One of the key things I learned in gaining maturity and the reason I became a Republican after being a Democrat in my youth was that policy needs to manage unintended consequences. I didn't think the Democrats had any thought in that direction in the late 1970's and the Republican did. So I voted for Ronald Reagan, after voting for Jimmy Carter and George McGovern.
Now it is clear to me that the Republicans have no concept of unintended consequences. This is ironic because to me one of the cornerstones of a conservative approach to the world is uncertainty about change and the need to manage change well so that consequences are desirable and not harmful. Reagan started, Clinton continued and Bush II enforced a policy of reducing financial regulation and that brought on the 2008 financial crisis. It was unintended and never managed.
The Tea Party understands this in a way because they just want everything to go back to the way it was in the 1950's, when the world was one they understood. But that doesn't work because nothing stands still. Change must be managed and reacted to through adjustment of policy. Nothing static ever works well forever. Society is too large, too varied, and the things that effect individuals too numerous to not have flows and consequences that must be reacted to in order to manage them.
So this morning we awake to some in the GOP's best friend in Russia, Putin announcing that he is going to sell the Iranians the anti-aircraft missile system he held up on selling them because of the anti-nuclear sanctions the world imposed on Iran. We know this system works because Putin used it to shoot down the civilian Air Malaysia 777. Do you think it is possible that Putin decided to do this to make it more painful for the U.S. and Israel if they decide to bomb Iran? If Putin thinks the Ukraine is part of his zone of influence, he certainly thinks Iran is too, and what better way than to develop favorite influence with them by helping them defend themselves.
Sometimes, I think neoconservatives have forgotten about the issue of Mutually Assured Destruction. Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to obliterate us. We need to have them on our side because they are the victim of terrorism also, and if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it is much easier for Iran to deliver it to Russian Muslims than it is someone in America. Russia does not want that, but they also love to poke an eye in America's eye. This needs to be managed (and I know it is not easy).
One interesting thing about GOP reaction to the Iran Nuclear negotiation is everyone, including Netanyahu, wants to go back to the Joint Plan of Action that was developed some 16 months ago, and which they roundly criticized some 16 months ago. It's once again apparent, they cannot describe a policy without criticizing President Obama and they never offer a reasonable alternative policy.
They are lost because they don't even think of consequences. Look at ISIS spawned by our invasion of Iraq. Never contemplated by anyone in the Bush II administration. Look at Al Qaeda, spawned by our invasion of Kuwait from Saudi Arabia and never contemplated by anyone in the Bush I administration. Our cost of health care has been rising inexorably forever, and the GOP developed Heritage Foundation/Romney/ObamaCare and repealing what they developed is going to have some kind of consequences and they do not contemplate them. The Supreme Court made companies have constitutional rights of individuals and look at the growth of $ in campaigns, which I believe fosters the gridlock we see in Washington D.C. Unintended consequence of conservative change.
I have gone on too long. Bottom line, Conservatives are so focused on achieving their goals without any thought of the consequences that they are no longer conservative in my mind. They are extremely radical.
Link to Washington Post column that helped my thoughts along
No comments:
Post a Comment