100 Treatises

Arizona Illegal Immigration Law Should Cause Brown People to Tread Carefully

The new Arizona law intended to curb illegal immigration does not permit, but mandates police officers to inquire a person’s immigration status if they believe they might be illegal–irrespective of that person’s actions or behavior. As liberals have said, obviously this law opens the door to undue prejudice, stereotyping and favoritism on the part of the police. How is an average cop supposed to tell if a person might be illegal? Suppose he sees a white man with blond hair in a suit driving a Rolls Royce, and a brown man with black hair in dirty clothes driving a broken-down pickup truck on some Arizona highway. Image is everything in such a scenario. Indeed, image is the only thing. The officer will surely be compelled to pull the second driver over–to not do so would risk his job.

One thing that makes the Arizona law so extraordinary is that the police, who have always been compelled to act on the basis of a person’s actions, are now necessarily required to act on the basis of a person’s image. That is, required necessarily to act on one’s image. This is a colossal development in the role and responsibilities of the police. Perhaps for the first time ever in the US, a person might be stopped by the police for doing absolutely nothing. And it would be consistent with the law.

Proponents of the new law counter that it stipulates “a person’s race alone cannot be taken into account.” Ok, then use race plus clothing. Or race plus quality of vehicle. But does anyone honestly believe that skin color will not be a crucial factor in the execution of this law? It is inevitable. And if I’m wrong, I invite any proponent to point out to me ten blond and blue-eyed people who have been arrested under the auspices of illegal immigration in the American Southwest.

The response might come, “ok, you might be right–more attention will be placed on dark skin, but so what? They are more likely to be illegal, after all.” That is true, but insofar as the vast majority of people with dark skin are in Arizona legally, a massive and unprecedented burden will be placed on thousands upon thousands of people who have not done anything wrong. Extra police attention alone is cause for concern, because it creates a two-tiered situation where one class of citizens enjoys less scrutiny than another class–solely because of their physical traits. In time, like profiling at the airport, what seems like a common-sense approach to a simple problem will cause more problems than it solves, to say nothing of its constitutionality, which has been questioned.

The above analysis might be wrong. But until the law comes into effect, we simply do not know what its real impact will be–unintended consequences and all. Brown people should tread carefully in Arizona for the time being. Arizona certainly has an illegal immigration crisis, and something must be done. But this isn’t it.

On a separate but related note, the law was intended to curb illegal immigration. It will do nothing of the kind. From a potential illegal immigrant’s point of view, a United States where the police have excessive powers, and where racism and xenophobia are serious concerns, is still the United States. It is still a beacon of prosperity and comfort for those living in wretched conditions in Mexico and elsewhere, especially given the barbaric drug violence there.

All the law will do is (1) divert the flow that would have otherwise gone to Arizona into Texas, New Mexico and California, and (2) simply layer another obstacle–nevertheless surmountable–to the average illegal immigrant’s dream of a better life in “El Norte.” These people are willing to die in a desert. Ask yourself: is the threat of getting arrested likely to deter them? Before you answer, remember that the local jailhouse is probably better furnished and cleaner than most of their homes.

So the new law misses two birds with one stone: it doesn’t do anything to curtail illegal immigration, and it stokes social tensions by throwing civil rights in doubt. You’re 0 for 2, Arizona. And we haven’t even gotten to the birther bill.

Inequality in America, the Saga Continues

A recent piece on Business Insider displayed a slew of interesting charts detailing different aspects of the rise in inequality in the US in the recent decades. The state of American inequality is either a shocking revelation or a banal cliche, depending on your point of view. All of the stats displayed were interesting, but I want to share three in particular that caught my eye.

Half of America has 0.5% of the stocks and bonds:

Anyone who pays attention to right-of-center thinking knows that one of the biggest economic myths, particularly in the investor community of economic conservatives, is that “everyone is in the stock market.” And since everyone is in the markets (through their pension funds and other retirement funds or investments), policies that help the stock market grow, help large corporations be more profitable, and make financial investing easier and more lucrative do not beneficial the rich at the expense of everyone else. Since everyone benefits when the markets and corporate America benefit, such policies are beneficial to a large segment of the society. Well, there goes that idea. Clearly such policies will disproportionately benefit one tiny segment of society over and above the rest.

