If this doesn’t speak to Sander’s blind populism or Hillary’s overt power hunger then I don’t know what does!
America is at a real turning point in its political culture.
Many ideologies are on the table.
Where are the minorities?
I like the idea that Democrats are more egalitarian than Republicans, but is Bernie’s socialism really the solution? America’s problem isn’t just economic. It is a cultural ailment; police brutality, mass-incarceration, a terribly hawkish foreign policy dominated by foreign interest-lobbies.
Bernie is super appealing. That’s why I think Larry David fit this character so well. I am not anti-Bernie Sanders, but I am yet to be pro-anybody that isn’t critical on particular issues.
In the realm of domestic politics, we need people who aren’t afraid to point out inconsistencies.
In foreign politics; we need someone who isn’t an Israeli lapdog.
Obama has given Israel the cold shoulder; but he has also given them a blanket to stay warm.
I prefer his strategy over any of the current contenders.
Republicans have nothing to offer but war, as usual.
Imagine an Arab-American president, one that understands the struggles of the minorities inside America, but isn’t all too detached from America’s foreign policy shortcomings. Let’s be frank; America’s domestic politics is completely dependent and a direct reflection of its foreign policies. Why do you think American politicians are less encouraged to bring issues of foreign policy to the attention of the American people? Because Americans would hate to associate their “freedom-loving-democracy” with carnage and evil abroad.
We need leaders who are realists; who are not daunted by America’s history.
Recently, a close friend of mine sent me an article about Iran and its deteriorating relationship with the West. The following is an excerpt from that article.
Notwithstanding these setbacks, Khamenei remains steadfast. Preserving the ideological order of the Islamic Republic is more important for the supreme leader than crossing the nuclear Rubicon. For a leader who, in the words of John Milton, prefers “to reign in hell than serve in heaven,” surrender is political suicide. In the eyes of this custodian of political Islam, surrounded by a culture of complacency and mendacity, a Pyrrhic victory is divine providence.
Against this backdrop, Washington’s belief in the ability of sanctions to curtail Tehran’s atomic ambitions proves credulous. Iran’s nuclear defiance is ideological and thus cannot be resolved by coercion. Rather than repeating the failed policy of pushing the supreme leader into a corner, the Obama administration should aim for piecemeal solutions that would allow for a face-saving compromise. The goal should be to decelerate Iran’s perilous nuclear activities and put it under rigorous international monitoring until cooler heads prevail in Tehran.
In response, I said the following:
Very interesting. I think this approach is better than what a Republican approach would be. Still, I fear that sanctions will exacerbate things. I think fear is still being used to convince people that Iran is a threat, the same way the public was convinced that Iraq was a threat. To be honest, I think that if a country threatens U.S. Corporate interests – not government interests; those are very different – it automatically becomes categorized as a “nuclear” threat. This is the only way to garner enough public support to ensure that a foreign endeavor is not met with public outrage.
What are your thoughts?
Is Iran really a direct threat to the U.S., or is Modern Iran simply responding to centuries of imperialism that took the country back to the Middle Ages?