Foreign Policy ADD

by hilzoy

This post from Undiplomatic provides a quick illustration of why Foreign Policy ADD is a Very Bad Thing. It's called "Russia - Georgia: The Big Winner":

"Iran.

1. The neocons are so distracted by the new meme of Russia as Nazi Germany, they’ve forgotten all about their old meme of Iran as Nazi Germany.

2. The Bush Administration, attempting to save face as a result of its failed promises to Georgia, appears determined to shame and isolate the Russians. If they keep it up, it’s unlikely they’ll get Russia’s continued cooperation on Iran.

3. The Russians have every incentive now to cultivate the Iranians rather than sanction them.

If I were the Ahmadinejad, I’d be laughing my missile-photoshopping jihadist butt off right about now."

A good President needs to be able to keep our objectives in Iran, and Russia's role in helping us secure them, in his mind even when Russia is attacking Georgia. Some of those objectives, like keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, matter enormously. It's one thing for William Kristol to have the entire rest of the world fly out of his head in the thrill of the moment. It's another thing altogether for our President to.

Comments

[Jay C]

"2. The Bush Administration, attempting to save face as a result of its failed promises to Georgia,"

Interesting choice of words there: do we, the public, know exactly what "promises" were made to Georgia, and by whom? Does Charles Brown have inside info we don't?

[sv]

maybe they're too clever by half. they know russia isn't exactly with us on the Iran question. i dont want to insinuate wildly here, but in light of the recurring fears of a pre-November strike of some sort on Iran by Israel or the Bushies, maybe antagonizing the Russians right now is seen to have little cost compared to what's coming up...

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Jay C,

From the way he's acting and talking, Georgian President Saakashvili certainly thinks the Bush Administration made some kind of "promises."

[Ugh]

Maybe Cheney's been taking over by Skynet and we're marching toward Judgment Day.

[John Thullen]

I'm more interested right now in what promises John McCain, through his campaign advisors, is making to Georgia.

His obvious bellicose joy over these developments is helping his electoral possibilities in the breakaway Red Republics of South Carolina, Colorado, and all other venues where the worst thing about Ronald Reagan "defeating" the Soviet Bear was that it ended the Cold War without there being a Hot War.

Gosh, I hope Iran doesn't give Russia any fissionable material.

Think of it. We'd have to take the Russkies out and Halliburton could rebuild the Kremlin in the shape of Dick Cheney's head.

As the cartoon Churchill said "As you know, this means that we'll need to cut Social Security benefits."

I heard on CNBC this morning that Russia owns lots of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities.

They blow up houses in Georgia and they call it foreclosure.

[Jay C]

@ btfb:

What I was asking was, what, if any, evidence there was to back up the assertion that there were any US "promises" (i.e. firm, or even implicit commitments) to Georgia, outside (and regardless) of what Pres. Shaakashvili might have "thought".

The notion that this man might have committed his country to a bloody shooting war with the Russians on the mere assumption that the US would back him up (with what? words? military aid? troops and equipment?) is insane! If we didn't "promise" Shaakashvili anything, and he launched his attacks anyway, he should be hauled off to The Hague as a war criminal. If we led him on somehow to assume that we would back his action, then the US bears some responsibility for the destruction visited upon South Ossetia and Georgia. Not all, of course, but some.

But naturally, none of this sort of discussion will ever, IMHO, make it into the public discourse: demagogic Russki-bashing is a much better "sell" for political points.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

Gosh, I hope Iran doesn't give Russia any fissionable material.

This is all Obama's fault.

He is the one who just had to go around bragging about him and Richard Lugar working on post-Soviet Union nuclear non-proliferation issues; he’s done gone and jinxed it for us.

[Ugh]

George W. Bush:

With its actions in recent days, Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world. Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century. Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation. To begin to repair its relations with the United States and Europe and other nations and to begin restoring its place in the world, Russia must respect the freedom of its neighbors.

Can someone grab him, hold him down, and scream in his face: THEY'RE FOLLOWING YOUR EXAMPLE YOU FNCKING HALF-WIT!

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"I'm more interested right now in what promises John McCain, through his campaign advisors, is making to Georgia."

Good point.