Poor Americans have a SLIM CHANCE of rising to the upper middle class:

This chart puts in stark visual form the evolution of inter-class mobility in the US in the second half of the 20th century and beyond. The dramatic nature of the change is indeed striking. The US certainly was a very different kind of country in the aftermath of World War II than it is today, judging by the enormous differential between the probability of moving up, and of moving down at that earlier time. The much greater chance of moving in either direction–up or down–in the 1940s and 1950s is also fascinating. It indicates that the US was a much more fluid and dynamic society a half-century ago. Today, by contrast, whatever your lot in life, chances are that you’ll be there for a while. And this is precisely the stuff of which social cleavages and class warfare is made. A permanent elite and a permanent underclass are typically seen as the domain of third world countries.

America spreads the wealth FAR LESS than other developed countries

The interesting part of this graph is the significant difference between inequality reduction through taxes and inequality reduction through transfers. Taxes in America reduce inequality about as much as they do in other countries, but the transfers accomplish much less. I see two major conclusions to draw from this: (1) the US government spends a lot of money on things other than transfers, the biggest of which is defense spending, on which the other countries spend almost nothing in comparison, and (2) the money that is spent on transfers–and there is a lot of it, to be sure–does not accomplish very much, or nearly as much as it could.

The latter point is why many like myself believe that one of the keys to reducing inequality in the US is not necessarily more money, as liberals tend to believe, but simply better managing the money that is already being spent, as well as improving the incentives involved. Also, higher taxes in and of themselves are not needed, as the chart indicates. Better to rework the tax system by, for example, shifting the total burden away from the lower and middle classes, and toward the mega-rich. This can be helped by closing loopholes and exemptions that are disproportionately exploited by the rich, and which result in a largely regressive tax structure. Some more interesting thoughts on how American inequality compares with developing countries can be found on the Map Scroll blog. (Hint: it’s not good for the US.)

Islamic Terrorism, Cause and Effect

Bret Stephens opined recently in the Wall Street Journal that the cause of Islamic terrorism is not so much Israeli settlements or the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine as it is… Lady Gaga. Specifically, Stephens points to Said Qutb, widely regarded as the intellectual father of modern Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups:

In his 1951 essay “The America I Have Seen,” Qutb gave his account of the U.S. “in the scale of human values.” “I fear,” he wrote, “that a balance may not exist between America’s material greatness and the quality of her people.” Qutb was particularly exercised by what he saw as the “primitiveness” of American values, not least in matters of sex.

He goes on:

Bear in mind, too, that the America Qutb found so offensive had yet to discover Elvis, Playboy, the pill, women’s lib, acid tabs, gay rights, Studio 54, Jersey Shore and, of course, Lady Gaga. In other words, even in some dystopic hypothetical world in which hyper-conservatives were to seize power in the U.S. and turn the cultural clock back to 1948, America would still remain a swamp of degeneracy in the eyes of Qutb’s latter-day disciples.

This, then, is the core complaint that the Islamists from Waziristan to Tehran to Gaza have lodged against the West. It explains why jihadists remain aggrieved even after the U.S. addressed their previous casus belli by removing troops from Saudi Arabia, and why they will continue to remain aggrieved long after we’ve decamped from Iraq, Afghanistan and even the Persian Gulf. As for Israel, its offenses are literally inextricable: as a democracy, as a Jewish homeland, as a country in which liberalism in all its forms, including cultural, prevails… If the [Obama] administration’s aim is to appease our enemies, it will get more mileage out of banning Lady Gaga than by applying the screws on Israel.

Naturally, an individual for whom defense of Israel is a reflex reaction will see any anti-terror measures that have a modicum of connection to reality as “appeasement of our enemies.”

Stephens’ position is a tragically common one in conservative and pro-Israel circles. It can be relatively easily disarmed by asking a few very simple questions. If the violent Islamists were primarily concerned with liberal and open cultures that tolerate fun, why have they not targeted societies containing cultures much more libertine than America’s, such as Japan, Brazil, Sweden or Germany? These are societies where the late-night and even some day-time TV programming wouldn’t have a prayer of passing the censors in the US. Why didn’t the Islamists fly a plane into the Tokyo Imperial Palace, instead of the World Trade Center? Why do they not set their sights on the Brandenburg Gate, located in a country for which public nudity is something of a national hobby?

