Russia, China and Iran: the geopolitical alliance we don't want to talk about

I had a very interesting conversation with a friend from college the other day. Turns out she works for the Air Force doing political research and analysis.

My first response was "wow, do you know anyone in the industry who needs social media help?" The answer was no, but coincidentally the conversation prompted me to become a fan of Stratfor. If you have been keeping up with the news you will know why this caught me off guard.

The most interesting thing to come out of our conversation was when I said that "I have probably been flagged as a dissident so I probably won't ever be able to work in this industry" and she responded with "yeah the military was very skeptical of my foreign travel so I can't ever visit Russia, China or Iran."

That statement got me thinking. In the mainstream media China, Russia and Iran are all independently discussed and usually maligned, but rarely does the US news media draw any connections between these American rivals. Unlike the infamous Axis of Evil speech, it seems that our foreign policy objectives are being carried out clandestinely with assassinations and sabotage in the case of Iran and the media doesn't want to talk about the wider geopolitical implications of our belligerence.

However, the war drums seem to be beating louder and louder and many war hawks in the United States and Israel are calling for an all out military strike to prevent the Iranians from building nuclear weapons. It would be foolish to think such a strike would lead to anything but total global economic meltdown since the Iranians have been preparing for such an attack since 1979 and certainly learned from Iraq's mistake and constructed all of their facilities underground. Moreover the Iranians have been practicing closing the Strait of Hormuz which would prevent much of the world's oil from leaving the Persian gulf if they are attacked.

But beyond Iran's ability to survive and retaliate against such an attack, it seems to me that Russia and China have a lot to gain from the US and Israel (and whatever other Sunni autocracies we can get to go along with an attack plan) failing to destroy Iran.

China's first Aircraft Carrier

Sure China would suffer temporarily from the supply shortage just as everyone else would, but the propaganda victory of having the Iranians rebuff an attack by the world's sole remaining superpower would both embolden China and potentially deal a devastating blow to the US 5th fleet in the Gulf.

China clearly plans to exert more influence in the coming decades and a power vacuum in the Indian Ocean / Persian Gulf area would suit them quite nicely. The fact that they have activated their own GPS system means they are ready to track our naval forces around the world all by themselves.

Moreover, Russia has sent an Aircraft Carrier group to the Eastern Mediterranean to potentially help the embattled Syrian regime or merely as a deterrent to any NATO led Libya-esque style attack on their ally. Putin has a lot to gain from a confrontation with the West before the Presidential "election" that will be happening in March. Putin's carefully crafted image as a strong man capable of defending the Russian people from outside threats could be reinforced by a successful confrontation with the West.

Moreover, Russia as the world's top producer of oil (surprised?) stands to benefit enormously if the world oil price doubles or triples in the wake of the Strait of Hormuz closing.

I know Americans aren't particularly fond of acknowledging that other countries exist, but in an age of increased global competition, we can't afford to pretend that we can keep acting with impunity anytime and anywhere we like regardless of the consequences.

Ron Paul, NDAA, SOPA, Taxes & Republican negotiating tactics

Ron Paul, NDAA, SOPA, Taxes and Republican negotiating tactics, in that order:

Ron Paul – the GOP machine has already started smearing Dr. Paul and will, if the results are in his favor in Iowa claim that they were hacked by Anonymous and then declare either Mitt or Newt the winner. The GOP has every reason in the world to smear the only libertarian in the race to prevent the conservative base from asking too many questions or learning about what Dr. Paul represents. Now I disagree with Rep. Paul on almost everything (except foreign policy) but as you can see here, have voted for him in the past.

Why you ask? Because I respect his philosophical consistency and because the State of Arizona foolishly has a semi-open primary. He believes in small government, low taxes and basically a “fend-for-yourself” attitude. Again, I disagree with his position, but any candidate that makes conservative voters take the blinders off and realize that the “mainstream” Republican Party doesn’t care about anyone but the super wealthy deserves my support.

If Ron Paul starts winning states, his candidacy seriously threatens to break the Republican Party. Ron Paul would likely get crushed in a national election because his small government policies are anathema to most elderly voters who rely on social security and Medicare. But Ron Paul can help us on the left too. If a radical candidate like Paul can get real grassroots support, so could a real progressive in 2016.

I will be a happy man if Ron Paul’s ascendency ushered in a 4 party (or more) shift in American politics. In the absence of a parliamentary democracy this would be incredibly difficult, but more parties would allow Americans to choose between the two centrist corporate parties and parties that actually represent the left and the right. Everyone wins, except the corporate interest who control the false dichotomy that passes for American democracy today.

NDAA – After backing down from a veto threat, the President signed this law that will allow the indefinite detention of US citizens. Why did we elect him again?