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Yeah, I'd been wondering why this Administration is working so hard to drive Russia and Iran closer together. Maybe it's like a novice chess player who can't strategize with all those pieces on the board so he just picks off as many as he can. Geopolitics is so much simpler when all of your potential enemies are allied. Harder, costlier, and deadlier, but simpler.

[byrningman]

"I'm more interested right now in what promises John McCain, through his campaign advisors, is making to Georgia."

Yes, excellent point. I'd be fairly confident that Lieberman and thingy will go over there and promise Saakashvili the moon should McCain win in November. In return, in the coming weeks I bet we'll see the Georgian government give McCain some good sound-bites.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

McCain is all wooded up. Bush is in full do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mode. This Georgia-Russia issue isn't going away . . .

Am I alone in thinking that it might be time for Barack Obama to give a fuller picture in regard to where he stands and break his overall silence?

As John Thullen notes, there are no doubt a lot of folks who are eating up McCain's Cold War rhetoric.

I, for one, would like to see Obama provide an antidote for much of this craziness.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

I should add:

Obama's "overall silence" will only wind up playing into the one argument that McCain has -- that his opponent is inexperienced on foreign affairs.

We all know that is coming.

[Ugh]

Bush Supports the Troops™:

Multiple combat deployments to Iraq are increasing serious mental health problems among soldiers, triggering drug and alcohol abuse and contributing to record suicide levels, suggest reports out Thursday at the American Psychological Association meeting in Boston.
...
On Wednesday, a Texas Reservist going to Iraq for the fourth time called "in a hysterical state" because his house is being foreclosed on, and his wife is taking the kids and leaving him. Says Meshad: "We're just trying to help him out with the financial stuff and keep him from hurting himself."

Fnck Saddam! We're taking him out!

Bring 'em on!

[rea]

Obama's "overall silence" will only wind up playing into the one argument that McCain has -- that his opponent is inexperienced on foreign affairs.

But of course, if he says anything, he'll be called "presumptuous," and accused of sabotaging the delicate negotiations being conducted by the adminstration.

(Yeah, Nixon and N. Vietnam in '68, and Reagan and Iran in '80, but it's always about projection with these people)

There are times when a presidential candidate has to exercise care to refrain from telegraphing to foreign countries engaged in negotiations with the United States that they can get a better deal from him after the election. Obama can't stand by in silence, though, while this crowd commits yet another foreign policy blunder, much less while they gin up a crisis for election time.

[rea]

Obama's "overall silence" will only wind up playing into the one argument that McCain has -- that his opponent is inexperienced on foreign affairs.

But of course, if he says anything, he'll be called "presumptuous," and accused of sabotaging the delicate negotiations being conducted by the adminstration.

(Yeah, Nixon and N. Vietnam in '68, and Reagan and Iran in '80, but it's always about projection with these people)

There are times when a presidential candidate has to exercise care to refrain from telegraphing to foreign countries engaged in negotiations with the United States that they can get a better deal from him after the election. Obama can't stand by in silence, though, while this crowd commits yet another foreign policy blunder, much less while they gin up a crisis for election time.

[rea]

Obama's "overall silence" will only wind up playing into the one argument that McCain has -- that his opponent is inexperienced on foreign affairs.

But of course, if he says anything, he'll be called "presumptuous," and accused of sabotaging the delicate negotiations being conducted by the adminstration.

(Yeah, Nixon and N. Vietnam in '68, and Reagan and Iran in '80, but it's always about projection with these people)

There are times when a presidential candidate has to exercise care to refrain from telegraphing to foreign countries engaged in negotiations with the United States that they can get a better deal from him after the election. Obama can't stand by in silence, though, while this crowd commits yet another foreign policy blunder, much less while they gin up a crisis for election time.

[russell]

With its actions in recent days, Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world.

Here are the things that come to my mind when I consider the Georgian conflict.

Russia has been at the game of great power 'f**k with me and I'll f**k with you' hardball a lot longer than us, and they are much better at it than we are.

Putin is former KGB and a judo master. Bush was governor of Texas, messed around in the oil business, and owned a baseball team.

McCain is naturally bellicose, and would gladly bugger up current US foreign policy if he thought it would increase his shot at the White House.

