to keep key aspects of the law, such as stopping discrimination of pre-existing conditions. What they actually do will be interesting, as it will be difficult to get everyone to agree on a replacement.
8. The Welfare State
It's getting slashed, and Republicans will be happy about it. It is in the platform and is necessary to balance the budget, even though the tax cuts are so extreme I'm guessing the deficit will likely expand.
9. War on Terror
Ironically, little is likely to change here. Although police and the FBI are likely to get more funding and ignore civil liberties, this probably won't change lone wolf attacks very much. And the war against ISIS will probably get more funding, but is unlikely to speed up the victory if there are no American troops. Since Trump doesn't want troops in Iraq, and it would be very unpopular, this is about the same.
10. Syrian Crisis
An odd silver lining here. Although Republicans won't like it, Trump doesn't need to consult them here. He has long said he would like to work with both Putin and Assad to fight ISIS, meaning that there will be more coordination between various factions in the area. It also means Assad (who has killed millions of Syrians) will maintain power.
11. Infrastructure
Another silver lining! Republicans and Democrats have long talked about teaming up to tackle America's crumbling infrastructure. Now, Republicans can fix it however they choose, by either increased funding or even privatization.
12. Jobs
The government can't make jobs unless they actually hire people, and Republicans want to shrink government not grow it. Even if there are tariffs and trade agreements are removed, most manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, and if they do, they will be engineering jobs managing machines. Most of the unhappy, jobless working class are likely to stay that way.
13. Deporting all the Illegals
There are literally millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Although Trump is in his legal rights to enforce the law, this is a logistical nightmare. Some families could literally be torn apart, with illegal parents and American-born children. He can try and do it, but it will be very, very messy, and will not look good.
So... if your a Democrat, what do you learn from this? Well there is little for you to be happy about. At the same time, Trump is falling short of most of his promises. Historically, sitting President's lose Congress seats rapidly in midterm elections, though the gerrymandering of Congress may ensure it stays safe for some time. But I might be more worried as a Republican. It is hard to imagine Trump winning reelection if he fails to meet expectations, and that is a steep promise. And what is your party going to become? Can it remain the Party of Reagan, or is it now the Party of Trump?
I don't know. But for once, progressives get to retake the easier job of railing against the government and explaining why it is doing it all wrong. I'm going to love Fox News explain the screw-ups that are incoming.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Is 2016 Going to be a Landslide, or an Upset?
So in the aftermath of the second Presidential debate and the newest scandals for both candidates, it seems like an appropriate time to evaluate how Trump and Clinton are doing in their race to the White House.
And Clinton appears to be winning big. Aggregate polling has her up in every swing state, and has even moved Arizona into contested territory. The last time Arizona went for a Democrat was 1996.
It has become so one-sided in polling that Democrats are now wondering if its possible they can win not just the Senate but also the House. The last time Democrats had Congress and the Presidency was 2008 in Obama's landslide victory, and ever since they lost the House in 2010 there has been lasting gridlock in Washington.
And perhaps they are right to be excited. Clinton is currently up by an average of 7 points nationwide, similar to Obama's 2008 victory. So it stands to reason the House can be won back. But let's stand back and wonder; is the polling even accurate? In recent elections polling has been wrong by 2 points or more, which can move Clinton from an easy victory to a close race. Let's look at possible polling errors.
1. Landlines are Dead.
Pollsters still rely heavily on calling up landlines for polling responses. They can't easily call cell-phones and get their information, so polling has remained fairly similar to how it was done eight years ago. But obviously key voters are less likely to have landlines, like young people or the poor. In retrospect, older voters are more likely to have landlines than everyone else. Pollsters do know about this and try to "weigh" responses based on demographics to shift responses to reflect the country, but it is still guesswork.
The funny thing is, when polls are wrong because of landlines it tends to help left-wing politicians. Although Clinton has less support from millennials than Obama because they are splitting up for third-parties, they aren't flocking to Trump. So if polling is wrong because of low responses to polling, Clinton could plausibly expand her lead to 9 points. This would be a big win that would easily win the Presidency and Senate, and likely capture the House.