Rio Carnaval: Not exactly Al Qaeda-friendly attire

If Al Qaeda and their ilk were driven mainly by hatred for societies that let women drive, open a bank account or hold a job, why do they not hate countries like China, Russia or Canada to the degree they hate America?

If they are motivated mainly by a hatred for democracy, then why have they not focused their violence on countries like Italy, Greece, India, Thailand or South Africa, all of which would be abundantly easier for them to attack than the US?

It is obvious that, unlike what the “They Hate us for our Freedom” crowd would have us believe, Al Qaeda and their compatriots have chosen to focus on America and Israel for a reason. What is that reason? What is it that, despite similarly liberal cultures, legal frameworks that treat women as humans, democratic forms of government, press freedom and religious pluralism, sets America apart from dozens of other countries around the world? Botched military intervention, blind support for Israel, hypocritical backing of dictatorships from Saddam Hussein to Hafez al-Assad to Pervez Musharraf, to name a few. In short, the net effect of American foreign policy in the Arab and Muslim world over the last 60 years.

There is no question that the violent Islamists hate everyone and everything that does not conform their narrow-minded, backward and psychotic vision of life. But the short term spark that has motivated the vast majority of Islamist fighters around the world for years is the foreign policy decisions of the US and Israeli governments. Only this can explain why these movements enjoy the amount of popular support they do. There will always be violent radicals and religious extremists, in every culture (there are still Nazis in Germany, for example). But what allows those fanatics to attain mainstream support and to enter the lives of average people is the economic and political misfortune that those average people experience at the hands of their “enemy.” Until the US affirms this reality and implements the necessary changes, harsh to the national ego though it may be, it will continue to be in the crosshairs of broad-based Islamic militancy.

Phoebe Prince was Too Sexy for Her Own Good

On the story of Phoebe Prince, Christopher Caldwell in the Financial Times writes:

Prince’s family moved from Ireland to South Hadley, Massachusetts, last autumn so that 14-year-old Phoebe could be near her cousins and get to know the US. Pretty, cheerful, exotic and naive, she had what is described as a “fling” with the star of the football team. A clique of aggressive girls, who coveted that role for themselves, viewed her as a usurper. They organised a campaign of social ostracism and physical intimidation… They called her “the whore” and “the Irish slut”, it is claimed… Prince spent weeks of sobbing and fear before she hanged herself on January 14.

In response to this tragedy, the Massachusetts legislature passed anti-bullying legislation. It is indeed strange that bullying, which has occurred among young people since the beginning of time, is now suddenly an issue that requires legal action. What about the countless billions of children who have experienced bullying since the human race arose? Why was legal action never considered an option until Phoebe Prince? Indeed, why was it not considered an option after Hope Witsell, a 13 year-old Florida girl who similarly killed herself after sexual mocking from peers? The fact that the law has never been invoked against bullying indicates that the real issue is not legal or political in nature. It is cultural. And on this point Caldwell, in spite of some misguidedness, makes some important insights.

One of the reasons anti-bullying must be taught as a set of skills is that we have a wider culture that, in many contexts, holds bullying in high esteem… Getting rid of the old punitive morality that surrounded sexuality seemed like it would do no one any harm, and relieve a lot of unnecessary anguish and guilt. But young people have not reacted to it as theorised. They will gladly skip the “morality” part. But in a world as socially competitive as that of teen dating, the “punitive” part is simply too useful a tool to do without. So people proclaim themselves free of moral hang-ups, and yet throw around words like “slut” and “whore” with an abandon that no previous generation ever did. [emphasis added]

