Republican Iowa Caucus 2012

[Cailst]

Given the differences of today, what would you expect to see? And is there anyone who matches that?

Still had an awful foreign policy.

Doesn't seem that bad. Sure, there were a few things which later blew up in our face but for the most part, pretty decent.

 

[BLADE]

We've had a decent amount of one term presidents.

Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford in recent years.

What would non-joke Republican candidates look like?

Bush Sr. was running for an effective fourth term (the GOP had held the White House since the 80s) and Ford was running for an effective third term. Ford came within two points of winning reelection and Bush Sr. was arguably done in by the Perot forces. Carter ran close to Reagan until the debates and might have won had it not been for the albatross of the hostages (stagflation was bad, but improving under Volcker, and was never the sort of burden that revisionist historians like to claim.) In any case, Obama's polling numbers are more robust than Carter's or Bush I for now. And he's also a better candidate than all three. The political landscape has also changed a lot, and I suspect he has more of a floor than these candidates do. That doesn't mean he's any more likely to win than they will, but that this election will probably be close, which usually favors the incumbent.

As for your question...

This guy:

Or this guy:

Eisenhower doesn't really count for me, anyhow. He never really bought into the GOP and only ran to stick it to Taft and his isolationists.


Sovereign: Not really. The New Look doctrine was effective and parsimonious, especially compared to the Flexible Response boondoggle that eventually got us into Viet Nam (though Ike had a role in getting us in there, it should be noted.) If you are referring to the various black ops around the world, well yeah. Powerful countries do awful stuff all the time. Some of its is unjustifiable, and some of it is necessary. There's nothing uniquely awful about Eisenhower's foreign policy to merit a negative comparison vis-a-vis other presidents.

I'd actually arguable that even if you are a pinko peacenik, Eisenhower had one of the more tolerable foreign policies of the latter twentieth century: less interventionism in South America than under his predecessors (or which would be tacitly accepted under Kennedy all the way through Reagan with a brief caesura during the Carter years) and he cut defense spending by maintaining a robust nuclear force.

Grain of salt though, I don't think morality should have anything to do with foreign policy other than as a means of selling said foreign policy and not causing cognitive dissonance. Richard Nixon was the most effective foreign policy President of the twentieth century (barring FDR) but also the most morally repugnant.

 

[Sovereign]

Eisenhower overthrew Mosaddegh, which eventually lead to the creation of the Islamic Republic years later.

 

[Brand]

Otherwise, I am a #SantorumBeliever.

 

[BLADE]

Eisenhower overthrew Mosaddegh, which eventually lead to the creation of the Islamic Republic years later.

And? The Islamic Republic makes for a useful counterweight to Russia and can be counted on to share some interests with us (we confer secretly surprisingly often.) There's this persistent delusion in American politics that if nations were democratic, we'd be the bestest of friends, but Iran is acting the way it does because it has a political interest in playing off the balance of power in the region to its maximum interest. There are inflammatory factors (our unstinting support for Israel and wacky Iraq misadventure) that expose us unnecessarily to Tehran and give them leverage over us, but otherwise, there's nothing particularly unconventional about Iran, geopolitically speaking

Also, it wasn't Eisenhower, it was the British, because British oil interests were threatened. He merely tacitly allowed it.

Trellheim: Joke right?

But yes, I love Santorum. He at least represents something. He'd be a worthy nominee, if only for the sake of presenting a choice.

 

[Brand]

Trellheim: Joke right?

But yes, I love Santorum. He at least represents something. He'd be a worthy nominee, if only for the sake of presenting a choice.

No, I actually am a Santorum supporter, lol.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

I'm making a prediction right now that ron paul will likely take most medical marijuana states. Call me Smokestradamus.

 

[Sovereign]

And? The Islamic Republic makes for a useful counterweight to Russia and can be counted on to share some interests with us (we confer secretly surprisingly often.) There's this persistent delusion in American politics that if nations were democratic, we'd be the bestest of friends, but Iran is acting the way it does because it has a political interest in playing off the balance of power in the region to its maximum interest. There are inflammatory factors (our unstinting support for Israel and wacky Iraq misadventure) that expose us unnecessarily to Tehran and give them leverage over us, but otherwise, there's nothing particularly unconventional about Iran, geopolitically speaking

You're argument is based on realist assumption. I believe that Iran is an enemy of the United States because the identity of the Islamic Republic is based around an anti-american and anti-imperialist discourse.