2. Voters are Lying.
Sometimes people are so ashamed of the candidate they are supporting they can't face to admit it to the pollster, either claiming their undecided or pick the other team. This may sound made up, but it is real; both the Conservatives in the United Kingdom and Netanyahu in Israel were re-elected despite polling predicting their losses. Voters were afraid to admit they were more comfortable with the incumbent than the challengers, and pollsters couldn't catch the truth.
This probably helps Trump more than Clinton (he is polling as more unpopular) but Clinton too is immensely unlikable. Not to mention the people saying they like 3rd parties are more likely to pick realistic candidates when the enter the voting booth. This could move Trump to losing by 5 points (still big) but is more likely to come out as a wash, considering other voters could move in the opposite direction.
3. Split-Voting.
This is the weirdest one with less precedent, mostly because it can really only happen in the United States. In most parliamentary democracies, in federal elections you only vote for one person, your local representative. In the United States, you vote for the President, Senator, and Representative. And you don't have to pick the same party for each one, but instead could split you vote among several parties.
There isn't much evidence of this happening in even U.S. elections (most people simply vote the same party down the line), but this election is weird. Perhaps a voter isn't comfortable with Trump, but is a lifelong Republican who wants a Republican congress?
It is hard to say who this benefits. It doesn't really affect the Presidency, and assumes that polling is accurate. It just assumes the winners for seats in the Senate and House don't reflect that winner. So Republicans could gain from moderates who vote Clinton but split. But third-parties rarely even have candidates for the House or Senate, and those voters lean younger and more liberal, and therefore more likely to pick down-ballot Democrats. And the 3rd party vote sits around 10% right now, much larger than normal.
To conclude, Clinton will almost certainly be President unless there is a polling error of unseen magnitude. But it doesn't necessarily mean her victory will be a home-run, or even a blow-out. In the end, all we can really do is wait for election day and see what happens.
NOTE: I encourage everyone to vote, despite what the polling says. Even if you don't care for either candidate, the Senate and House will likely have a greater impact on your life than the Presidency ever will. And if your governor or local elections fall on the same day it is even more important, as the more local your politicians the more likely their decisions will affect you.
I've heard the argument that not voting is making a statement, that neither party is meeting your needs. In my opinion, such a statement will never be heard, as someone will nonetheless get elected and make decisions that affect your life. And no one likes people that both complain about their government, while at the same time doing nothing to stop it.
And Clinton appears to be winning big. Aggregate polling has her up in every swing state, and has even moved Arizona into contested territory. The last time Arizona went for a Democrat was 1996.
It has become so one-sided in polling that Democrats are now wondering if its possible they can win not just the Senate but also the House. The last time Democrats had Congress and the Presidency was 2008 in Obama's landslide victory, and ever since they lost the House in 2010 there has been lasting gridlock in Washington.
And perhaps they are right to be excited. Clinton is currently up by an average of 7 points nationwide, similar to Obama's 2008 victory. So it stands to reason the House can be won back. But let's stand back and wonder; is the polling even accurate? In recent elections polling has been wrong by 2 points or more, which can move Clinton from an easy victory to a close race. Let's look at possible polling errors.
1. Landlines are Dead.
Pollsters still rely heavily on calling up landlines for polling responses. They can't easily call cell-phones and get their information, so polling has remained fairly similar to how it was done eight years ago. But obviously key voters are less likely to have landlines, like young people or the poor. In retrospect, older voters are more likely to have landlines than everyone else. Pollsters do know about this and try to "weigh" responses based on demographics to shift responses to reflect the country, but it is still guesswork.
The funny thing is, when polls are wrong because of landlines it tends to help left-wing politicians. Although Clinton has less support from millennials than Obama because they are splitting up for third-parties, they aren't flocking to Trump. So if polling is wrong because of low responses to polling, Clinton could plausibly expand her lead to 9 points. This would be a big win that would easily win the Presidency and Senate, and likely capture the House.
