Sunday, January 4, 2015
Turkey - New security package feared to result in more authoritarianism
A security package to be discussed by a parliamentary commission this week which proposes giving the interior minister the authority to declare a state of emergency in Turkey has attracted criticism from political scientists who say the legislation will prepare the legal framework for an authoritarian structure.
Along with other security-related measures that drew wide criticism, the package, which was announced in October by Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, suggests an amendment that runs contrary to Article 120 of the Constitution. Article 120 states that the Cabinet may declare a state of emergency in one or more regions or throughout the country for a period not exceeding six months in a meeting chaired by the president and after consultation with the National Security Council (MGK).
It also says a state of emergency may be declared in the event of serious indications of widespread acts of violence aimed at the destruction of the free democratic order established by the Constitution or of fundamental rights and freedoms, or in the event of a serious deterioration in public order because of acts of violence.
The package gives the authority to declare a state of emergency in a province to governors and to the interior minister, if emergency rule is needed for more than one province.
The package gives the authority to declare a state of emergency in a province to governors and to the interior minister, if emergency rule is needed for more than one province.
According to Associate Professor Sezgin Seymen Çebi, moving forward with such legislation should only take place during periods of martial law. He said granting the authority to governors to declare state of emergency is incompatible with being a state of law, adding that such a move would also run contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
“Such legislation will definitely be annulled by the Constitutional Court. We are already at a very problematic point with regard to our aspirations to become an EU member. Perhaps membership talks will be frozen. There is very heavy criticism in Western media of our country. With the proposed legislation, authoritarianism in Turkey will grow further. They have already begun to refer to Turkey as a “plebiscite dictatorship,” said Çebi, adding that Turkey should not take China or North Korea as examples but Western democracies.
“Such legislation will definitely be annulled by the Constitutional Court. We are already at a very problematic point with regard to our aspirations to become an EU member. Perhaps membership talks will be frozen. There is very heavy criticism in Western media of our country. With the proposed legislation, authoritarianism in Turkey will grow further. They have already begun to refer to Turkey as a “plebiscite dictatorship,” said Çebi, adding that Turkey should not take China or North Korea as examples but Western democracies.
Professor Osman Özsoy said historical experience has shown as much; as countries are dragged toward despotism and anger accumulates in society due to the unreasonable policies of administrators, administrators prioritize their own security over the security of the public.
He said what these administrators fail to see is that no security law or security corridor can protect them against social anger.
He said what these administrators fail to see is that no security law or security corridor can protect them against social anger.
“I advise those ruling the country not to build walls between them and the public, but to give up practices leading to the accumulation of social anger,” said Özsoy, adding that it is important not to force the limits of the principles of universal law.
Political analyst Serdar Sement, whose Fovea Oberaza S Informatics Consulting company prepared a report about the government's security package, said it aims to sideline the Cabinet and Prime Minister Davutoğlu.
Noting that there is a disagreement between Davutoğlu and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan about maintenance of public order, he said: “President Erdoğan does not approve of Davutoğlu insisting on public order to support the settlement process and benefiting from the presence of the military in order to contain social unrest. Making an analysis of this situation, Erdoğan made Davutoğlu sign draft legislation that will transfer the Cabinet's authority to declare a state of emergency to the interior minister and governors. The language of the draft and how it was prepared show that it is the work of Interior Minister Efkan Ala.”
The settlement process concerns talks held by the state with the jailed leader of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Abdullah Öcalan, to resolve the country's decades-long terrorism problem.
2014 - Analysis: A year of failed hopes in the Middle East
By Ksenia Svetlova
From Damascus to Benghazi, from Qatar to Cairo, 2014 has been a year of upheavals. What will 2015 bring?
No Christmas trees in Baghdad, no festive decorations in Raqqah, no electricity in Yemen, no peace in Israel and Palestine, and hardly any better in the rest of the Middle East. One of the most turbulent years in the last decade has brought with it new names – IS, and old, barbaric traditions, beheadings. Many elections were held in 2014 – in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and Libya, but little democracy and human rights resulted. A year of war, conflicts, disagreements and failed hope is finally over, but who will clean up the mess?