Anyone who associates themselves with George W Bush, in whatever way, is likely to get screwed. He'll be fine, but they'll get screwed, one way or the other.

Thanks -

[Pole]

Sure it's not Obama's Senior Working Group on National Security?

[Philip Hunt]

Russia is a far greater threat to the West than Iran is, for the following reasons:

1. Russia has more people and a larger economy than Iran, therefore the foundations of its power are stronger.

2. Russia has more of all categories of weapon (tanks, aircraft, warships, missiles, nukes, etc) than Iran does.

3. Russia invades European countries. Iran doesn't; indeed the Islamic Republic of Iran hasn't invaded any of its neighbours.

4. Russia is an internally repressive regime to a larger extent than Iran is, e.g. what Russia did in Chechnya is far worse than anything Iran has done to its minorities.

5. Russia holds to the principle that European countries shouldn't be allowed to have independent foreign policies -- for example, it it opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, regardless of what the Ukrainian govmt or people think on the matter. Iran, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a position on Ukraine joining NATO.

6. Russia assassinates British citizens in London; Iran doesn't.

For these reasons, to the extent that the West has to choose between opposing Iran and opposing Russia, it should oppose Russia.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Ralph Peters agrees with Phillip Hunt, and so do I.

Never heard of Peters before this week. His background in the intelligence field, he has been writing some seriously provocative stuff in the New York Post.

In his latest piece, Peters concludes:

"This was the week that Russia changed the world."

[Gary Farber]

"Never heard of Peters before this week."

Then you're unfamiliar with his many years standing as an idiot.

[Nell]

To the extent that Philip H.'s points have truth to them, they only highlight the obliviousness bordering on contempt with which the Bush administration has ignored Russia in pursuing its own objectives over the last eight years.

[Nell]

@bedtimeforbonzo: You read the New York Post? Thanks for the tip; won't be engaging you in future ObWi threads.

[wj]

In all the discussions of the Russians in Georgia, and how the US (or Europe) should respond, I see a common thread. The argument that runs "we should not do anything substantive in support of the Georgians because it would lose us the support of Russia against radical Islamic terrorism." (Or Iran. Or whatever.)

Nowhere is there even a whisper that Russia might have a serious interest in maintaining the support of the US against all those threats. Threats, be it noted, which are a whole lot closer to their borders than ours. Why do you suppose that is?

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Nell,

That's unfortunate: I look forward to seeing your name and accompanying posts.

This site's political discourse is more open-minded than any I am aware of. But I guess we all have limits.

Certainly, the right wing does, with its zealotry and narrow-mindness. I hope the left is not headed in that direction.

But it seems to be.

That's one reason, I suspect, the 2008 election will be closer than it should be: all of those "Independents" must be comprised of a fair amount of former Democrats.

For if you hold any conservative views at all, sometimes the Democratic Party just doesn't seem like that big of a tent anymore and voters are no doubt looking elsewhere.

I won't register Repbulican, that's for sure. But I guess the day is growing nearer when I will turn in my voter card and register as an Independent.

Your comment truly saddened my Saturday.

[KCinDC]

Does Bush actually start salivating whenever he thinks about the Georgia-Russia conflict? Every time I hear him on the radio giving a statement about it it sounds like he's eating something.

[JanieM]

bedtimeforbonzo -- I felt stung in a similar way last weekend, so I wanted to send a little sympathy.

The most amazing and precious thing about Obsidian Wings, to me, is that so many of the posters and commenters have the patience to engage not only people with whom they don’t agree, but people who are perhaps not as well-informed on any given topic as they are. I have seen new people show up (I count myself as one) with a little more confidence in their opinions (about one topic or another) than is justified by the amount of experience or knowledge backing up the opinions. And there may be some back-and-forth, and maybe even some sarcasm or snideness, but by and large there is room for people to rethink an opinion, deepen their understanding, even change their minds -- in large part because the people who are already here are willing to make space for that to happen, and even to facilitate its happening.

You have struck me as someone who is willing to take in other perspectives than your own and consider them, so that if you say something based on something you read in the New York Post (or anywhere else), that doesn’t mean you hold it as gospel, but rather that you’re throwing it out as part of a conversation that might lead to your learning something that changes your slant on that particular topic. If Nell won’t engage you, that’s too bad (I too look forward to her posts), but the great thing about Obsidian Wings is that someone else surely will.

