Constitutional Iraq

The AFP reports that the Kurds and Shiite Muslims have agreed on a new constitution, leaving the Sunnis out of the final agreement. Up until the formation of the draft. Sunni members, along with Iraqi women's rights groups, had major qualms about several key factors in Iraq's future. Hastening the completion of the draft could prove problematic.

Iraqi women's groups were primarily concerned with the role of Islam in government. Shariah Islamic law, wanted by most Shiites to be primary legislative source for Iraq's family law, would set back Women's rights to a pre 1957 era. Women's rights have been relatively successful in the pre 2003 Iraq, where secular government was an exception to the region. Women could hold political office, be outside without a burka (full head to toe covering), and have near equality in matters of divorce, marriage, and property. If Shariah law is enacted, women's status in Iraq will be more likened to that in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
More about the Women's struggle can be found at the Institute for War and Peace reporting here.

The U.S., Kurds, and most Sunnis seemed mainly in agreement with women over the importance of secular government. However, the Shiites form a large plurality in Iraqi Parliament, holding more political sway than the Kurds and Sunnis. The U.S. has since given concessions to the Shiites over Shariah influence in order quicken the writing of the draft. If our goal in Iraq is to make the Middle East more helpful to U.S. national security, allowing another Islamic state to form won't help. Additionally, the spread of Medieval women's status will do nothing for democracy.

Then there is the question of federalism...

While, Kurds want their own autonomous regions in the north and Shiites want regions in the south, Sunnis have been vastly opposed to a federal Iraqi state. This is due to main Iraqi Oil production being located in these northern and southern regions. Sunnis are fearful that they won't have access to primary oil resources and the revenue that comes with it. Pushing through the draft of the constitution without Sunni consent on this matter is legal, given the majority of Kurdish and Shiite Parliament representation. However, the security ramifications of allowing federalism, in opposition to Sunnis, could prove problematic.

Including Sunnis in the political process is key to peace in Iraq. Most of the dissent in Iraq and insurgency is reportedly Sunni. Denying them further economic and political access will only increase their anger. Additionally, the Shiite radical cleric, Muqtata al-Sadr is opposed to Iraqi federalism. His large group of Shiite followers have previously been a major thorn in the side of U.S. forces. Denying his demands of a "unified Iraqi state" could twist that thorn.

Perhaps the Sunnis shot themselves in the foot by boycotting the January 30th elections. If they'd been more active then, an increased number in Parliament would have given them more negotiating power. Sunnis could negotiate for more secularism, more control over oil resources, a "unified Iraq." Now that the draft constitution is being pushed through, Iraqi and U.S. security forces risk further backlash. Political processes may resume control however in the constitution's October referendum, when Sunnis, Kurds, and women's groups will have another chance to voice their opinions.

Mr. Ellis goes to washington?

An Ithsmus article gives Marc Eisen's opinion on a good candidate for Wisconsin Governor in 2006. From my very hometown of Neenah, WI comes Mike Ellis, a fiscal conservative and pragmatist...from the Republican party. Yes, Eisen compared Ellis to John McCain, the maverick from Arizona who doesn't build a platform on Gods, Guns, and Gays, but on campaign reform and balanced budgets, along with reorganization of the public sector. Mr. Ellis comes off as a candidate that won't bow to special interests, but rather a meek reformer and good-humored arbitrator.

All this flattery must stand up to voter scrutiny. If Ellis runs, does he plan on reforming the public sector in a way that's more efficient, or does he intend to cut it? Will he resort to common right-wing stances on Guns, Gay-Bashing, and diminishing domestic partnership benefits to gain votes? Will he be intend on taking a divided state legislature crippled by extremes and make progress? Does he plan on being a Bush syncophant or an individual in his own pary?

Eisen seems to be hopeful. Ellis certainly would bring in new possibilities to dealing with the republican-controlled legislature, something that Doyle is not very fit to do. He could bring back more moderates out of the partisan woodwork. And he's a far more moderate than a possible candidature of John Gard, who would rather lock gays in a tower and put a Jesus statue on the State Capitol. My cousin, Mr. Gard, is far too radical to be my governor.

So, let's hear more Mr. Ellis.

Democracy in Iran?

A Times article relays how hundreds of Iranian women demonstrated in Tehran today against government sexual discrimination. The demonstration was likely able to take place because of a more moderate attitude before polls open in the next presidential election.

Protestors and feminists stated that a candidate interested in promoting womens' rights would have to change the constitution, due to the fact that the rights concerned are determined strictly by Islamic Shariah law. 89 women reportedly ran for president last month, the six member Guardian Council rejected each one.

The protests reflect positive developments in Iran that wouldn't have been possible several years ago. Zahra Eshraghi, the granddaughter of the Islamic revolution's leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei, agreed that many rights involving the womens' movement are sanctioned by law, but things are gradually improving.

Much scepticism is placed in current reform candidates. Feminist leaders are concerned that such candidates are simply campaigning for votes, without intent to change the law. This is likely, but the fact that politicians are paying attention to womens' issues is a progressive step. Though the problem of women's rights needs a deeper revolution than in the political sphere; social and religious revolution is perhaps more important.

But with vocalisation and organization, there is hope.

U Dubya

Ed Garvey of the Capital Times writes about how politicians are tending to neglect the role of the University when it comes to civic engagement. Politicians writ large are choosing PAC's and lobbyists, corporations as their source for consultation on public affairs. These groups are also the ones that are able to provide most campaign funding and immediate economic benefit for said politicians. The question is then, how does this reflect democracy?