Iraq
2014 has been the bloodiest year since 2007, statistics say. The Nineveh plain was emptied of its Assyrian Christian population and Mount Sinjar of the Yazidis who were murdered, enslaved and abused. Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed khalif of ISIS (later to become IS) conquered Mosul, and then many other Sunni cities, stopping only 60 kilometers before Baghdad. ISIS – one of many radical jihadi organizations - became a real threat to Iraq, a failing state born from the ashes of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Internal disagreements and distrust between the Obama Administration and Nuri Al-Maliki, now the ex-prime minister of Iraq, created a power vacuum, empowering the radical Sunnis who hardly met resistance along the way. The only ethnic group to make political gains were the Kurds. They received significant assistance from Germany and other countries and were recognized as practically the only power able and willing to stand up to ISIS. It is highly unlikely that in 2015 the Iraqi nightmare will come to an end. The central Iraqi government is too weak to defeat ISIS without an external ground invasion, and tensions in the country are too high to die out naturally.
Syria
If 2012 and 2013 were mostly about the massacres of Assad's regime against civilians, including the use of chemical weapons and other forbidden substances, in 2014 the spotlight moved to another player – ISIS. The organization was established in Iraq in 2007, changing names and leaders over the years, but it was Syria that allowed ISIS to become what it is today. The chaos of the civil war, the weakness of Assad's army after three years of war and in desperate need of recruits – allowed ISIS not only to achieve military success, but also to create a political entity. First the organization relied on wealthy Gulf donors, then, when supporting ISIS became a liability, it found its way to vast amounts of money selling crude oil at rock bottom prices. Mass executions, torture and the resumption of recorded beheadings of Western and Syrian hostages – a gruesome practice in Iraq of 2004 to 2006 had a double effect: ISIS was now taken seriously in the West, and the local population, including soldiers who were supposed to fight it, were seriously intimidated. ISIS now controls roughly 25 percent of Syrian territory. It was also able to wipe out the border with Iraq, taking pride in "aborting the [2016] Sykes-Picot agreement".
But despite the establishment of the caliphate in Raqqah in 2014 , the year ended in stalemate and stagnation for Syria. For now the parties can't even agree on gathering a Geneva III peace summit, which probably will not be attended by IS ambassadors.
Egypt
Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was chosen as the "man of the year" in many online questionnaries, including one conducted by the Russian-Israeli newsru.co.il site. But even the seemingly almighty president who abolished the Muslim Brotherhood could not defeat Egypt’s 11th plague – terrorism. Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, a radical Sunni jihadi organization in northern Sinai, pledged loyalty to IS and continued its own murderous crusade of beheading and rocket fire at city halls, police stations and army bases. The Brotherhood was banned, but activists continued to gather in universities and central squares, and not a day went by without a report of clashes with police in Alexandria, Suez, Cairo, Minya and other cities.
During 2014 the relations between Egypt and Russia developed significantly, with Moscow planning to implement some important economic projects in Egypt. Al-Sisi also gained credibility in the US, being practically one of the last stable partners for dialogue on such issues as Libya, Sudan and, of course, Gaza. The relations between Israel and Egypt's security apparatus were never better, and during the summer war in Gaza, Israelis fell in love with the Egyptian president and the loyal media. In 2015 al-Sisi will have to deal with three important internal issues – the economy, security and parliamentary elections. For now, the seventh Egyptian president doesn't have the solutions to these troublesome problems.
Libya
Libya has effectively become a two-headed state with two parliaments and two governments. Egyptian and Emirati aircraft bombed Islamist positions close to Benghazi. Although this was later denied by Egypt, Cairo appears more than ready to assist almost any strongman who will put an end to Libya's internal fighting. General Khalifa Khanfar started this year as a promising star who was about to reconquer areas occupied by Islamists and to reunite Libya, but the mission proved harder than expected. And just as the Americans now are ready to send their drones and fighter jets to Syria, al-Sisi is ready to assist from afar, but is not ready to put his men on the burning Libyan ground. It's very probable, that the Islamists in Cyrenaica will further promote their bid for independence, and if the situation deteriorates further, some kind of international action might be expected.