(Also: Iran as a counterweight to Russia? This was true during the Cold War, but not today)

Moreover, there's no question that Iranians would be better if Mossadegh had never been overthrown.

 

[BLADE]

I'm making a prediction right now that ron paul will likely take most medical marijuana states. Call me Smokestradamus.

Nah. The establishment will crush him. And stoners will whine about the man keeping them down again. Just this time they'll be right.

Trellheim: Really? Huh. Well, all the power to you, I suppose.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I'm making a prediction right now that ron paul will likely take most medical marijuana states. Call me Smokestradamus.

Only if their #1 issue, i.e. more than the economy, is marijuana legalization.

 

[Brand]

Trellheim: Really? Huh. Well, all the power to you, I suppose.

Yessir, I can't vote but I do keep up to date on politics since my dad is also interested in that kind of thing. I consider myself a social and fiscal conservative, and I've been rooting for Santorum from the beginning before people knew his name since he's from the homeland of PA.

 

[BLADE]

You're argument is based on realist assumption. I believe that Iran is an enemy of the United States because the identity of the Islamic Republic is based around an anti-american and anti-imperialist discourse.

No, the identity of the Islamic Republic is based around sharia and clerical theocracy. Its anti-Americanism is incidental and convenient, just as other developing countries use Anti-American discourse for their own political gains. This isn't GI Joe, dude. Nations aren't literally defined as being against other nations, unless it happens to be in their interest to be so. Iran is anti-American insofar as it serves their interest. Or was their programmatic anti-American so strong that they refused to buy weapons from us during their little scuffle with Iraq? Oh wait...

Realist assumptions aren't assumptions, they're realities. Nations will always pursue self-interest. Other foreign policy school of thoughts may explain what those interests are in better ways some of the time, but the bedrock principle of foreign policy thinking has always been that states generally attempt to be rational actors.

(Also: Iran as a counterweight to Russia? This was true during the Cold War, but not today)

Still true. Iran plays a crucial role in turning back resurgent Russian influence in Central Asia, where a lot of oil is. It's also a handy political cudgel to scare the Arabs into line.

Moreover, there's no question that Iranians would be better if Mossadegh had never been overthrown.

Counterfactual history is fun, but otherwise useless as speculation. I'll bite though: Iran was always full of clerical jerks, and was never particularly well-managed. Odds are some sort of reactionary movement would have arisen. Or not. Counterfactual history, remember. There's always a question of what if, and to suggest otherwise is naive and asinine.

But this of course elides the point. Even if you grant him Iran, so what? How does this weigh against the rest of his foreign policy or even make him worse than Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon who led us to enormous butcher in Viet Nam? Or Wilson who was basically the bungler who drew up the blueprint for the most deadly conflict in human history?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Yessir, I can't vote but I do keep up to date on politics since my dad is also interested in that kind of thing. I consider myself a social and fiscal conservative, and I've been rooting for Santorum from the beginning before people knew his name since he's from the homeland of PA.

He won't be the nominee, but I'd bet he'll be Romney's VP candidate.

 

[BLADE]

Nah, Rubio, if they can get him. Romney is nothing if not a panderer and he wants the Latino vote. Expect him to dress up in a sombrero and eat tamales (like the candidates did for corn dogs during the run-up to Iowa) to get Latinos on his side. Santorum brings nothing to the table as VP, unless you're assuming he emerges as the final not-Romney that Mitt brings down. I'm still thinking Newt Gingrich or one of the others will be the ones left standing to take on Romney.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Nah, Rubio, if they can get him. Romney is nothing if not a panderer and he wants the Latino vote. Expect him to dress up in a sombrero and eat tamales (like the candidates did for corn dogs during the run-up to Iowa) to get Latinos on his side. Santorum brings nothing to the table as VP, unless you're assuming he emerges as the final not-Romney that Mitt brings down. I'm still thinking Newt Gingrich or one of the others will be the ones left standing to take on Romney.