2. Voters are Lying.
Sometimes people are so ashamed of the candidate they are supporting they can't face to admit it to the pollster, either claiming their undecided or pick the other team. This may sound made up, but it is real; both the Conservatives in the United Kingdom and Netanyahu in Israel were re-elected despite polling predicting their losses. Voters were afraid to admit they were more comfortable with the incumbent than the challengers, and pollsters couldn't catch the truth.
This probably helps Trump more than Clinton (he is polling as more unpopular) but Clinton too is immensely unlikable. Not to mention the people saying they like 3rd parties are more likely to pick realistic candidates when the enter the voting booth. This could move Trump to losing by 5 points (still big) but is more likely to come out as a wash, considering other voters could move in the opposite direction.
3. Split-Voting.
This is the weirdest one with less precedent, mostly because it can really only happen in the United States. In most parliamentary democracies, in federal elections you only vote for one person, your local representative. In the United States, you vote for the President, Senator, and Representative. And you don't have to pick the same party for each one, but instead could split you vote among several parties.
There isn't much evidence of this happening in even U.S. elections (most people simply vote the same party down the line), but this election is weird. Perhaps a voter isn't comfortable with Trump, but is a lifelong Republican who wants a Republican congress?
It is hard to say who this benefits. It doesn't really affect the Presidency, and assumes that polling is accurate. It just assumes the winners for seats in the Senate and House don't reflect that winner. So Republicans could gain from moderates who vote Clinton but split. But third-parties rarely even have candidates for the House or Senate, and those voters lean younger and more liberal, and therefore more likely to pick down-ballot Democrats. And the 3rd party vote sits around 10% right now, much larger than normal.
To conclude, Clinton will almost certainly be President unless there is a polling error of unseen magnitude. But it doesn't necessarily mean her victory will be a home-run, or even a blow-out. In the end, all we can really do is wait for election day and see what happens.
NOTE: I encourage everyone to vote, despite what the polling says. Even if you don't care for either candidate, the Senate and House will likely have a greater impact on your life than the Presidency ever will. And if your governor or local elections fall on the same day it is even more important, as the more local your politicians the more likely their decisions will affect you.
I've heard the argument that not voting is making a statement, that neither party is meeting your needs. In my opinion, such a statement will never be heard, as someone will nonetheless get elected and make decisions that affect your life. And no one likes people that both complain about their government, while at the same time doing nothing to stop it.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Demographic Winners/Losers of the Presidential Debate
Whatever your political leanings, you probably watched last Monday's Presidential debate. It is estimated that 84 million people tuned in, not including streaming from YouTube or Facebook. It was the biggest viewership for a US debate ever.
Now the media consensus has (mostly) agreed that Clinton won the debate. Although some polls go either way, the more reliable non-partisan ones agree with that assessment.
But if we break down the viewership by demographics, it isn't nearly a simple "Clinton one, Trump loss." And demographics is probably the best way to break down the electorate this year, especially when the traditional party lines have become so blurred by Trump's realignment of the Republican party.
So let's break it down.
Blue-Collar White Men:
This is white men with a high-school diploma, but likely never went to college. This includes manufacturing and other jobs that don't require education, but doesn't necessarily mean they are poor. Plumbers and firefighters are considered middle class and require more training but still fall under this category, and therefore this is the biggest segment of the white population (and probably the electorate in general). Very few are considered wealthy.
This is Trump's core support, and the reason he never falls under 30% in polling. Everything he says about trade and the economy is very resonant here, and many of his statements on social issues and foreign policy as well. He represents the "straight talker" and "identifies with us," as Trump rarely gives policy specifics and doesn't need to, as this group doesn't really want or understand policy specifics. That doesn't make blue-collar workers stupid (they aren't) but if your working hard and don't have a broad education, it is a lot more difficult to become informed on economic or geopolitical policy.