The Gulf
The surprising end-of-year reconciliation between Qatar and the other Gulf states for the sake of "region's security" might reunite them in 2015, at least for a short time. It seems that the expansion of the pro-Iranian Houtis in Yemen, along with the possibility of an agreement between Iran and the West, influenced both Qatar and Saudi Arabia – two rival camps that had some major disagreements on Syria and Egypt during 2014, and made them reconsider and celebrate a "sulha": Qatar decided to close its Al-Jazeera Masr television channel, and Egypt declared a retrial of three Al-Jazeera journalists sentenced to seven to 10 years in prison.
The Palestinians
The failure of negotiations with Israel in April, the new wave of terror in the West Bank and Jerusalem, the war with Gaza and the resolution submitted to the UN Security Council calling for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories – so many things happened in the Palestinian Authority, and yet it seems nothing has happened. A transitional unity government was supposed to prepare for parliamentary elections in January, 2015, and for now there is no date in sight and the unity with Hamas proved superficial.
The Palestinian government appears willing to maintain the status quo, at least for now, fearing chaos that will most likely hit the Palestinians hardest. It's also quite clear that the "intifada of the individuals" in Jerusalem and other places will continue, for there is no political solution in sight. Even if a different government is elected in Israel, it will take time to resume negotiations, and with the Palestinians turning to the Hague, it might be too late for that.
Tunisia
For many western observers and politicians, Tunisia was the only bright spot in the grim end of the year landscape of the Middle East. A secular party won the parliamentary elections, and the victory of the anti-Islamist camp was cemented with the election of 88-year-old Beji Qaid al-Sebsi in presidential elections. However, despite the transparent elections and the triumph of the secular nationalist camp, Tunisia has its share of problems. The acute economic crisis is well felt in the peripheral areas, where young people feel that their revolution has been a huge disappointment, and in 2015 many Tunisian radical jihadi salafis will start to come home from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. The state will have to handle the security situation on the border with Algeria, which was easily breached by Islamists this year. It will also have to make a decision whether to accept the offer of the World bank and enslave itself to a huge debt in the future, or to try and overcome the crisis on its own. Either way, the achievements of Tunisian NGOs and political parties look quite impressive.
Commentary: Not a "Chinese Century," but a less Westernized world
By Deng Yushan
7 missed opportunities for Russia-US cooperation in the Middle East in 2014
The Middle East was one of the most turbulent regions in the world in 2014. Here are the major events in the Middle East that impacted global security and created missed opportunities for U.S.-Russia cooperation in 2014.
2014 is destined to go down in history as an extraordinary year of large-scale international conflict and crisis. These crises and conflicts effectively realigned the entire system of international security and charged the leading world powers, especially Russia and the United States, with the specific responsibility of finding an urgent settlement.
Of particular concern is the situation in the Middle East. Russia Direct offers a review of the top political, economic and energy-related events in the Middle East in 2014 that impacted global security over the past 12 months — and could continue to impact it into 2015-2016.
1. The rise of ISIS
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS), a quasi-state terrorist entity that in 2014 captured large swathes of Iraq and Syria in a brief space of time, is the main threat to security not only in the Middle East, but also in the wider world, too. There are reports that ISIS militants may have been involved in the recent terrorist attacks in Canada andAustralia. It is possible, too, that they inspired the terrorist attack in Chechnya in early December.
The fight against ISIS could have formed the crux of potential cooperation between Moscow and Washington, since both countries are very much aware of the danger posed by the further spread of radical jihadism and its supporters around the world — including those in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, the Arab countries of North Africa, Europe, Russia and the United States.
Moscow is not officially part of the U.S.-led anti-terror coalition against ISIS, but it is supplying weapons to Iraq to help fight the radicals. Moreover, it should be no surprise to learn that, at the diplomatic level, Moscow supports America’s efforts to eliminate the threat from this terrorist organization. After all, ISIS is a more brutal and ideologically motivated global jihadist group than even Al-Qaeda, whose leaders have criticized ISIS for its extreme cruelty and fanaticism.
BECAUSE THE U.S. AND RUSSIA WILL BE LOCKED IN CONFRONTATION OVER UKRAINE FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO COME, THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIS WILL WAX AND WANE
2. Oil’s headlong drop
The second threat to world energy and political stability is the sharp drop in oil prices as a result of events in the Middle East and the surge of contraband oil onto the market from ISIS-held regions in Syria and Iraq. The question as to what steps the U.S. and Russia could take remains on the agenda.
