More
here from Brookings' Bill Galston
Bill Galston:
In these hyper-polarized times, it is no longer surprising when political partisans disagree vehemently about public policy issues. But in the early weeks of the race for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations, another dimension of polarization is coming into view: the parties don’t even agree about which issues matter most.
Consider the findings of a recent Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll exploring the policy stances of Republican and Democratic Iowans who are registered voters and likely to attend their party’s caucuses early next year. “For each of the following issues,” a key question reads, “please tell me whether this is something you want candidates to spend a lot of time talking about or not.” Of the 20 issues on the survey list, seven received an affirmative answer from at least four out of five Republicans. Democrats also endorsed seven issues by this margin.
Greg Jaffe:
Today, just about every Republican presidential candidate is condemning Obama for a failure to grasp America’s exceptional nature. They say he’s too quick to criticize the country for its failings at home. When it comes to the exercise of American power overseas, they contend that he’s too cautious, too skeptical and insufficiently convinced of America’s unmatched role as a force for good.
Obama has “demonstrated a disregard for our moral purpose that at times flirted with disdain,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a May speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The criticism reflects, in part, Obama’s effort in the seventh year of his presidency to articulate a new and radical form of American exceptionalism. While American exceptionalism in recent decades has centered around the exercise of American power and influence in the world, Obama’s conception is more inwardly focused. It’s a patriotism that embraces the darker moments in American history and celebrates the ability of the unsung and the outsiders to challenge the country’s elite and force change.
Really good piece, read the whole thing.
More politics and policy below the fold.
Lincoln Chafee foreign policy: "Allow Edward Snowden to come home" .. "Drone strikes are not working"
— @DomenicoNPR
@dick_nixon because he couldn’t decide which party to run in.
— @DemFromCT
Douglas Ollivant comments on Iraq/ISIL strategy:
There are three policy goals that the United States has — or should have — in Iraq. First, it needs to help facilitate the defeat, if not destruction, of ISIL in Iraq (as a first step to its wider defeat in the region). Second, it needs to keep Iraq unified so that the gains of ISIL’s destruction can be held. Finally, it needs to ensure that this unified Iraq is as Western-oriented as possible. While the first of these goals is the most immediate, it is the last two that are most important, and to which too little attention is being paid...
Further, when we look hard at the recent failure in Ramadi, the issue appears to be less a problem with the strategy, and more a problem with the execution of the strategy. At the time of their defeat, the Iraqi troops in Ramadi had been fighting against ISIL and allied militants and taking significant casualties for about 18 months (say what you want about “will to fight”), so any training failures cannot be fairly attributed to the coalition. However, other problems remain.
For example, there was clearly a failure to properly equip the Iraqi Army forces in Ramadi since the summer of 2014 when the anti-ISIL coalition went operational and Washington committed to strengthening Iraqi forces. That ISIL has been using car bombs with suicide drivers (Suicide Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices, or SVBIEDs, in military vernacular) as part of their complex attacks is well-known. As any infantryman with service in Iraq can tell you, the proper defensive tactic against an SVBIED is an anti-tank missile. The Kurds have been using this tactic to great success in the north. So in Ramadi we have a known ISIL tactic in the SVBIED, we have a known countermeasure in the anti-tank missile, and yet there were no anti-tank missiles available in Ramadi, leaving the Iraqi Army helpless against these weapons, many of which were of the same size and construction as that used by Tim McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing. This is not a lack of “will to fight.” This is a lack of adequate equipment. Any force — even the U.S. Army or Marines — faced with multiple SVBIEDs, and lacking any ability to defend against them would likely break and withdraw, regardless of their numerical superiority.
Long article, worth a read.
TPM:
Wisconsin state Rep. Jesse Kremer (R) said Tuesday during a legislative hearing that a proposed 20-week abortion ban was meant to ensure that physicians and medical personnel weren’t intentionally killing a child “just to kill the child.”
State Rep. JoCasta Zamarripa (D) questioned language in the bill that said the “survivability of the unborn child” would be maximized while helping the mother during a medical emergency.
“That definition states that you have to — you basically have to do what you can for the mother, but we want to make sure that, in this bill we have language added that we want to make sure that it’s not gonna be intentional killing of the child just to kill the child,” Kremer said. “They’re gonna have to do whatever they can for the child also whenever possible.”
State Sen. Mary Lazich (R), who also sponsored the bill, said she would prefer to be cared for by physicians who are pro-life.
“If I were to be in a crisis situation or a loved one of mine or anyone in the state of Wisconsin were to be in a crisis situation, I would want them to be in the care of physicians that take the life-affirming approach,” Lazich said.
Because, you know, docs hang out near the delivery room waiting to kill babies. In blue states, anyway.
Foreign Policy:
Saudi Arabia Takes Out Its Energy Weapon
Riyadh is pushing to keep the oil taps open at Friday’s OPEC meeting. That’s a direct challenge to enemies in Tehran and Moscow, not U.S. wildcatters.
Gallup:
The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who describe themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005. The second-largest group of Republicans (24%) see themselves as moderate or liberal on both social and economic issues, while 20% of all Republicans are moderate or liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones.
Add that to
this.
NY Times:
Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign.
The court fights began last month with lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, presidential battleground states whose governors are likely to run for the Republican nomination themselves. Now, Democrats are attacking a host of measures, including voter identification requirements that they consider onerous, time restrictions imposed on early voting that they say could make it difficult to cast ballots the weekend before Election Day, and rules that could nullify ballots cast in the wrong precinct.