Hang in there. Or here. ;)

[hilzoy]

Bedtimefor Bonzo: what JanieM said. Stick around. ;)

[jwo]

What JanieM said. And that comment saddened my Saturday as well. Please do stick around.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Thanks, JanieM -- and hilzoy.

Wish I would have read your responses before I threw a snide, parting "New York Post" comment over at the Church and State thread just now.

I truly enjoy this site and, as JanieM notes, marvel at its level of discourse and sometimes wonder if I can "keep up." (Also I see sometimes the humor here goes right over my head.)

I am a lifelong Democrat but, at 45, have only begun to get politically active recently after I felt the 2000 election was stolen from Al Gore.

That, and, finally becoming a father five years ago, I no longer was the center of my universe and saw the need to develop a world view.

Also, like Janie, I've been heartened to see so many new commenters lately -- especially seeing the influx of international posters. Meanwhile, old standby monikers likes LeftTurn and Russell, two of my faves, are what drew us to this site in the first place. (Sorry for calling you old, Russell.)

As for the New York Post, heck, I know it's owned by Murdoch. Good for him. Knowing that, you know what you're getting and I imagine I agree with 10 percent of what I read on their opinion pages, if that. More than anything, I've always like tabloids -- talk about a print dinosaur -- for their sports pages and, dare I admit, I read "Page Six," too.

By the way, "patience" is a dying quality in America today. Compassion isn't too healthy, either.

We all need more of both.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Thanks, jwo.

Geez, I'm glad I clicked on tonight.

I am at work so much, I don't usually do so at home.

BTW, I've read things that have "put me off" here. Then you realize most of what we are writing here isn't meant to be taken personally. Still, when someone reacts at a gut level, I can respect that -- and I respect Nell.

I often find people who infuriate me the most are those closest to me. They are, after all, the people you respect and care about the most.

Same here.

[Gary Farber]

btfb, we all have tempers, and we all have bad days and cranky moments, and I'm sure Nell was having one when she wrote that, and that she's not sworn an undying oath to stand by that irritatble, unkind, harsh, and unfair judgment.

I read publications of all sorts, and I most particularly read articles published anywhere and everywhere, and if anyone judged me on that basis, they'd be perfectly silly; it's not as if you wrote something like "God bless the NY Post, which never publishes anything but gospel truth!," or anything remotely like that.

Your opinion is valued by many as another stalwart contributor of standing here, including me, and please don't take an irritated and ill-tempered remark by someone, unfair as it was, as more than the passing regrettableness that it was.

Ralph Peters, though, really has a long record of demonstrably foolish opinions, as well as an occasional observant thing to say.

For instance:

[...] Defending the war from critics who claimed that Iraq was descending into civil war, he authored a March 5, 2006 piece in the New York Post entitled Dude, Where's My Civil War?, in which he wrote:

I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it...The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week. And the people trust their new army to an encouraging degree. [5]

Claims that Iraq was descending into civil war, he wrote, were the politically motivated claims of "irresponsible journalists" who have "staked their reputations on Iraq's failure" [....]"

But by 2006: "it appears that the cynics were right: Arab societies can't support democracy as we know it."

He's never met a regime change notion he didn't like, and try this one on for size. There's more where this came from.

[Nell]

That was wrong of me, bedtimeforbonzo, and I apologize.

Diss the right-wing tabloid, not the reader.

[John Thullen]

Good on ya, Nell.

I felt a little guilty about reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page the other day.

I view it as scouting the enemy positions.

I have to admit though that the first chink in my original support for Hillary Clinton was that she cosied up to Murdoch.

[The Crafty Trilobite]

bedtimeforbonzo, Philip Hunt's comment is a farrago of half-truths and innuendo.

Russia is a far greater threat to the West than Iran is

Depends on what you mean by "threat," also "the West":

1. Russia has more people and a larger economy than Iran...
2. Russia has more of all categories of weapon...

Duh. Gee, Russia is big? It has modern weaponry? I never knew!
Of course it is. And of course a bigger country is a bigger potential threat. So, why exactly do we think Russia is an active threat to the West?