One is reminded of the story of Hope Witsell and the adults who were “responsible” in Florida. Of course, the toxic cocktail of savagery and hypocrisy has many cultural sources, including the parents themselves. On this point Mom Logic is instructive which, at first blush, seems to be a site targeted to well-intentioned moms who are staggeringly naive about the next generation’s behavior, and destructively old-fashioned in their sexual morals. So destructive that the site’s article on Hope Witsell, as well as the accompanying video from the “Today” show, audaciously speak of the “dangers” of sexting, apparently oblivious to the fact that those dangers (like the threat of prosecution for child pornography… for taking naked images of oneself) are totally of their own making, both culturally and legally. In the realm of outdated sexual morays is where the parallels with Hope Witsell are seen most strikingly, although Caldwell doesn’t quite realize it:

It is unlikely there was any moral disapproval in the taunts to which Prince was allegedly exposed. It might have been better if there had been. Moral pretensions might have led her alleged tormenters to look at their own conduct, and reined them in. In place of moralism we have nothing but the will to power and the desire to ostracise – a values system that differs from the old one only in its arbitrariness. [emphasis added]

Oh, so close, Chris! He is right to point out that moral disapproval—primarily on the part of the adults and supposedly “responsible” figures in question—should have been focused on Prince’s bullies. However, he fails to declare that greater disapproval should be and should have been directed at them than at Prince. No doubt in thrall to a traditional sexual morality, Caldwell inadvertently misses the larger part of the story, that sexual activity among teenagers is looked down upon and therefore those who receive insults or mocking for their sexual “deviance” are receiving their just desserts. And yes, this attitude is disturbingly prevalent even in leftist Massachusetts. The adults—in Florida as well as Massachusetts—no doubt had this anti-teen sex mindset in the back of their minds, and therefore were willing to look the other way at Prince’s misfortune, and to punish Witsell. “Well, bullying is bad… but, let’s face it, she shouldn’t have had that fling.”

How responsible. Indeed, how “responsible” for a culture of adults that on the one hand celebrates female sexual liberation, but on the other hand stops just short of telling young people “sex is good, not bad.” That is, a culture that worships youthful feminine beauty and the sexual expression thereof, whilst casting teen oral sex and “sexting” in demonic terms (complete with the shadowy image of a young woman curled up in a ball). Most teenage women in the US understand that they are expected to be sexy… just not too sexy. Not sexy enough, and you’re a prude. Too sexy, and you’re a slut. And how do you know when you’ve crossed the line into one or the other? Well, your peers will let you know, as they did Phoebe Prince and Hope Witsell. Between social conservatives and social liberals, the culture war continues on. And, like in any war, who loses? The weakest among us.

Religious Oppression is Alive as Ever

Atrocities committed in the name of religion continue to plague the world. Despite many believers’ claims to the contrary, the fact that travesties of justice and violations of human dignity occur day in and day out on this planet, indicates that the religions of this world—established or otherwise—are still fostering psychotic behavior, as much as they ever have.

We can start our little survey of religious pathologies in the ever-popular Saudi Arabia, where a Lebanese man was recently sentenced to beheading for the crime of witchcraft. Although there is doubt as to whether the execution was actually carried out, that’s not really the point, is it?

Or we can take a look at Dubai, that hedonistic theocracy where you can have fun, just not too much fun, and if you do have too much fun you’re screwed. A British Muslim woman recently filed a complaint with the police that she was raped. The Dubai police, however, were more interested in her love life, and threw her in jail for having “illegal sex” with her fiancee. Because in Dubai, the fun is for non-Muslims only.

In Malaysia, where a similarly unequal legal system applies the strictures of Shariah to Muslims, but civil law to everyone else, Muslims are routinely caned for such outrageous offenses as (shock!) having a beer.

Holier-than-thou Christian Americans shouldn’t be too quick to look down their noses at the backward Islamic communities, though: they should first ask if beating people for wearing something you don’t like is acceptable to their conscience, as it apparently is to those in charge of an Alabama prom, or the fact that such corporal punishment is legal in 20 states.

Alternatively, we can consult the largest Christian denomination on earth regarding its ongoing child rape scandal. Indeed, the Catholic Church has shown itself to be perhaps the world’s greatest institutional force for the abuse of children.

Finally, let’s not forget Uganda, which appears to be one of the worst places on earth, where lawmakers are willing to make homosexual behavior punishable by death, but are unwilling to protect children from being tortured and slaughtered like sacrificial goats.