Newt Gingrich has no shot in New Hampshire, so he'll have no momentum going into South Carolina and then fizzle out there. If he remains, then he, Santorum, and Paul will probably split the more conservative votes, letting Romney win.

Santorum does bring stuff to the table. If he can keep the enthusiasm of the social conservatives (i.e. the GOP base) up around his candidacy, then he'll be able to bring the GOP foot soldiers to the ticket needed to counter those of President Obama. Romney will need someone more right wing than he is in order to make sure the GOP base is active in the General Election, and someone like Santorum, who would have already been tested in a campaign, is a good person for that.

Rubio would also be a good choice for Romney, but he's also only been a Senator for 1 year. Romney is no fool, and, while Rubio would generate excitement, Romney would also recognize the disastrous misfire of an inexperienced person like Sarah Palin as John McCain's VP. Rubio can run circles around Palin, but it's still a political risk for him to choose someone with limited national spotlight and limited national experience.

 

[BLADE]

Newt Gingrich has no shot in New Hampshire, so he'll have no momentum going into South Carolina and then fizzle out there. If he remains, then he, Santorum, and Paul will probably split the more conservative votes, letting Romney win.

Arguable. Paul won't do well in the South, which has always been authoritarian and never particularly receptive to libertarianism, even Paul's coded and racialized type. Newt has a natural base there, money is way more fungible now given the relaxation of campaign finance laws, and Santorum still hasn't established credibility as an anti-Mitt the way Gingrich has (he authored the 94 takeover, and has conservative cred.) I still think this is Romney's to lose, but you shouldn't underestimate the deep animus the base has for him. And I would say even New Hampshire isn't necessarily safe for him if he loses the news cycle post-Iowa. Huntsman could surge there, denying him a clear victory, therefore handing momentum to the anti-Mitt forces.

Santorum does bring stuff to the table. If he can keep the enthusiasm of the social conservatives (i.e. the GOP base) up around his candidacy, then he'll be able to bring the GOP foot soldiers to the ticket needed to counter those of President Obama. Romney will need someone more right wing than he is in order to make sure the GOP base is active in the General Election, and someone like Santorum, who would have already been tested in a campaign, is a good person for that.

I can think of any number of good political alternatives for Romney for riling up social conservatives that don't come with Santorum's baggage. The man is a modern day Spiro Agnew. Some that come to mind are Pence, Huckabee, (if he'd accept), Jindal, Barbour, Haley and so forth. Santorum is very unlikeable and that's a bad quality in a vice president even with the attack dog role (which is diminishing anyhow.)

Rubio would also be a good choice for Romney, but he's also only been a Senator for 1 year. Romney is no fool, and, while Rubio would generate excitement, Romney would also recognize the disastrous misfire of an inexperienced person like Sarah Palin as John McCain's VP. Rubio can run circles around Palin, but it's still a political risk for him to choose someone with limited national spotlight and limited national experience.

The upside very much outweighs the downside, for both Romney and the GOP (which is doubtless grooming Rubio for a run at the White House) what better way to do it than with the vice presidency? Furthermore, the GOP does recognize Obama's inherent demographic strengths and will put a premium on eroding the support of a growing demographic base as opposed to shoring up support in a shrinking demographic base (so-cons.) There's also the fact that Santorum would dilute the unique appeal of Romney which is economic competence.

Having the "sodomites are the biggest threat to America" guy as your #2 is just going to be a headache. And he comes with way more baggage than Rubio, who had his corruption scrapes, but was not at the center of K Street, like Santorum. He might offer Santorum a role as a surrogate and perhaps something in the cabinet, but I doubt he'll extend him a VP offer. I hope you're right though. Santorum is hilarious, and the longer time he spends in the limelight, the better.

 

[Sovereign]

No, the identity of the Islamic Republic is based around sharia and clerical theocracy. Its anti-Americanism is incidental and convenient, just as other developing countries use Anti-American discourse for their own political gains.

