Bush and Ahmadinejad: Mirror Images

In the spirit of putting myself in the shoes of others, I've often imagined that President Bush must sound to Iranians exactly as Ahmadinejad sounds to us. As Ahmadinejad speaks of a final solution to the Jewish question and makes thinly veiled statements about Iran's plans for Nuclear domination of South Asia, Bush makes it clear that we are headed to World War III, while Cheney states that non-military interventions for Iranian deterrence are nearing an end.

But the similarities don't end with simple rhetoric. Ahmadinejad and Bush are in very similar political positions-- free to say as they please, but heavily constrained from acting in any meaningful way.

Take the Iranian leader's position. However he sees the world, Ahamdinejad is answerable to the clerics who dominate Iran's legislative assembly; powerful people who at best see him as a useful idiot. He has raised the ire university students who take to the streets on a regular basis against him and his policy. As a nation of Shiites, Iran holds little religious clout for the 90% of Muslims who view that interpretation of early Islam (and hence their religious authority) as apostate. Beyond insurgencies in Iraq, and Hizbullah operations in Syria and Lebanon, Iran has no regional support or traction. A-jad's aggression towards to outside world, not to mention the cultural repression that is ubiquitous inside the country may be at the root of a growing backlash to the entire Iranian political structure.

Compare this to Bush's (and our) position. Bush and colleagues can view Iranian nuclear buildup and overtures towards dominance and destruction as an imminent threat, but their ability to act is at least as constrained as Ahmadinejad's, and for strikingly similar reasons. For better or worse, congress, state governments, and general political opinion challenges the administration at every turn. The Republican party's once unstoppable electoral momentum has been stopped cold by 7 years of Bush's leadership. Far beyond the intelligencia, Bush is a lame skunk. No power to act, but everybody wants him to go. In terms of foreign policy, the administration has little hope of building a useful diplomatic coalition for affecting change in Iran neither out of Nato allies, nor China or Russia. Militarily, the US is in no position for a unilateral invasion of a far more formidable adversary than Saddam Hussein ever was. The US is nearly as politically isolated as Iran.

None of this says whether Iran is indeed the threat that many claim. Neoconservatives use any statement proffered by Ahmadinejad as "proof" that Iran is an immediate threat to the US and our allies. They assume the man should be taken at face value, and that his words preceed action with certainty. The fact is that the Iranian threat grows even as either side has little room to maneuver. The US will not be able to wield any diplomatic or military leverage on Iran until Bush leaves office. Likewise, Iranian power is in no way consolidated under its president. Calling for the destruction of Israel and the eventual occupation of Iraq may sound good, but for now, Iran is in no position to do either.

For the time being and like it or not, the US is in a position of cautious waiting. It would be wise for intelligence to gather its strength, take the time to grow a group of cultural experts fluent in Farsi, Arabic, and the customs of the land. Our position in Iraq has many downsides, but it is a deterrent to Iran, placing the bulk of our massive combat readiness at their borders. The leaders Sarkozy, Merkel and Brown are all reliable allies who will be present and accountable if and when a true threat arises. Even Vladimir Putin has little stake in a large-scale (potentially nuclear) conflict to his immediate south.

We must not allow neoconservative hotheads to overplay our hand. This is a time for patience and quiet strategy, not one for open warfare. Ominous as it may be, there is nothing about the current situation with Iran that demands dire, immediate action. As necessary as history may one day prove, we have few rational moves to make in this game.

An SCHIP Veto... A Dumb Line in the Sand

Congress has passed a $36 billion dollar expansion of the federal portion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that would cover millions more children, most of whom would otherwise go without insurance, something that is relatively cheap to provide for a demographic more likely to come down with a tummy ache over prostate cancer. President Bush has declared his intention to veto the bill, which may or may not withstand an override in the House, though it looks good for the senate. This move is considered by many to be the opening salvo in the coming ideological war on health care reform.

The argument of like-minded persons in certain conservative think tanks, congressional offices and militia compounds in the plains states is that this is the beginning of a government take-over of the health care system, one where we will all be marched to Siberia to endure the bone-crushing gulag know as... Socialized Medicine.