There’s plenty more where these stories came from. I wish I were exaggerating. Whether caning, paddling or stoning, the psychosis of religion is alive and well on every continent.

No doubt many peaceful religious people would say “that’s not my god,” or “that’s not what my religion teaches; these people are twisting the scriptures.” Indeed. And how, pray tell, does one know this? How is one interpretation of those “scriptures” any more or less legitimate than any other? What is the basic standard of knowledge in any of these backward blind faiths? And if there is such a standard, why didn’t the aforementioned heathens get the memo?

Chechen Violence is Back

The recent resurgence of Chechen- and North Caucasus-related terrorism on Monday and Wednesday of this week points to the deep unresolved issues between Russia and its tiny region. Like in any situation of rebellion and civil strife, the short term details of the violence are sure to be complex. But the essential dynamics remain identical to what is seen in countless places around the world, including modern Iraq and Afghanistan: the interplay of identity, nationalism and sovereignty. There remains a segment of the Chechen population, and of the Caucasian population, that identifies itself separately from the rest of Russia. This unique sense of identity or separateness has persisted through two Chechen wars and 2 decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. How widely held among the people is this sense of ethno-national uniqueness? Evidently, popular enough to result in the death of several dozen innocents in the span of three days.

Russia under Putin is not interested in peace with Chechnya. Vladimir led the country in the offensive Second Chechen War in 1999, which reestablished Russian suzerainty in the region after a period of self-rule. He is also now using bombastic rhetoric in the aftermath of the recent attacks, to say nothing of the uptick in jingoistic prejudice that is sure to come, the early signs of which we are already seeing. And let’s not forget the oppression and ruthlessness that has characterized Chechnya under Russian control in recent years–always a popular cause of radicalization.

So Russia is not interested in peaceful coexistence. But if it were, the proper action would be quite simple: give them independence. Just let go. Barring the extermination of hundreds of thousands of human beings and totally remaking the society and culture of the region, it is clear that the unique sense of identity there will remain strong for a while. And as long as it is, there will be ethnic and nationalist tension, which will provide the fuel for radicalism and terrorism, which will result in the deaths of innocent Russians. The recent influence of global Islamic fanaticism on the terrorist movement adds another dimension of difference from the Russian population–religion.

Would Chechen independence hurt Russia in any way? Essentially, it is irrelevant because the positives for peace and prosperity in both countries would more than outweigh any negatives. Nonetheless, according to Wikipedia, the area of Russia is 6,592,800 square miles (17,075,400 square kilometers), and that of Chechnya is a whopping 6,680 square miles (17,300 square kilometers). That makes Chechnya literally one tenth of one percent of the total Russian land mass. I think Russia would be okay. In fact, I don’t think they would notice at all.

Iceland Bans Strip Clubs in the False Name of Freedom

A glowing piece in the Guardian reports recently that Iceland (“the world’s most feminist country”) has banned strip clubs. The move is just the most recent in a line of measures taken to snuff out the sex trade. According to the author:

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: “It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold.”

This is a foolish and wrongheaded notion. People who are slaves are “a product to be sold”—perhaps the Icelandic parliament should have chosen to help the many people around the world living in modern day slavery, if they are so concerned with people being bought and sold? For the decrease in economic activity caused by this ban, they could probably give hundreds of thousands of dollars to that cause. Their concern for human welfare is “impressive,” indeed. The article also says:

Jónsdóttir [of a group that fights sexual violence] says the ban could mean the death of the sex industry. “Last year we passed a law against the purchase of sex, recently introduced an action plan on trafficking of women, and now we have shut down the strip clubs. The Nordic countries are leading the way on women’s equality, recognising women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale… I guess the men of Iceland will just have to get used to the idea that women are not for sale.”

Another cockeyed way of thinking. A woman is not “for sale” if she is freely choosing to do something. The fact that there is so much talk of “women for sale” or “people for sale,” even though they are not actually for sale indicates that the women of Iceland desire to outlaw this activity because they object to it emotionally. It simply bothers them to see a woman being paid for taking her clothes off for men’s entertainment. Visually, they see a man or men in control of a woman and using her for their pleasure. (From a man’s perspective, the power in the relationship might be seen very differently, but that’s another issue.) The image is objectionable to them on a subjective level, and therefore they want to do away with it, while couching their effort in the explosive terms of “ending the commodification of women.” Who would not be against the commodification of women?