3. Russia invades European countries.
Georgia is on the continent of Europe, yes. It's not EU or even close. Russia is in Europe too, of course, so that's where half of its border disputes are going to be. But Georgia sure ain't part of "the West."

And why the plural, are we counting invasions by the USSR? That would be odd considering that the next sentence is:

Iran doesn't; indeed the Islamic Republic of Iran hasn't invaded any of its neighbours.

A good point, and one I wish more people would notice about the so-called Iranian threat. However, (a)Iran does support Syria, Hezbollah, and other regional troublemakers, and (b) it seems unhelpful to compare Russia under different regimes to Iran under only its latest one.

4. Russia is an internally repressive regime to a larger extent than Iran is, e.g. what Russia did in Chechnya is far worse than anything Iran has done to its minorities.

I call shenanigans: what Chechnya was doing to Russia, and what Russia stood to lose if Chechnya broke away, was much worse than anything Iran's minorities have come up with lately. Also, what, Bahai and homosexuals don't count? Wait, this is the Post, why did I even ask that question.

5. Russia holds to the principle that European countries shouldn't be allowed to have independent foreign policies

Principle? As in, it believes this in general? Oh, apparently not:

-- for example, it it opposed to Ukraine joining NATO.

Ukraine and Russia are rather less distinct from each other than America and Canada, or Germany and Austria, and Russia would be in serious trouble if it lost Ukraine as an ally. This is sillier than saying that America opposes religious freedom in general because we would freak out if Mexico went Wahabist. We don't depend on ANYONE the way Russia has always depended on its immediate border/buffer countries. And by always, I mean for the last 500 years or so.

Iran, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a position on Ukraine joining NATO.

Do I really need to comment on how useless that comparison is? More importantly, when exactly did Ukraine's freedom of action become a critical national interest of America? Or "the West"? And why?

6. Russia assassinates British citizens in London; Iran doesn't.

Indiscriminate use of plurals, take two. Personally, I'm a little less concerned about Russia going after the occasional expatriate than about Iran arming Hezbollah. Any major power has done some wetwork, that's an ugly fact but not incredibly relevant to its "threat" status.

Hunt's post comes down to a "slippery slope" argument: the fact that Russia bullies Georgia and the Ukraine proves that it really wants to TAKE OVER THE WORLD. But Russia's reasons for doing one thing we don't like do not necessarily extend to doing other things we don't like. It's a remarkably Americocentric view of the world, it fails to even ask what Russia itself thinks it is doing.

Yeah, yeah, Munich 1938. Speaking as someone who lost relatives in the Shoah and whose Dad fought in WWII, get over it. Not every invasion is the prelude to a world war. Most are not.

For these reasons, to the extent that the West has to choose between opposing Iran and opposing Russia, it should oppose Russia.

Does he mean we should cultivate Iran to draw it away from Russia? It may be worth trying, but not because Russia is an immediate threat. But I think we have a better shot at cultivating Russia to pressure or persuade Iran down from the nuclear brink. The actual slippery slope around here is not that Russia is suddenly going to morph into the Mongol Horde, it's that Iran gets nuclear weapons and within 10 years 4 more Middle Eastern countries have them too -- which probably does end up with a nuclear war in my lifetime.

I prefer to avoid that. Call me ethnocentric, but I really don't care if Georgia and Ukraine have to stay in Russia's orbit. I have yet to hear a reason why I should.

[Gary Farber]

"Ukraine and Russia are rather less distinct from each other than America and Canada, or Germany and Austria, and Russia would be in serious trouble if it lost Ukraine as an ally."

Er, they did lose Ukraine as an ally. I have to really wonder if you've followed the events of the past four years in Ukraine. Your comment reads awfully as if none of the events of the past half-decade have happened, and, well, reads rather oddly to me. Remember Yushchenko's poisoning? The crisis of 2007? Russia's cutting off of natural gass to Ukraine? Russia's threats to nuke Ukraine? Last week's development of Ukraine announcing Russian naval ships needed to ask permission ten days in advance to move in or out of Sebastopol? Etc., etc., etc?