Making a stand on this point is a dumb move for them and a dumb thing for those of us who believe it:

Why it's dumb for the president and his party:

• A veto on health care for kids?! Talk about instant soundbite. For the sake of ideological abstraction, these guys are willing to alienate women (read, moms) along with the black and hispanic vote that disappeared with Katrina and the Minutemen. Who's left? My guess: whoever was listening to talk radio in 2000 and still does today. They'd better hope Diebold and the Florida secretary of state owe them some more favors come November '08... and that they aren't a minority, gay, urban, or particular fans of our nation's future.


• Health reform is the issue in 2008. It's not just the poor who can't afford to go to the doctor anymore. It's most people. Even I, with a cushy health plan, have to pay $300 per calendar year before the insurance even kicks in a dime, and that's with my employer paying well over $300 and myself forking over $90 of my own paycheck every month.


• This is a major shift for the GOP... from defining the issue to being reactionary: Agree or disagree on principle, but for the first time in many years, the GOP is forced to react to the initiatives of their political opponents. They have moved out of the comfort zone of defining what will be talked about, to reacting to what the other guy's talking about. Gone are the days of flag-burning, "tough on crime", "with us or against us," and gay marriage as issues that only Democrats seemed answerable to. You have to go back to before Clinton, who neutralized this by coopting their ideas (welfare reform, etc.). Wedge politics are splintering the GOP on Iraq, immigration, and now health care. The religious right are thinking of a third party candidate if they don't get what they want out of the nomination. I think this is serious bad news for the GOP and the American Conservative movement as a whole.


• 66% of Americans are in favor of this bill. I thought we counted, at least sometimes. What's the point in an ideology if no one likes it?

Why this dumb for us:

• This isn't socialized medicine. This is taking some money from people who can afford it and giving it to those who can't; something that some may consider "socialist", but not most. Socialized medicine is when doctors, hospitals and experimental monkeys are all employees of the state. Even Canada isn't socialized medicine. Only place that does have something close to "socialized" is the UK, and even there the rich can always buy their way out... so what's the problem. SCHIP is federally-funded, but administered by private insurance companies. The term "socialized" was focus-group coined by insurance companies to scare people back when they tried to fix our system in '93. Don't be fooled into a scientifically-tested knee jerk reaction.


• President Bush uses Socialized Medicine. The VA and the US military's health system are owned, operated, staffed, and paid for by the Federal government. Ask Mr. Bush about his care. Then ask the VA about the improvements in efficiency and outcomes for our nation's returning soldiers. They beat the pants off the private sector, and for a lot cheaper.


• Even if this does mean the beginning of universal health coverage, that's not bad. We hear about how hip replacements take 3 months in Canada, where insurance is all state-run and out of the tax dollar. Well, in America, who does most of the hip replacements? Medicare... insurance for old people. How is it organized? State-run, out of the tax dollar. Canada's got a wait because they spend less money on hip replacements, not because they've got a public system. Americans love their Medicare.


• Even if it means tax increases, that's not bad. Right now, most people with private insurance have their health premiums taken out of their pay by their employers, or they share some of the costs. If there were a tax, all the money from that way of doing business would be redirected elsewhere to cover more people along with yourself. You may even see an increase in wages since part of what you cost to your employer were from those benefits they were paying for.


• Private insurance isn't there to get you care. It's there to make a profit. They make a profit not by paying claims, but by taking in premiums and not paying claims. They spend a fortune on actuaries whose jobs are to figure out your risks of getting sick, and how much money in premiums it'll take to ensure a fat pay check for their bosses. They spend an even larger fortune on advertising to get you to buy it. Their administrative costs are 5-10 times greater (by percentage) than Medicare. The government actually does a good job when it's organized correctly. Here is a case where the private sector isn't more efficient-- it's a lot like subscribing to a private police department and a private fire department for your house. Theoretically possible, but it'll be expensive, probably inefficient, and some people will always opt out or be left out, costing us all money when the fire spreads to your house or when the crime happens away from home.


• Our industries are going off-shore in part because of the cost of health care. Automakers are moving to Canada, software is going to Canada, Mexicans are coming here. Seems like everyone's going north, perhaps some unintended consequence of global warming. It's going to take some public investment to scrub off the rust belt and bring the jobs home. Public investment in our country's social and physical infrastructure is what will make or break us in the coming century-- not whether those policies are called socialist by a clamoring minority.

Rebuilding our country's backbone is the new American patriotism, John Wayne be damned.