Given that the latest energy crisis does not promise cooperation, and many players, including OPEC, Russia and the United States, will play for themselves, the likelihood grows that even cheaper oil could jeopardize the economy and stability of Russia as well as parts of Latin America and the Middle East. But predictions are pure speculation - all that can be done is to wait and see.
Today, viewed from the perspective of oil-dependent countries, the situation is indeed a crisis, and one whose consequences for the world in general, and Russia in particular, are even more acute than the 1973 energy crisis.
On the other hand, if we look at the situation from the perspective of some OPEC countries and the United States, the fall in oil prices is a cyclical downturn caused by factors such as the shale gas revolution in the U.S. The drop in oil prices is a result of shifting supply and demand and reflects necessary adjustments at this juncture for the energy market.
3. The changing dimensions of the Syrian conflict
Despite the fact that Russia and the United States differ significantly on how they view Syria (Russia supports Syrian President Bashar Assad, while the U.S. wants his overthrow), the signing of a treaty between Moscow and Washington to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons was one of the few achievements of 2014. It was above all a triumph of diplomacy, which also thwarted a U.S. strike against Syria and dampened U.S. desire for regime change in the country.
SYRIAN GOVERNMENT FORCES ARE HELPING THE SO-CALLED ANTI-TERROR COALITION, WAGING WAR AGAINST ISLAMIC STATE MILITANTS ON ITS TERRITORY. THIS RENDERS ANY POTENTIAL MILITARY INTERVENTION IN THE SYRIAN CONFLICT BY WASHINGTON LESS IMMEDIATE THAN BEFORE
4. Ongoing military conflict in Iraq
Given the threat posed by ISIS and the ongoing sectarian strife in Iraq, cooperation between Moscow and Washington in the region is also a key priority. Russia and the United States are assisting the Iraqi government to stabilize the country and confront ISIS, but their efforts are not allied and cannot be described as full-fledged cooperation.
5. NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan
The situation in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces is causing concern in both Moscow and Washington, primarily due to the threat of the return of the Taliban, terrorism and a narcotics trade, all of them stronger than before. Therefore, cooperation in the region is more pressing than ever.
No doubt, the sides have different political objectives and strategies in relation to the ongoing Afghan crisis, but a resurgent Taliban is not desirable to Washington and even less so to Moscow, which is in close proximity to the conflict zone. The security of the southern borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) against penetration by Taliban militants into Central Asia, where Russia has its own set of distinct national interests, is paramount.
6. Iran’s nuclear deal
November 2014 did not see the signing of a final breakthrough agreement on Tehran’s nuclear program in Vienna. Some think the diplomatic impasse could lead to even greater convergence between Iran and Russia, which will be detrimental to the United States in the growing confrontation between Moscow and Washington over Ukraine.
However, this challenge merely underscores the need for even greater diplomatic efforts from all sides, including Russia, the U.S. and Iran. Despite the fact that common ground will be hard to find (if any at all), Moscow and Washington are stakeholders in the ongoing talks with Iran within the P5+1 framework.
A new deadline for a final deal has been set for July 1, 2015, which provides an incentive to get the matter resolved and off the agenda in the near term. Given that Tehran believes that Moscow’s role in the negotiations on its nuclear program is insufficient, coupled with the geopolitical climate (namely the standoff with the U.S.), Russia — or at least its diplomatic service — will have its work cut out.
7. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict
The tragic events in Gaza developed according to a worst-case scenario in 2014. August saw a spike in violence and victims from both sides, with the warring parties (despite mediation by the UN and the United States) failing to reach agreement on a three-day cease-fire in order to provide humanitarian assistance to the civilian population. Soon thereafter, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) resumed fighting in the city of Rafah, in the southern section of the Gaza Strip, killing 30 Palestinians.
While Israelis and Palestinians accused each other of violating the truce, Russia and the West could have been more active in regulating the conflict. As members of the UN Security Council and the Middle East Quartet, Russia and the United States should both be keen to resolve the conflict and revive the peace process. Although 2014 saw some efforts to reestablish the negotiating platform, they did not yield any noticeable results.