SOPA – The corporate law writers temporarily gave up their effort to basically outlaw the internet. Thanks guys. This is fascinating since this fight represents the clash of two powerful industries, Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Lots of tech executives have testified that this bill, if passed would basically break the internet as we know it.

Taxes – The democrats predictably gave up on a halfhearted attempt to partially fund the payroll tax cut extension with a surcharge on millionaires. Big surprise.

Republican negotiating tactics - Could there have been any clearer example of how the modern Republican party negotiates than what happened this week? The Democrats gave them everything they wanted to extend the payroll tax cut and they still demanded more!

Thankfully, even the Wall Street Journal is calling the house GOP out for their absurd "no compromise whatsoever" approach.

The Defense Industry attempts social media

Now that the Super-committee has failed, billions of automatic cuts to the federal budget will soon go into effect.

What does this mean for the world's most powerful military you ask? Well, if  Congress does nothing it means $450 billion in cuts...over 10 years. Yes, over 10 years. Most of the mainstream media coverage of this story leaves out that last little detail.

A $45 billion cut in what is estimated to be a total defense / homeland security / intelligence / veterans affairs budget of somewhere near $1.2 TRILLION a year (not the $750 billion official appropriation) is probably not that big of a deal. But the defense industry has put aside their parochial concerns for their own individual weapons systems and are working together to oppose these cuts.

"Astroturf" is the term for when a corporation needs to make it look like they have popular support, and boy is Second to none an AstroTurf operation if I have ever seen one. A dead giveaway is the full color glossy posters these defense industry workers are holding up:

To be honest though, I expected more from the combined resources of Boeing, BAE, Northup Grumman, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics to name just a few.

They don't even have a Facebook page, and only 373 people have "liked" the page, including me. Pretty pathetic.

They did however suggest that I use a specific hashtag when "supporting" their campaign: #secondtonone

But without anyway to engage with people, how do they expect these social media efforts to pay off?

Moreover, when the official figure for how much we collectively spend on drones, aircraft carriers, tanks, satellites and nuclear weapons dwarfs all the other major countries in the world combined, do we really have anything to worry about?

I do feel bad for these workers. I don't want anyone to have to lose their job. But if just some of the trillions of dollars we spend on the military could be used to ween the United States off oil we wouldn't need to maintain the global military force we have today.

The greatest irony of this AstroTurf campaign is that even if the budget was cut by almost $100 billion a year, the United States still wouldn't be second to anyone. Second to the rest of the world combined maybe, but I think that is probably good enough don't you think?

Social Media Choices: Hilarious Conservative Facebook ads

I have posted before about the implications of the way Facebook’s newsfeed now functions, but the long and short of it is that Facebook now decides what posts are addressing similar topics and groups them together. It isn't entirely clear how you get to the top of these groups, but it probably depends on the strength of the relationship you have with that person or fan page. So in this example I have had many interactions with The Raw Story so their post made it to the top of the list Facebook created for me:

The Wall Street example is why this decision by Facebook’s engineers has some serious political consequences. Regardless of how many of your friends post about Wall Street, you will only ever see this truncated list. I guess Facebook wants to make sure you don’t get distracted from the pictures of what your friends had for breakfast. I exaggerate, but only slightly, because we all know Twitter is where you broadcast what you had for breakfast.

To me this means that Facebook is ceding the territory of being the breaking news source of record to Twitter. I mean, how can you tell if something is breaking news if you are waiting for Facebook to organize all the stories discussing the same topic? As opposed to Twitter that is still a total fire-hose that shows you what is happening in real time.

Facebook ads are another nearly infinite source of bad and sometimes good social media experiments that I can critique or praise. This week it is pretty much all critiques. Take this ad for example:

 

“How dare this organization use the image of cookie monster to promote their agenda!” was my first reaction. And once I clicked on their ad and checked out their site I only got angrier.

This is clearly a conservative political ploy (a clever campaign, I have to admit) to get people to think in the simplistic terms the modern Republican party relies on. But the irony of using a beloved public television icon like cookie monster to promote radical conservative ideology was not lost on me.

I politely asked them who was funding their organization, but got no engagement from the fan page moderator. Surprise! They didn’t like my solutions either:

This next Facebook ad is just hilarious in its simplicity:

Well yeah, how could I not click?

But some Facebook ads are just in really bad taste. Take this example from a far right anti-government organization that is “is a public awareness campaign dedicated to educating Generation Y about important issues that will impact their future.” 

The people who run this group get paid to think that we should reduce the national debt at any cost, except by raising the marginal tax rate on the rich.

But come on guys, using the dead Steve Jobs to peddle your absurd political position? Last time I checked, Apple was founded and blossomed in one of the most heavily regulated states in the country and has not moved its headquarters to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.

Obama's grand strategy

According to conventional political logic the President should be worried about his chances of re-election, very worried.