A frequent canard used by those fighting the sex industry is the conflation of willing, freely-chosen participation in the sex industry with forced participation or, even worse, the forced participation of children. And the legal action taken in Iceland against human trafficking is very positive and laudable. The exploitation of any human being, female or otherwise, is fundamentally wrong. But what if that person chooses to exploit themselves?

If a government can forbid one woman from using her body to her financial advantage, why can it not forbid another woman from using her brain to her advantage? Are not both the body and the brain the sole property of the person themselves? If the state should ban the selling of sexual services, why should it not ban the selling of massage services? Do not both confer physical pleasure to the customer for a price? If nude dancing should be outlawed, why not clothed dancing? Do not both provide visual stimulation to a customer? Is not the ballet patron exploiting his or her “power” over the performer for the sake of visual enjoyment?

None of this is to argue that prostitution, pornography, stripping or other related activities support the empowerment of females. But they do not hurt the empowerment of females, anymore than a man stripping and being treated as a sex object in a bachelorette party diminishes my empowerment as a male. The point is that allowing them to occur, with adequate controls and regulations, supports the empowerment of human beings insofar as it supports freedom.

Freedom is not about doing what is “morally” right. Except for certain fundamental rules such as causing harm to others, or limiting others’ freedom, in a truly free society one should be free to do as they wish—whether I or anyone else “approve” of it or not. That does not mean behavior cannot be regulated; it would be ridiculous for zoning laws to allow brothels next to elementary schools. But there is a huge leap from regulating, controlling or directing human activity and illegalizing that activity altogether.

What will be the consequences of a stripper-less Iceland? They will probably not be very severe on the surface. Several hundred people will be out of work, to be sure. But in time they will probably find new jobs. Enterprising former strippers can start dance studios or pole dancing fitness centers that have become popular recently. The real consequences of such action are more serious, though radical feminists would refuse to hear it: that the state further constrains and restricts human activity, making human life just a bit more bland and homogenous, limiting diversity of lifestyle and the freedom of choice that make life worth living.

Gay Marriage, Interracial Marriage, and Conservative Values

It never ceases to amaze me how many on the conservative side of the political, and especially cultural, spectrum gleefully embrace the thing that their intellectual forefathers fought against. Meanwhile they use the very same language and reasoning to fight against new sociopolitical developments that are, essentially, logical extensions of the very thing they claim to embrace. A good example of this is women’s rights: they were against it in the middle of the 20th century, until they were for it insofar as it distinguishes the west from radical Islamists.

Another case in point is interracial marriage and gay marriage. There are differences between the two phenomena, to be sure, but at the bottom lies a very simple dynamic: the right for people to receive the same legal benefits as anyone else in the same type of relationship, regardless of their personal characteristics. Whether those characteristics are skin color or sexual orientation, it makes no difference, and has no relevant impact, as far as the nature of the relationship is concerned. The fact that conservatism intellectually and culturally cannot grasp this concept points to the fact that their objections to both have been based primarily on traditionalism, emotionalism, simple-minded religiosity and discomfort with change. In other words, no solid intellectual analysis.

In an article on interracial marriage and the effect on children, the following account of an early legal battle is given.

During the course of the proceeding the trial judge asserted that: “Almighty God created the races of White, Black, Yellow, Malay, and Red, and He placed them on separate continents.” “And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.” “The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”

Looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Iraq Election Fun has Just Begun

The Iraqi ethnoreligious landscape: three nations for the price of one

Another completed election in the third world, another round of fraud charges. Of course, it was almost guaranteed that whoever lost the recent elections in Iraq would allege fraud—regardless of the truth or falsity of the claim. That’s just how “democracy” works in these kinds of places. The cloud of “fraud” will continue to hang over Iraq in the coming days and weeks, and it will add another valuable ingredient to the instability soup, along with religious fundamentalism, terrorism, corruption, anti-Americanism, poverty… you get the idea. Reuters recently reported on Iyad Allawi and Nuri al-Maliki in the context of the political situation:

Allawi, a secular Shi’ite who served as prime minister in 2004-05 after the U.S. invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, and his Iraqiya partners took 91 seats in parliament to 89 for Maliki’s State of Law coalition in a vote that exposed the depth of Iraq’s sectarian divide.