It's the opposite. Ever since the revolution, Iran has been defining itself as an opponent of the western world. If Iran's foreign policy was driven by realist goals, then why did it become a staunch enemy of the United States after 1979? It seems to me that Iran had much more to gain economically and militarily by continuing its alliance with the United States, yet it ended its relations with the U.S and pursued a strictly anti-imperialist foreign policy.

The only explanation for this is the way a new Iranian identity was forged after 1979, which was enshrined in the Iranian constitution. It's identity has little to do with Sharia or a clerical theocracy. Iran's revolutionary Shiite rhetoric is more nationalist than anything, which is why it failed to sway Sunni arabs.

This isn't GI Joe

I love how you're assuming I'm an idiot.

Nations aren't literally defined as being against other nations, unless it happens to be in their interest to be so.

North Korea and Iran are two countries that are "literally" defined as being against other nations. Drop the anti-imperialist rhetoric in both of these states and their raison d'être would vanish overnight.

Or was their programmatic anti-American so strong that they refused to buy weapons from us during their little scuffle with Iraq? Oh wait...

Their "little scuffle" was one of the bloodiest wars in human history..So really no need for silly euphemism.

Realist assumptions aren't assumptions, they're realities. Nations will always pursue self-interest. Other foreign policy school of thoughts may explain what those interests are in better ways some of the time, but the bedrock principle of foreign policy thinking has always been that states generally attempt to be rational actors.

The problem with your viewpoint is that you see states as actors. This is the basic of IR theory, but IR has its limits. I'm speaking in Foreign Policy terms. States are not single actors, there are many decision-making units within Iran, each with its own interests.

It's true that each of these actors are rational, but that doesn't mean that their policies will always be rational. Iran's foreign policy since the 2004 is far from being "rational", if Iran was only seeking to maximize its immediate material needs then why is it adamant about pursuing nuclear weapons? Its economy is in tattered, yet it doesn't seem to be backing away from its program.

Sure, you could say that nuclear weapons would help them "expand its influence" (or whatever that means), but at the heart of the issue is its identity and what it sees as its role in the state system. Nuclear weapons weren't an issue before 1979, but now it is. Why is that? Again a strictly realist view fails to explain this shift.

You have to take into account other theories of international relations, and most importantly, you can't dismiss FP. Constructivism, Realism, and institutionalism, are all useful when trying to decipher state actions.

Still true. Iran plays a crucial role in turning back resurgent Russian influence in Central Asia, where a lot of oil is. It's also a handy political cudgel to scare the Arabs into line.

Iran is trying to be-friend Russia not alienate it. You can't really be a useful counterweight when Russia is one of your few friends in the world.

Counterfactual history is fun, but otherwise useless as speculation. I'll bite though: Iran was always full of clerical jerks, and was never particularly well-managed. Odds are some sort of reactionary movement would have arisen. Or not. Counterfactual history, remember. There's always a question of what if, and to suggest otherwise is naive and asinine.

That's a false reading of Iranian history. Iran was never always full of "clerical jerks", clerics had relatively little power before 1979. The reason why they became so powerful after the revolution is because they were systematically repressed during the Shah years. Yes, it's silly to speculate, but we should know that overthrowing a democratically elected regime is most likely a bad policy, not only for the U.S but for the people in question.

But this of course elides the point. Even if you grant him Iran, so what? How does this weigh against the rest of his foreign policy or even make him worse than Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon who led us to enormous butcher in Viet Nam? Or Wilson who was basically the bungler who drew up the blueprint for the most deadly conflict in human history?

I don't remember comparing him to anyone.

 

[BLADE]

It's the opposite. Ever since the revolution, Iran has been defining itself as an opponent of the western world. If Iran's foreign policy was driven by realist goals, then why did it become a staunch enemy of the United States after 1979? It seems to me that Iran had much more to gain economically and militarily by continuing its alliance with the United States, yet it ended its relations with the U.S and pursued a strictly anti-imperialist foreign policy.