It seems fairly evident that, in isolation, the U.S. and Russia cannot make progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor can the other members of the Middle East Quartet. Only through joint efforts can the conflict be resolved. Here Moscow can lend its weight, since it enjoys the advantage of being trusted by both sides of the conflict. In addition, it could promote the idea of setting up a contact group comprised of representatives of civil society organizations that would make appropriate recommendations.
U.S.A. - Health Care, Economy to Be Top Issues in 2015
By Lindsey Cook
The government was the top concern for Americans in 2014.
In 2014, Americans weren't quite sure where to direct their political anxiety. Last year was the first since 2001 when less than 20 percent of Americans agreed on what was the country's top issue,according to Gallup. Government topped the list due to frustrations with President Barack Obama, Republicans in Congress and political gridlock. But the economy followed close behind, with Americans worried the recovery from the Great Recession is happening too slowly. Unemployment, health care and immigration followed.
In some ways, the U.S. was fortunate in 2014 that there wasn't an issue big or hazardous enough to motivate total agreement among Americans. Since 2008, the economy led the list, topping out at 40 percent in 2009. Before that, the war in Iraq and terrorism were the central issues. 2014 found war and terrorism at the bottom of the list, with both only garnering 2 percent of votes each.
It's likely, barring some catastrophe, that the indecisiveness will continue in 2015, especially as presidential campaigning heats up and candidates choose to focus on different issues.
Concern about the government is likely to decrease in 2015 as Americans turn their attention away from Obama and toward the candidates eyeing the White House in 2016. And as the economy continues to improve and Obama continues to use executive actions to accomplish some of his priorities, his approval rating among Democrats likely will increase. Obama's standing with Hispanics – which got a boost after his recent action on immigration – sparked an increase in his overall approval rating at the end of 2014.
Increased confidence in Congress also may cause "government" to drop as a top concern. Approval of Congress within a party usually is higher when that party has control of both congressional chambers, as Republicans do in 2015, according to Gallup. Control of both houses also may lead to less gridlock and more laws passed, especially as politicians contemplating presidential runs seek to pad their political resumes going into the election. Obama, however, still wields veto power.
The economy will surely be a hot topic for Republicans and Democrats in the new year, even as economic confidence, the stock market and the job market are likely to improve. Gas prices and unemployment are also down. According to recent Gallup results, 50 percent of Americans said the economy was getting better and 45 percent said it was getting worse.
Worries about health care likely will increase this year, as provisions of the Affordable Care Act take effect and Republican candidates continue to use the bill to stoke political fires.
Worries about health care likely will increase this year, as provisions of the Affordable Care Act take effect and Republican candidates continue to use the bill to stoke political fires.
Payment boosts under Obamacare for primary care doctors treating Medicaid patients are over with, meaning a 42 percent pay cut for those doctors. Mandates requiring large companies to provide health insurance are slated to take effect this year after two delays, which will likely spur political arguments and decrease the law's popularity among business owners. And Americans without insurance who don't qualify for an exemption will pay the often-talked about health care penalty for the first time in 2015 (for a lack of coverage in 2014).
Immigration, meanwhile, will probably rise as an issue this year as Congress continues to argue over a response to Obama's executive action. It will also be an issue leading into the 2016 election.
Immigration, meanwhile, will probably rise as an issue this year as Congress continues to argue over a response to Obama's executive action. It will also be an issue leading into the 2016 election.
Is Life Better in America’s Red States?
By
Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.
Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).
Inequality Is Turning Blue
In 1979, 15 of the 21 most unequal states were in today’s red-state bloc. By 2012, there were more blue and purple states in that ranking than red ones.
MOST UNEQUAL
IN 1979
MOST UNEQUAL
IN 2012
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
Kentucky
New York
Oklahoma
Tennessee
New Mexico
Texas
South Dakota
California
Missouri
South Carolina
West Virginia
North Carolina
Arizona
Kansas
Virginia
New York
Connecticut
Mississippi
Louisiana
Florida
California
Massachusetts
Georgia
Texas
Tennessee
Alabama
New Jersey
Illinois
New Mexico
North Carolina
South Carolina
Kentucky
Virginia
Rhode Island
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
5
TIE
7
8
TIE
10
11
TIE
13
14
TIE
16
TIE
18
19
TIE
Driven by oil, the fracking boom and exurban sprawl, many of the red state economies are experiencing a vigorous (if ultimately unsustainable) spurt of growth. Thanks to loose land-use regulations and low labor costs, detached, single-family homes can be churned out quite cheaply, generating more middle-wage, low-skill jobs. And since red states spend less per capita on education, infrastructure and social welfare than their blue state counterparts (and many of them receive more federal dollars than they contribute), their tax burdens are lower, too.