In the past couple of days they announced:

[...] On Wednesday, Ukraine announced that it would restrict the movements of Russia's Black Sea fleet into Sevastopol, on the Crimean peninsula. On Friday, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying it was prepared to give Western countries access to its missile-warning systems.

But Ukraine ceased being a Russian ally back in 2004. So, um, what the heck are you talking about?

[Gary Farber]

Some current polling in Colorado, Hilzoy.

[Gary Farber]

Oops, wrong thread.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

No problem, Nell.

I was probably too sensitive. But I wanted you to know that I value your opinions.

Thanks, Gary.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"I view it as scouting the enemy positions."

Nice way of putting it, John.

I feel this way when I tune in to FOX -- especially after a debate. The weekend crew they had on last night after the Warren thing -- everyone else went back to their regular programming -- was particularly fair to Obama, which was nice to see. It's also interesting to see how they view McCain, who the right does not see as one of their own.

One thing I don't get about FOX is their use of Dick Morris as an analyst. He is such an idiot that I'd think it would be obvious even to them. And his hate for the Clintons wiped away any objectivity he had in the primary.

On the other hand, listening to Karl Rove -- the Black Knight of the Republican Party -- makes you realize why he was/is such a good strategist. He may be evil but he knows his stuff.

[Nell]

@btfb: No, I was rude and out of line.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Nell,

You may have remarked elsewhere, but did you see the Rick Warren forum last night?

Obama was impressive and I thought, "Tough act to follow."

Then McCain was even more impressive, making me think he is going to be more formidable in the debates than I had imagined.

He keeps rolling out the POW stories and, whether it's pandering or not, it is effective.

This time last year, I thought this was an election that the Dems might win easily. Not now.

I keep waiting for McCain to lay an egg: His VP choice might be it.

[Nell]

did you see the Rick Warren forum last night?

I was otherwise occupied. But even if I'd been home, I'd never have watched. I don't have a whole lot of regard for Rick Warren in particular, and have even less for the religiosity that currently afflicts politics. Democrats who've encouraged the party to cater to conservative Christians (both the Protestant megachurches and the Catholic hierarchy) are doing a huge disservice to the party, the country, and the constitution.

In fact, we've reached the stage in the campaign that's a regular occurrence for me, in which I do much better work for the candidates if I don't watch or listen to them. Won't be watching any of the convention: I know who I'm voting for, and what they do or say in the next week is more likely to weaken than strengthen my support.

I'm to the left of the party, yet also active in it. So this part of the cycle's particularly tough for me. Concentrating on voter registration and contact is the only way to stay motivated.

[Gary Farber]

"I keep waiting for McCain to lay an egg"

I kinda thought Hilzoy had been pointing to dozens in recent months and weeks.

But enjoy these videos.

[Nell]

Re: Ukraine and Russia

Gary and Crafty Trilobite, you all may already have seen them, but at Talking Points Memo today there are two worthwhile and relevant emails from TPM readers familiar with Ukrainian realities, as well as a couple of other posts citing polling on NATO membership, EU membership, and related issues.

[Gary Farber]

Thanks, Nell. For the benefit of anyone else, a link and another and another.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"I kinda thought Hilzoy had been pointing to dozens in recent months and weeks."

Yeah, Gary, you're right. She has. I guess what I meant was I keep waiting for him to make a gaffe or mistake that sticks.

For now, he's Teflon John.

Even last night when McCain did well, he made some of the strangest gestures and facial expressions that can be at once endearing and disconcerting.

He is definitely the crazy uncle at the table on Thanksgiving. I just don't think of that uncle as being of presidential timber.

[Gary Farber]

[...] I guess what I meant was I keep waiting for him to make a gaffe or mistake that sticks.

For now, he's Teflon John.

Fair enough.

I'd like to believe that that'll happen, but, then, I lived through Ronald Reagan getting elected twice, and endless numbers of people still think he's still the greatest thing since sliced cheese, as well as through Richard Nixon's winning the Presidency twice, as well as G. W. Bush's two terms of office, so I have no optimism left in that department.

[Gary Farber]

This summary of recent events is worth reading, though I can't speak to what relevant bits are undoubtedly missing.