Trump probably lost negligible support because of his debate performance here, or maybe even gained support. His first half on economics resonates very well, and he didn't really say anything that a large portion of this group would disagree with. Clinton said nothing that truly connects to this group.
White-Collar White Men:
This group is similar to the last one, except most are college-educated and stick to office jobs. Accountants, stock brokers, engineers, doctors, IT, anything that requires the use of the brain over the hands. This group has historically been split between the parties. Older white-collar workers and retirees tend to be Republican, younger one's Democratic.
This group probably wasn't that affected by the debate either. Most of this group had likely already made up their mind over political preferences, and although Clinton's performance probably shifted some in her favor it would not have been significant. I simply don't think enough of this group were going into the debate on the fence.
African-American, Muslims and Latinos:
Obviously I could divide this group into further divisions, and race isn't necessarily the defining issue for all voters in this group, but I'm doing my best to keep it simple and as least complicated as possible.
This group was broadly supporting Clinton before the debate, with the consistent impressions that Trump drifts into racism. Deporting all illegal immigrants, banning all Muslims, and waffling on the KKK was not winning many of these voters. But Trump did have an opportunity to peel off some of these voters, and he blew it.
When asked "How would you heal the racial divide?" Trump said he would bring back jobs and bring back law and order. But what was key was that he said "stop and frisk" was very effective in bringing down crime. There are arguments for and against this, but it is obviously very unpopular with blacks, Latinos and Muslims. Although a white person may think it is effective, they haven't experienced being pulled over or frisked for simply being another race. Anything Trump said about the economy was completely negated by expressing support for this policy.
Millenials:
This is broadly speaking young people. It overlaps with other groups, but includes others like college students, interns, and those recently employed. It obviously leans more Democratic (especially in the swing states) and was the base of Bernie Sanders support. Many of whom loathe Clinton because of her primary battle, and see her indistinguishable to Trump. Millenials are the most likely to drift into third-parties or threaten not-voting.
This group Clinton did very well in with the debate. Facebook and Twitter was constantly posting messages about Trump's strangest statements, many simply mocking his constant sniffing. The comedy over the next two days made fun of him and praised Clinton. Although she didn't really do anything to win them over, she clearly won out as a better alternative and realistic choice for president.
White Women:
This group is absolutely key, and in polling comes out as the most undecided between candidates. This can be split further between stay-at-home mothers and wives, employed with a family or without, single mothers and more. It is a group that varies in political allegiance and knowledge, but consistently values character more than experience and policy. Between the candidates Trump and Clinton, both of dubious character, this makes white women the most likely to swing the election.
And Clinton won on the debate on character. When she was attacked she deftly turned aside character assassination through patient smiling or with her emails simply apologized (a sign of weakness among men, a strength among women). Trump waffled through confrontations on lying about Iraq, about racism and on "temperament." In comparison, Clinton appeared in control, even if it was rehearsed and a little cringe-worthy.
Conclusion:
Clinton was the overall winner. Trump may have gained a few more white male votes, but this was certainly offset by the shifts in millennials and women for Clinton. I would guess a shift of about 2 points (based on historical debate shifts) in favor of Clinton, but it well could be more.
That said, I still hold that polling is wrong in favor of the Democrats. Younger people and some minorities tend to lack a landline phone, and are thus underrepresented in polls. And the high voter registration among Latinos in this election, and the superior ad and ground staff of the Clinton campaign adds to that bump. Considering Obama beat Romney and the poll estimates by 2 points, I suspect a similar 2 point advantage exists unmeasured.
Still, the election is far from set. Although Trump consistently falls short of majority approval, he often gets close. And third-parties affects cannot be disputed (Ralph Nader, 2000), with third-parties trying to capitalize on the unpopularity of both candidates. We don't know until people actually vote.
Now the media consensus has (mostly) agreed that Clinton won the debate. Although some polls go either way, the more reliable non-partisan ones agree with that assessment.
But if we break down the viewership by demographics, it isn't nearly a simple "Clinton one, Trump loss." And demographics is probably the best way to break down the electorate this year, especially when the traditional party lines have become so blurred by Trump's realignment of the Republican party.