With an official unemployment rate of 9%, a massive deficit and a campaign finance system that is now officially completely broken, Axelrod and the president's other strategists must be nervous.

But there might might yet be a path to victory for the President. Besides having very good grassroots fundraising totals (I shelled out for my apron and beer koozie) and the promise to raise more than $1 billion for his campaign, there might be a few other reasons to be optimistic about the President's chances of securing a second term in the White House.

The path to victory I see relies on one fundamental assumption: voters are sick of the status quo and will vote for whichever candidate will bring change. In short, as with many elections in the past, whoever can run as an "outsider" and can credibly promise to "clean up Washington" and get things done will win.

Factor 1: The Super Committee

The Super Committee that was formed from the ashes of the debt ceiling debacle last summer is finally supposed to be releasing its budget balancing plan. Since the Republicans on this committee have sworn a blood oath to never raise taxes, this committee really doesn't have the capacity to balance the budget. The Republicans know that if they even allow old tax cuts to expire they will be crucified by a base who has been thoroughly convinced that raising taxes for any reason is treasonous.

So what is the likely outcome of the Super Committee's non-attempt to balance the budget? Huge cuts to both entitlements and defense. So who comes out on top when we cut both the military and social programs, the Republicans or the President? Well, since the Republicans have basically already come out in-favor of eliminating the programs that many of our seniors rely on with the Paul Ryan plan, I think President Obama will win this one. What about the defense cuts you ask? I think the liberal base would be excited about the prospect of cutting another $1 trillion over 10 years from the already bloated miliatry budget. And it is going to be hard to call the guy who killed Bin Laden "soft on defense."

So no matter what happens (unless there actually is some sort of compromise) the President will win this round and be able to promise to restore the entitlement program cuts while effectively endorsing the Pentagon cuts by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Factor 2: The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has immense power. From its ability to decide who the winner of elections will be (Bush vs. Gore) to shaping the history of the 20th century's greatest President (when FDR tried to pack the court and then ram through all of his new deal plans) the final fate of any President can be decided by the high court.

This year is no different. By agreeing to hear the challenges to the President's healthcare law, the 5-4 conservative majority has basically signaled their intention to invalidate at least some of the law, likely the insurance mandate.

At first glance this eventuality may seem like a serious set back for the President. But remember my assumption, whoever is the "outsider" will likely win this election. Paradoxically, if the Supreme Court strikes down the healthcare law the President might actually be in a better position. If Obama can convince the American people that he is the man of action and Congress and the Supreme Court are standing in his way, he could even return to the same campaign slogan for 2012 with a slight variation. "We tried, but in the second term, YES WE CAN!" And in the most optimistic scenario, repeal of the Affordable Care Act might actually energize the liberal base and lay the foundation for health CARE reform, instead of the health INSURANCE reform we got in 2009.

Winner? Despite the mainstream media who will undoubtedly spin the decision of an unaccountable and appointed group of wealthy elderly lawyers as a damaging blow to the President, I think giving Obama another enemy of progress for him to campaign against will help him more than it will hurt him.

Factor 3: The crazy Republican field and the potential for a third party candidate

By now we have experienced the Donald Trump fad, the Michelle Bachman fad, the Rick Perry fad, and the Herman Cain fad without the Republican primary voters being able to make up their minds. They just really don't like Mitt Romney even though they grudgingly know he is the best general election candidate, mainly because he doesn't openly advocate ending Social Security.

But as I have pointed out before, Romney is a Mormon and there is a large segment of the American public, in particular the Evangelical Christian right who will not vote for him because of his faith. This primary fight will likely last into the late spring forcing the candidates and their Super PACs to waste their valuable resources battling each other for the nomination. For the first time in living memory this nomination may come down to a convention floor fight which would obviously be the best possible scenario for the President.

There have also been rumblings that Ron Paul, the only real conservative libertarian in the race, might run as a third party candidate if he doesn't win the Republican nomination. Much like Ross Perot gave the 1992 election to Bill Clinton by splitting the conservative vote, a Ron Paul 3rd party bid would almost certainly guarantee a second term for the President.  

Romney will likely be the nominee. If he isn't, I think the Republicans will be in for a "Goldwatering" and President Obama will cruise to victory as the only remotely qualified candidate.

Factor 4: Foreign Policy (the total wild card)

Unbeknownst to most Americans, much of the world is pretty much falling apart. The European debt crisis is spiraling out of control and an Israeli attack on Iran seems increasingly likely. The geopolitical implications of a new war in the Middle East could change the race for President in ways I can't really predict.