1. Iran has been "anti-Imperialist" and "anti-Western" since the revolution as a matter of political expedience to keep the regime in power. It's actually widely regarded by actual anti-Western factions like Al Qaeda as paying "lip service to the jihad."

2. Iran gained little economically or militarily from its alliance with the United States, indeed wretched economic conditions in Iran during the Shah's reign were one of the main reasons for why he was kicked out, sine qua non there is no revolution. They were arguably better off as friends of the United States, but the Iranian people had no way of making that calculation at that particular moment, since they had little frame of reference to an institutional framework that did not involve the United States. Furthermore, a nation's ostensible economic benefit may often clash with their geopolitical objectives. See the United States and its trade policy, for example.

3. For the most part, Iran's main dealings with the Western world have been one of denouncing it rhetorically and building a nuclear program to safeguard it from interventionism (western and non-western.) Your mistake is in assuming that policies always follow from ideologically, rather than there being a far more complicated relationship. Iran is anti-Western at least in part because the West is the political entity best positioned to block Iran's main goals (political independence, control of its mountain heartlands, subjugation of its non-Persian minorities, power projection over Mesopotamia, Shia nationalism.) If it were Russia that was a huger threat to Iran (though they have begun to butt heads in Central Asia), there would doubtlessly be a lot more effigies of Putin burning in the streets of Tehran than Cairo.

So yes. The hilarious thing about your position is that it's the same Western narcissism that always gets us in trouble. People are always somehow reactive to our policies and always thinking about us rather than calculating their own interests in a less easily caricatured manner. The fact of the matter is, Iran will be opposed to the West so long as the West poses a realistic chance of intervening in Iran's affairs. This is not an endorsement of isolationism, but Iran is pretty much a textbook case of blowback.

The only explanation for this is the way a new Iranian identity was forged after 1979, which was enshrined in the Iranian constitution. It's identity has little to do with Sharia or a clerical theocracy. Iran's revolutionary Shiite rhetoric is more nationalist than anything, which is why it failed to sway Sunni arabs.

So religious nationalism rather than "We hate America" is the founding basis of their state? Glad we agree.

I love how you're assuming I'm an idiot.

No, naive and simplistic. Though to be fair, I really love 80s cartoons. GO JOE!

North Korea and Iran are two countries that are "literally" defined as being against other nations. Drop the anti-imperialist rhetoric in both of these states and their raison d'être would vanish overnight.

Juche and Shia Nationalism, respectively. Oh and the usual ethnic and national identity. Oh and the will to power, if you're into Nietzsche. Both nations have an inbuilt wariness of American power, but neither are necessarily invariably opposed to the United States, they merely find it expedient to proclaim that they are (whilst covertly working together, accepting aid, etc.)

Their "little scuffle" was one of the bloodiest wars in human history..So really no need for silly euphemism.

Geopolitically, it was nothing more than a little scuffle between two third-rate powers. But for Iran, it was a far more significant event than the storming of the US Embassy. It was one of the great moments that empowered the Basij and that finally marked the triumph of the clerics over the secular figures. And it happened with US help. Which they are programatically opposed to, as you say.

The problem with your viewpoint is that you see states as actors. This is the basic of IR theory, but IR has its limits. I'm speaking in Foreign Policy terms. States are not single actors, there are many decision-making units within Iran, each with its own interests.

There is nothing incongruous about assuming that states are actors and recognizing that there are disparate factions within states. In fact, good IR theory makes allowances for this by analyzing the endogenous political conditions of a country and extrapolating foreign policy stances based on that.

It's true that each of these actors are rational, but that doesn't mean that their policies will always be rational. Iran's foreign policy since the 2004 is far from being "rational", if Iran was only seeking to maximize its immediate material needs then why is it adamant about pursuing nuclear weapons?

Because states seek to maximize security as the foundational basis of material wealth and because Tehran (rightly) calculates that the only way to be preclude future intervention is to build nuclear capacity.

And no, policies aren't always "rational" in the way you and I think about it, but are rational in that states always calculate cost-benefit analysis using 'reason.' Far too many caricatures of realist thought assume that we assume all nations have the same goals. They do not because of many factors. Even so, that does not invalidate the theory, but merely requires a more nuanced implementation.