So let's break it down.
Blue-Collar White Men:
This is white men with a high-school diploma, but likely never went to college. This includes manufacturing and other jobs that don't require education, but doesn't necessarily mean they are poor. Plumbers and firefighters are considered middle class and require more training but still fall under this category, and therefore this is the biggest segment of the white population (and probably the electorate in general). Very few are considered wealthy.
This is Trump's core support, and the reason he never falls under 30% in polling. Everything he says about trade and the economy is very resonant here, and many of his statements on social issues and foreign policy as well. He represents the "straight talker" and "identifies with us," as Trump rarely gives policy specifics and doesn't need to, as this group doesn't really want or understand policy specifics. That doesn't make blue-collar workers stupid (they aren't) but if your working hard and don't have a broad education, it is a lot more difficult to become informed on economic or geopolitical policy.
Trump probably lost negligible support because of his debate performance here, or maybe even gained support. His first half on economics resonates very well, and he didn't really say anything that a large portion of this group would disagree with. Clinton said nothing that truly connects to this group.
White-Collar White Men:
This group is similar to the last one, except most are college-educated and stick to office jobs. Accountants, stock brokers, engineers, doctors, IT, anything that requires the use of the brain over the hands. This group has historically been split between the parties. Older white-collar workers and retirees tend to be Republican, younger one's Democratic.
This group probably wasn't that affected by the debate either. Most of this group had likely already made up their mind over political preferences, and although Clinton's performance probably shifted some in her favor it would not have been significant. I simply don't think enough of this group were going into the debate on the fence.
African-American, Muslims and Latinos:
Obviously I could divide this group into further divisions, and race isn't necessarily the defining issue for all voters in this group, but I'm doing my best to keep it simple and as least complicated as possible.
This group was broadly supporting Clinton before the debate, with the consistent impressions that Trump drifts into racism. Deporting all illegal immigrants, banning all Muslims, and waffling on the KKK was not winning many of these voters. But Trump did have an opportunity to peel off some of these voters, and he blew it.
When asked "How would you heal the racial divide?" Trump said he would bring back jobs and bring back law and order. But what was key was that he said "stop and frisk" was very effective in bringing down crime. There are arguments for and against this, but it is obviously very unpopular with blacks, Latinos and Muslims. Although a white person may think it is effective, they haven't experienced being pulled over or frisked for simply being another race. Anything Trump said about the economy was completely negated by expressing support for this policy.
Millenials:
This is broadly speaking young people. It overlaps with other groups, but includes others like college students, interns, and those recently employed. It obviously leans more Democratic (especially in the swing states) and was the base of Bernie Sanders support. Many of whom loathe Clinton because of her primary battle, and see her indistinguishable to Trump. Millenials are the most likely to drift into third-parties or threaten not-voting.
This group Clinton did very well in with the debate. Facebook and Twitter was constantly posting messages about Trump's strangest statements, many simply mocking his constant sniffing. The comedy over the next two days made fun of him and praised Clinton. Although she didn't really do anything to win them over, she clearly won out as a better alternative and realistic choice for president.
White Women:
This group is absolutely key, and in polling comes out as the most undecided between candidates. This can be split further between stay-at-home mothers and wives, employed with a family or without, single mothers and more. It is a group that varies in political allegiance and knowledge, but consistently values character more than experience and policy. Between the candidates Trump and Clinton, both of dubious character, this makes white women the most likely to swing the election.
And Clinton won on the debate on character. When she was attacked she deftly turned aside character assassination through patient smiling or with her emails simply apologized (a sign of weakness among men, a strength among women). Trump waffled through confrontations on lying about Iraq, about racism and on "temperament." In comparison, Clinton appeared in control, even if it was rehearsed and a little cringe-worthy.
Conclusion:
Clinton was the overall winner. Trump may have gained a few more white male votes, but this was certainly offset by the shifts in millennials and women for Clinton. I would guess a shift of about 2 points (based on historical debate shifts) in favor of Clinton, but it well could be more.