In short, it doesn't if the will of government is negociated with the few who enact money to their words. Back in the days of Bob La Follett, the Wisconsin Idea was that the concerns of farmers, laborers, artists, engineers, and other members of the citizenry would debate their concerns and ideas in more pure environments, including the academic one and civic groups. Though much has changed since then.

I take a lot of pride in my time at UW Madison. It's very much a globally-known institution, with a reputation for diverse views and conscientious thought. UW Madison ranks high as an institution of research, stem-cell research especially. The sociology program is number one in the nation (which was my specialty). UW Madison also beats Harvard in the number of CEOs that it produces, those who will lead the future markets. If those in government want to see long-run prosperity, they should focus using more funding to create a next generation of civically-involved, educated, disciplined citizens. The University system and public schools are where to start.

But the state Gop would rather cut education funding and build more prisons. Hell, it's better for the short term.

Anna Applebaum's Op-Ed bring's up the question of Amnesty International's use of the term "Gulag" to describe Guantanamo Bay. She makes several good points about mischaracterizing the United States. Soviet Gulags killed millions to keep a dictator in power, whose power could not be checked. The U.S. claims it will look into Guantanamo abuses, and has taken some steps to monitor and change. Also President Bush is hardly a Josef Stalin. Not only does he lack the same reputation and brutality, but American's can hold him accountable with little fear of being killed, especially if one is caucasian. (However, there are reports of Bush protesters being shoved out of rallies and arrested.)

Amnesty is supposed to be an independent political organization. Using the term, "Gulag" puts it in a political position against Bush's policies, and its rhetoric will do nothing but inflame those whose policies they intend to change. In other words, diplomacy calls for moderated dialogue if progressive movements are to ensue. If Amnesty wishes to change the policy in Guantanamo, they must meet with the Attorney General with their findings, while posting their research to the world in a way that doesn't cast America as a former Soviet Dictatorship.

Dick Cheney and John Bolton could also learn a lesson. If they wish to successfully engage North Korea, they would abstain from language that infuriates Kim Jong Il, and use more subtle economic threats via China to reach their objectives. But, since they haven't used this path, Kim John Il is continuing to pull out of the six-party talks.

Back to Amnesty, the "Gulag" metaphor also increases international pressure against US military operations around the world. Infuriating U.S. adversaries around the world is no way to ensure a quick end to the war in Iraq. In short, the truth about Guantanamo shouldn't be silenced, but used more diplomatically to change to policies set by those in power.

In many ways though, I think real diplomacy is taking a nap.

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire Website

In a speech to Nebraska Democrats, the AP reports New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's take on the 2008 campaign.

"On the Democratic side, there is an impressive field of potential presidential candidates," Richardson began.

"There's Joe Biden, who may be able to bring back national security voters; Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana may be able to bring back the Midwest.

"Virginia Governor Mark Warner may bring back the South, and Hillary Clinton -- she's the only one who can bring back the White House furniture."

Dry political commentary at its best.

True Blue Republicans, and how politics has failed them

David Brooks wrote an article Saturday about poor Repubicans, and their sway in American politics. It notes a recent pew poll showing poor representation of poor voters by both parties. The poll classifies poor demographics as socially conservative and fiscally conservative regardless of party. Regarding foreign policy, poor Republicans are hawkish, wheres their Democratic counterparts are against the war in Iraq.

Those identified as poor Republicans are, like poor democrats, critical of big business; the difference lies in how they view responsibility for their position. Poor Repulicans take more personal responsibility, but remain optimistic that individual persistence, character, and hard work will prevail against economic insecurity. Their Democratic counterparts are more likely to feel that economic security is beyond their control.

Not to say that the lefties love government assistance, while the conservatives reject it completely. Both are looking for assistance. It's only that the right-leaning poor don't want programs that undermine work ethic. Undoubtedly, the poor Republicans' position is admirable and practical. Strong work ethic, individuality, and optimism are desirable and distinguishable American traits. Our founding fathers, and mothers, thrived on there ability to innovate and survive despite adversity.

Nevertheless, I believe many rich and elitist leaders on both sides of the aisle don't pay enough attention to these poor constituents. 83 percent of the poor Republicans polled believe big business has too much control, compared to 26 percent of rich Republicans. 80 percent believe the government should help the needy, compared to 19 percent of rich Republicans. The trouble is, most Republican leaders belong to the later cohort.

Large deficits in the present, caused by miscaluculated tax-cuts and pork spending, will make difficult future goals of raising the lower class to the desired middle class. Cuts to Pell grants and Medicaid are also making it more difficult. If social movement is a goal, individual optimism is a must, but if conditions are too hostile, that mentality may slowly become more cynical.

Democrats who loathe free trade and costly welfare handouts are no better. Throwing money via a bureaucratic umbrella at the impoverished will not aid them in improving their condition. Additionally, those poor Republicans who value individuality abhore such policies. Furthermore, protectionist policies, as anyone who took economics in high school knows, cheats the consumer (unnecessarily high prices) and insults the workers by not allowing them to adapt to globalization and the increasing need for market flexibility.

The poor Republican/poor Democrat cohort has often been called "middle America." I believe true representatives of them must respect their individuality, aiding them through streamlined healthcare and education assistance. Results, testing, and accountability of such programs is a must. Which is why such programs as No Child Left Behind are a good concept (though lack of funding and state-flexibility are obstacles to its success).

Those in office must do a better job at connecting with these groups, especially running Democrats. If they want to win the next election, they're going to have to adopt "middle American values." Hopefull signs of fiscal responsibility and bipartisanship are evident in such models as Barack Obama, Russ Fiengold, Bill Richardson, and Evan Bayh. Their Republican counterparts: John McCain, Chuck Hagel are also on the right, ahem correct track.