Its economy is in tattered, yet it doesn't seem to be backing away from its program.

The Iranians are playing a long game, calculating that nuclear weapons will give them more political leverage with which they can negotiate more optimal economic arrangements and that they can keep the restive population docile whilst doing so. They are also building up military capacity now at the cost of their economy. It's a classic guns or butter dilemma, and countless nations have undergone it. What's your point?

Sure, you could say that nuclear weapons would help them "expand its influence" (or whatever that means), but at the heart of the issue is its identity and what it sees as its role in the state system. Nuclear weapons weren't an issue before 1979, but now it is. Why is that? Again a strictly realist view fails to explain this shift.

It actually explains it perfectly. Iran sees its geopolitical imperatives as threatened by the West (though it certainly looks askew at future threats like Turkey and/or Russia) and calculates that nuclear weapons will make it impervious to invasion or the sort of physical subjugation that other 'rogue states' have undergone.

That's one of the great fallacies of what is frankly Western propaganda on this point. Iran's attempt to acquire nuclear capability is more of a defensive policy than an aggressive one.

You have to take into account other theories of international relations, and most importantly, you can't dismiss FP. Constructivism, Realism, and institutionalism, are all useful when trying to decipher state actions.

I never said they weren't. I simply said that the foundational basis of realism --rational choice theory-- is the only real basis on which to quantify and evaluate state actions. As a foreign policy school, I find realism to generally be superior to the alternatives, despite its own massive shortcomings, but I'm making no salient arguments on FP theory at the moment.

Iran is trying to be-friend Russia not alienate it. You can't really be a useful counterweight when Russia is one of your few friends in the world.

Nations have no friends. They have interests. Iran's friendly endeavors towards Russia belies its subtle moves to encourage anti-Russian sentiment in Central Asia, and its move towards closer ties with former Soviet Republics (to the consternation of the Russians.) Should the Russian connection become a liability in the future, or should Iran see advantage elsewhere, it will cut off the relationship without any qualms.

And you're broadly wrong in any case. France was our "friend" during the Cold War, but undermined most of our projects for centralizing Western command during the period (see Gaullism.)

That's a false reading of Iranian history. Iran was never always full of "clerical jerks", clerics had relatively little power before 1979. The reason why they became so powerful after the revolution is because they were systematically repressed during the Shah years. Yes, it's silly to speculate, but we should know that overthrowing a democratically elected regime is most likely a bad policy, not only for the U.S but for the people in question.

Actually, my reading is pretty accurate. The Shah pursued an anti-democratization strategy similar to Mubarak and other dictators in the region, encouraging theocratic elements to emerge as alternatives to him and then using those as bogeymen for the US and the West, who might otherwise insist on liberalization. So much so that the secular opposition in Iran was pretty disorganized and initially, at least, easily coopted by Khomenei, who was never a democrat.

I don't remember comparing him to anyone.

Saying his foreign policy was awful as being salient implies that there was something uniquely awful about it. I'm not even arguing that the Mossadegh decision was wise, even if ultimately the British were the culprits, but rather that somehow being partly at fault for the rise of theocratic Iran does not constitute all that great a foreign policy blunder when compared to the other disasters of the 20th century.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Knowing SIN and based off of your own posts, Prospero, I can tell that you're both well on your way to having a "Mine's Bigger!" contest, so please let's keep stuff like "naive and simplistic" out of an otherwise respectful conversation. You both just have differing opinions, both of which are perfectly valid. Thanks.

 

[BLADE]

Ha! Well to be fair, I meant his views on this particular issue are somewhat naive and simplistic --Sovereign himself seems like a perfectly intelligent fellow and he makes for lovely and lively conversation-- but fair enough, I probably should have been more diplomatic. My apologies.

Also my apologies to everyone else. I'm not sure what the etiquette on this forum is for derailing a thread. An old forum I used to frequent about news and whatnot was pretty loose on this, but I also know some forums frown on getting off-topic so Sovereign and I could move this over PM if it's bothering anyone/against site etiquette or rules.