Violence erupted when Iraq’s political leaders took five months to form a government after the last parliamentary vote in 2005. Allawi appeared to try to allay fears of a repeat…

Officials with Maliki’s coalition and from the third-place finisher, the Iraqi National Alliance, a bloc with close relationships with Shi’ite neighbor Iran, have said they are working toward a merger. The two combined would hold 159 seats, close to the majority needed to form a government.

INA includes the Sadrist political movement of anti-American Shi’ite Moqtada al-Sadr, who is studying in Iran and is shaping up to be the new kingmaker of Iraqi politics…

any attempt by the major Shi’ite blocs to sideline Allawi could lead to resentment among Sunnis pushed to the side when the majority Shi’ites rose to power following the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Iraq is in trouble and has been for a while, for the same reason as Afghanistan: extensive heterogeneity in identity among the people belies the authority of a unitary central government. In other words, a state from multiple nations won’t work. In western terms, the analogy is a single state and a single central government trying to be formed to encompass Italy, Germany and France. Now, there are certainly very different circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq culturally, socially and economically. But the essential characteristics of identity and the challenges to nation-state stability are identical.

There is a very simple test that can be used to determine the stability of a government: do the people over which that government has authority identify with each other, or not? If they do, then, despite all other problems, that government has a reasonable chance at success. If they do not, then there is no chance, because the most fundamental aspect of a nation-state (the nation) is not there. Sooner or later, it will probably fail. It is vital to understand that this is not because of short term violence, it is not because of the vicissitudes of day-to-day parliamentary politics, or because of an economic downturn (which are probably what the press will blame it on if and when the Iraqi state does fail). It is a structural feature of the society in question that guarantees state failure.

Saddam Hussein ensured internal stability in Iraq for over 20 years through blood-soaked tyranny.  It was ruthless dictatorship alone that was able to keep a lid on the bubbling stew of ethnic, tribal and religious tension. That bubbling stew, naturally, boiled over in the aftermath of Hussein’s overthrow. For years, hundreds of Americans and many thousands of Iraqis died during the botched Bush nation-building project. Then, in the last few years, a surge in American troops ensured some temporary stability that has allowed some democratic progress to be made.

Rest assured that this stability is indeed temporary. As Obama winds down the troop presence in the coming months, we can expect that Iraq will once again regress back into a quagmire of ethnic, tribal and sectarian violence. But it is not, as the Republicans and conservatives will undoubtedly argue, because of the decrease in troops. It will be ultimately due to the inherent structural attributes of Iraqi society spelled out above. In time, unless identity is overhauled in Iraq, and average Iraqis really start to see themselves as Iraqis first and Sunni Arabs or Shiite Arabs or Kurds second, it is inevitable that the current state model will fail.

Israel Does Not Need Peace as Long as it has America

The recent actions of the Benjamin Netanyahu government can be characterized with a good Yiddish word: chutzpah. Admittedly, the Israelis have little reason to believe that any consequences are in store, given the history of their relations with the US. And cautious optimism is still very much warranted when it comes to any analysis of the Obama administration’s Israel policy. However, recent developments are some of the best signs we have seen in years. Even if Obama is a one-termer and the next president is a staunch Israel supporter, given the blind pro-Israel stance that has been the norm in modern American foreign policy, any pressure at all on the “Jewish state” is a good thing, and should be treasured.

Israel’s government continues to engage in its despicable campaign of apartheid and oppression, no doubt expecting the full support of the American sugar daddy. The Israeli colonists and their apologists offer the fantastic notion of “natural growth” as justification for their theft of private property and eviction of innocent people. But what about the “natural growth” of the Palestinian population, which is even greater, given their higher birth rate?

The fact is that Israel does not need peace as long as it has America. The question for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton is, how long will they have America?