That said, I still hold that polling is wrong in favor of the Democrats. Younger people and some minorities tend to lack a landline phone, and are thus underrepresented in polls. And the high voter registration among Latinos in this election, and the superior ad and ground staff of the Clinton campaign adds to that bump. Considering Obama beat Romney and the poll estimates by 2 points, I suspect a similar 2 point advantage exists unmeasured.
Still, the election is far from set. Although Trump consistently falls short of majority approval, he often gets close. And third-parties affects cannot be disputed (Ralph Nader, 2000), with third-parties trying to capitalize on the unpopularity of both candidates. We don't know until people actually vote.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Can Donald Trump Actually Be President?
I live in Canada, and many Canadians feel especially glum about the election down south. Although few of us are enthusiastic supporters of Clinton, polling shows we definitely prefer her over the alternative.
But a lot of Canadians think a Trump presidency is possible, and even likely. After all, when every news pundit said it was impossible and instead he got the nomination just as easily as Romney did in 2012, it is hard to say he can't become President too.
Looking at polling right now paints a different story. Trump is down in every swing state, and usually by a lot. His Midwest strategy looks to be completely failing, with Clinton way up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. He's down in every demographic except white men without college degrees. So is it possible he could overcome all of this and become President of the United States?
The answer is yes, yes he can. But it's not likely, and even less so than after my last post on the subject.
The traditional way Trump can win is simple; the polling bump from the Democratic National Convention ends, and begins to fall. Clinton still leads, but not by as much. Then the debates happen, and Trump decisively beats her in them. He overtakes her, wins election.
The non-traditional way is in the realm of speculation; Clinton gets murdered (which Trump has recently suggested supporters should do) and Democrats can't mount a challenger. Or maybe the economy goes done the tubs, or there's a housing crash, or a devastating terror attack. Maybe Obama reveals a scandal. Maybe Julian Assange of Wikileaks reveals Clinton's missing emails. Anything big, noticeable, and unexpected can tip the scales.
But obviously, speculation works both ways. Someone could murder Trump, he can be hit with scandals, maybe Assange reveals his tax returns. And they aren't a very good metric to predict on, because their so... unpredictable.
So let's work out how likely the "traditional" victory can happen. It starts with Trump reversing his poll deficit. This isn't happening nearly fast enough for him. This is probably because after the DNC, Trump began to attack the family of a fallen veteran, and began to openly claim the election is already rigged.
Trump just can't stop himself from saying something that annoys most people. Sure, his base doesn't care (or likes it) but Romney and McCain both held the Republican base and lost decisively to Obama. Republican candidates need to tack to the middle, and saying outrageous things doesn't help.
The problem Trump has is that to reverse this, he can't just shut up. Then Clinton hold her edge right up to the debates. Why? Well, for instance Trump gave a big speech this week on his economic plan. It was meant to convince swing voters he had a grasp of economics and had plans to improve their prospects. Few people watched it (I didn't).
People don't care about policy speeches. Their boring. And we are currently in a bit of a lull for the election, because the Olympics are on! So most people are turning away from CNN and FOX to NBC to watch the US of A rack up medals.
So Trump's not doing well to close that poll difference, and doesn't have much chances to do so until the debates. But as we've seen, Mr. Trump isn't very good at debates. The moderators challenge him on facts, and sometimes openly attack him. Clinton gets challenged too, but she is a lot better at deflecting. And Sanders' best attacks on her were on her character, which Trump lacks the legitimacy to do (his character sucks too).
And then after the debates... whoa, its election day. Wait, there are only 90 or so days from now to the election?
So Trump's got little time and few chances to change the game. Thankfully, he doesn't seem to care. His campaign has yet to pay for a general election ad, while Clinton has spent $52 million. He doesn't court any of the demographics he needs, like women or college-educated voters (other than by saying, "Don't worry, women love me.") The election is already rigged, he says.