Conventional wisdom would dictate that a sitting commander-in-chief would likely benefit from a war that doesn't see a large number of American causalities before election day. However, a wider war in the Middle East that might include both Turkey and Syria, not to mention the fact that the Iranians would likely move to close the straights of Hormuz would send world energy prices through the roof. Again, it is unclear but voters would almost certainly blame President Obama if gas prices doubled or tripled unless he somehow opened the eyes of Americans to our dependence on foreign oil and convinced us of the need to embark on a huge domestic clean energy infrastructure building project in the wake of a military disaster in the middle east.

In summary, the next year will provide the President with a slew of opportunities to position himself as the outsider and run against the dysfunction that is Washington D.C. and hopefully avoid a full scale war in the Middle East.

Social Media on Election Day

Washington is an all mail-in ballot state. This means that voters have a couple of weeks to sit around their kitchen tables and ponder their ballots. Now on the whole I favor this system because it pretty clearly drives up voter turnout by making the process so much easier.

However as a political news junkie, I am against it because it makes election night so much less fun. Instead of anxiously watching television news as they report precinct by precinct as the results come pouring in after the polls close we get to huddle around our laptops feverishly clicking refresh to see if the Secretary of State released the results.

LAME.

They don't even update that often, so at 8:15pm last night the fun was pretty much over.

But in the lead up to the release of the first round of ballots that came in, social media does still have a role to play. As you might expect, I follow a lot of organizations and people who posted to Facebook on election day. And as I have posted about before, I was anticipating seeing one giant chunk of truncated and summarized status updates like this:

But instead of seeing everyone who posted about "election day" clumped together, I was pleasantly surprised to see more of this:

The League of Education Voters is doing their homework when it comes to what works and what doesn't when it comes to using social media when you know there will be a lot of other people posting about the same thing. They used a photo and capitalized on Facebook's tendency to display photos very widely and thus expanded the reach of their post and connected with more of their fans, some of whom might have forgot about their ballot.

Posting information about ballot drop box locations can be one of the most helpful things you as a candidate can do, but that doesn't mean Facebook cares. It is still going to lump you in with everyone else who tried to do the voting public a service:

I really disagree with the Washington Policy Center on almost everything, but advertising your suggestions for how to vote on what is normally a bewildering number of initiatives is always a good idea:

King 5 also does a good job with their social media and asking Facebook questions is great way to drive engagement on your page and increase your fan base:

So overall election night is now a lot less fun. But on the bright side, the mail-in balloting system basically drags out election day over three weeks so we political nerds will just have to enjoy the suspense of election season over a few weeks instead of a few hours.

The political season in Seattle and those "I'm a Mormon" ads

Its election time in Washington State and that means a barrage of special interest campaign spending. Aside from Costco setting the new all time record on initiative spending to support their Liquor privatization measure I wanted to start off this post with what I think should be considered a violation of what is left of our campaign finance laws.

So Mitt Romney is a Mormon. I have no real problem with that. But to many conservative christian voters in this country Mormonism is a cult and they would never vote for one. I believe that the mainstream media has underestimated this element in the Republican primary debate. I had first hand experience with this reality when I was joined at the Fox Sport Grill (which was an awesome choice) by a self described Republican as my friends and I watched the most recent Republican debate. This Republican admitted to not paying attention to the race yet (as most normal Americans aren't) but was able to recognize Mitt Romney. This person then confirmed with us that he is a Mormon and then when on to declare that they wouldn't not vote for him because of that.

So here is where the campaign finance law violation comes in. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also known as the LDS, understands that they have a public relations problem and that the best shot they have ever had at real political power in America might be derailed because a large number of Americans don't understand and some fear their religion. The mere fact that this campaign exists means they understand many Americans consider Mormonism "a little weird" at the least.

This campaign is clearly designed to humanize the public's perception of Mormons and help Mitt Romney secure the nomination by hopefully allaying some of the fears of those all important primary voters.

I assert that the spending done by the LDS on this conveniently timed public awareness campaign should be consider an in-kind contribution to the Mitt Romney and to a far lesser extent, Jon Huntsman campaigns. This is obviously illegal since religious organizations are banned from making such contributions.


But, back to the craziness that is Washington politics. With a system of unlimited special interest spending on endless citizen initiative votes, we Washingtonians never run out of stuff to vote on. As I mentioned earlier, Costco's second attempt to privatize liquor sales in 2 years has hit a record for all time spending on a initiative in Washington.

But what really strikes me about this campaign is the fact that very few of their ads actually talk about the merits of the issue. They focus instead on how their opposition is bad and that is why people should vote Yes.

As I mentioned in my previous post on I-1183, there are lots of reasons to vote against 1183 and it seems like the campaign is now just banking on dumping $22 million into the simple message of "yes."

I mean look at this yard sign, it doesn't even say what the initiative does!

The most fundamental reason why I think everyone should vote No on 1183 is summed up by this effective slippery slope argument from the no campaign:

Are we going to let decisions about public policy come down to how much is one special interest going to pump into getting the regulatory environment adjusted to their benefit?