To the surprise of many, voters in four red states — Alaska, Nebraska, South Dakota and Arkansas — supported referendums in November to raise their state minimum wage. And not just by a little. Controlling for the cost of living, they will have wage floors that are higher than those of many blue states. Once Obamacare is factored in, voters in these states ironically benefit from a somewhat strengthened social safety net, even though it is one that their elected politicians mainly oppose and that is heavily subsidized by blue state tax dollars.
For blue state urbanites who toil in low-paying retail, food preparation and service jobs, for the journeyman tradespeople who once formed the heart of the middle class, for teachers, civil servants, students and young families, the American dream of homeownership — or even an affordable rental apartment — is increasingly out of reach. Adding insult to injury, rapid gentrification in these larger knowledge hubs brings the constant threat of displacement of creative workers. For even the much better paid techies, engineers, financiers and managers who are displacing them, the metropolitan version of the American dream is a cramped condo or a small house and a long commute. Many are opting to move to cheaper red states instead, further driving their growth.
Inequality has grown fastest over the past three decades in larger states with more vibrant knowledge economies, like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. In 1979, the most unequal states were poor conservative states — Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama and Georgia. By 2012, New York, Connecticut, California and Massachusetts joined Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee among the 10 most unequal states.
Blue state knowledge economies are also extremely expensive to operate. Their innovative edge turns on a high-cost infrastructure of research universities and knowledge institutions — a portion of which demand public subsidy. Their size and density require expensive subway and transit systems to move people around. Blue state cities like New York and San Francisco are booming, but they are hampered by potholes and crumbling infrastructure, troubled public school systems, growing inequality and housing unaffordability, and entrenched poor populations, all of which mean higher public costs and higher tax burdens.
And yet for all that, they are pioneering the new economic order that will determine our future — one that turns on innovation and knowledge rather than the raw production of goods.
Despite their longstanding divisions, red state and blue state economies depend crucially on one another. Just as Alexander Hamilton’s merchant cities ate and exported the harvests of Thomas Jefferson’s yeomen farmers, and New England textile mills wove slave-harvested cotton, blue state knowledge economies run on red state energy. Red state energy economies in their turn depend on dense coastal cities and metro areas, not just as markets and sources of migrants, but for the technology and talent they supply.
Of course, while Massachusetts and Mississippi represent the extremes of America’s politico-economic divide, there are many red states like Utah, Arizona and Texas that are growing their tech and knowledge economies, and a number of historically blue states like Pennsylvania that have benefited from the fracking boom. But in our increasingly competitive global economy, long-term prosperity turns on knowledge, education and innovation. The idea that the red states can enjoy the benefits provided by the blue states without helping to pay for them (and while poaching their industries with the promise of low taxes and regulations) is as irresponsible and destructive of our national future as it is hypocritical.
But that is exactly the mantra of the growing ranks of red state politicos. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a likely 2016 G.O.P. presidential candidate, has taken to bragging that his state’s low-frills development strategy provides a model for the nation as a whole. But fracking and sprawling your way to growth aren’t a sustainable national economic strategy.
The allure of cheap growth has handed the red states a distinct political advantage. Their economic system may be outmoded and obsolete, but it is strong enough to blight the future. The Democrats may be able to draw on the country’s growing demographic diversity and the liberal leanings of younger voters to win the presidency from time to time, but the real power dynamic is red.
As long as the highly gerrymandered red states can keep on delivering the economic goods to their voters, concerted federal action on transportation, infrastructure, sustainability, education, a rational immigration policy and a strengthened social safety net will remain out of reach. These are investments that the future prosperity of the nation, in red states and blue states alike, requires.
Heightened partisan rancor is the least of our problems. The red state-blue state divide threatens to kill the real American dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)