And why would he want to be President? Although Trump enjoys campaigning (the entire country gets to talk about him, he clearly loves that), being President is a tough job. You need to compromise, and understand the issues, go around the world to negotiate with other leaders. And perhaps most importantly to Trump, the honeymoon period doesn't last long and the electorate almost always turns on the President.
So let Trump be Trump, and this whole thing will be over soon.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Libya was Destined to be a Mess
When people criticize Hillary Clinton, many point to her judgment, especially on foreign policy. She voted for the Iraq War, she wanted a reset with Russia, and most notoriously, she wanted to intervene in Libya.
On the first two, remember that Obama voted for Iraq, and that Donald Trump is recorded supporting it as well (in the beginning). And the Russian reset was with President Medvedev, who was quickly scrapped in Russian policy for weakness. It is President Putin you can blame for that going south.
But Libya is the one that most people like to point to. One, apparently Obama was pushed into it by Hillary's suggestions. And two, Libya did eventually lead to the even more famous Benghazi attack.
So why did Clinton want intervention in Libya? Looking back, most people can clearly see it was a mistake. The government currently controls only the capital, and the rest is held by roving tribes, many affiliated with ISIS.
And you could question Clinton's judgment, pointing out how Iraq was a case of intervention fixing nothing. Clinton looks like she learned nothing from that war, blindly stumbling into a new conflict because "Hoo-ra, the U.S. army rocks!"
None of these criticisms actually point out why the intervention was suggested in the first place.
So I will set the scene; it is 2011, and the Arab Spring is unfolding. In most of these countries these protests would fail or turn into very different movements. Egypt removed its President, elected an Islamist, and removed him in a coup. Syrian protesters were fired upon, and the protesters became rebel fighters. Only Tunisia truly succeeded, becoming a parliamentary republic.
In Libya, the protesters aimed to remove their President, Muammar Qaddafi. He had a reputation for being a hotheaded dictator, and once considered funding a nuclear weapons program. So when the protests started, he declared them "drugged" linked to Al-Qaida, and that he would rather be a martyr than leave the country. The army fired on protesters, and soon half of the country fell to the rebels. Qaddafi had the army march out to retake these areas, and pictures of tanks in the desert reached Western news.
Now think about the consequences to the West. Similar developments were happening in Syria, though not as quickly. But unlike Syria, Libya was a pressing and immediate issue. Libya is only a short boat ride from Italy. That country and France (which has imperialist ties to Libya) openly advocated a no-fly zone and intervention. Civil war so close to Europe was seen as simply unthinkable.
So the no-fly zone was set up, and a coalition of Western powers (led by Italy and France, with the USA as a simple contributor) launched airstrikes on military targets. The rebels took Tripoli, found Qaddafi himself in a drainpipe, and beat him to death.
A parliament was set up in Tripoli, which failed to exert control outside of the city, leading to the chaos in the country today.
Now imagine that there wasn't an intervention. It was widely believed Qaddafi was going to defeat the rebels, with his superior army and tanks. But as we've learned in Syria, the dictator with the army doesn't always win (Assad hasn't lost either, but five years of civil war are definitely not a win). If Qaddafi had triumphed, and done so quickly, maybe the intervention could be considered pointless.
But let's say Qaddafi didn't immediately win. Let's say he ran into the same problems as Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, with the rebels hanging on to key cities, with major components of the army defecting, and no end in sight. Neither side is willing to back down, and the country spirals into every worsening civil war.
Syria has led to a mass refugee exodus, triggering crisis in Europe. It has become a haven for terrorist groups, and ISIS controls part of the country. Libya is far closer to Europe. Any terrorists and refugees would find exporting their problems to Italy and Europe much easier than Syrians did.
Now maybe if the Italians and French had been interested in creating a stable Libya rather than just toppling Qaddafi, they would have recognized that military action alone would not create lasting peace. But they didn't, and the US didn't push them to, so the current situation exists.
Nobody remembers how Libya actually started down this path to chaos, and nobody says how much worse it could have gone. But then, that wouldn't make a very good talking point, would it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)