I am utterly amazed at the recklessness of the Republican Congressional delegation. They have just reinforced a traditional complaint about democracies in theory, a theory which so far has not been salient to the situation. The question is; can a democracy be trusted diplomatically? Obviously any democracy or republic needs to negotiate via representatives vetted by the people's representatives. I can think of nothing more irresponsible to a nation's foreign policy than to declare  negotiations and treaties achieved during one administration may be undone by a new administration. This creates a terrible precedent, a bridge too far that neither Democratic or Republican executives have dared breach.  Democratic Republics are at a disadvantage in diplomacy because frequently popular will becomes a brake on diplomatic action. This is essential before an agreement but once under took we must honor our obligations under international law. I find it odd that the Republicans of late shows such contempt for international agreements. They are mentioned in the Constitution specifically as being the law of the land. They are an essential part of international relations and the USA benefits greatly from international accords yet some Republican politicians act like they exist only to restrain the sheer awesomeness of America. This is profoundly childish. The Republicans will regret what they have done to the executive next time they elect another President, especially if he/she thinks they need to be a 'unitary executive' or some jabbery pokery'.

The current opposition to a nuclear deal with Iran is strange. Ever since the Iranian people deposed the US backed Shah Iran has been treated as an illegitimate country. This is absurd. Look at a map. Iran is a large country with a 4000 year history. How could they not be a major regional player? Look at the USA. Nowhere near the Middle East. Yet USA conservatives insist we should be the strongest player in the Middle east. See a problem? Iran has endorsed a nuclear free Middle East. Israel, which has a nuclear weapons program refused to endorse it and the USA vetoed this sensible proposition. The only reason is the far fetched ( to the rest of  world)  idea that Iran cannot be trusted with a nuclear weapon but Israel can ( to say nothing of the USA, which is the only country to have used one in war) and this must be because Jews and Christians are good and Muslims bad. Iran calling for the destruction of Israel is really no different than the US calling for a regime change in Iran. Obviously when Iran calls for the destruction of Israel they are not talking about physically destroying the Levant. Racism is not the proper term for the attitude towards Iran, but it is close. Iran cannot be a legitimate player in the region while a country descended from European immigrants ( Israel) or the USA ( same) is held to be legit. How can this be anything but the anti Muslim prejudice that is the greatest recruiting tool for Daesh ( ISIS). If anyone has a claim to be a legitimate nuclear power in the region it is Iran. Not the USA. Not Israel.

If Greece is supposed to pay for all its debts the USA should have paid for the French and Indian war and not rebelled against Britain. I have been saying Germany needs to pay ALL its 20th century debt but really if Greece is supposed to pay its debts there is no legitimate reason for the US to have declared independence from Britain. The US needs to pay Britain, Germany needs to pay Ftrance reparations. What is good for the goose....

 If you are proud of actual accomplishments does that lead to a deficit of pride? Do we require chauvinistic myths to be in good mental health? There is a kind of parallel to Calvinism in which our good works can never be enough to win us a place in heaven. There are experiments that show optimistic people are healthier but also way more optimistic about outcomes that is warrented. Pessimists get closer to the truth but are more miserable. Could humans need a mythology which allows them unearned pride? The corollary is the great question; can we handle the truth? Totalitarian regimes seek to control every aspect of culture because they are sure only a unified people can do big things. Could this be part of the enduring appeal of conservatism? Having to actually accomplish this to have a sense of pride is much harder and success can be stymied despite the best, most determined work by the individual. Sometimes the good one does is not even apparent during ones lifetime. Existentialism is really hard and that is why a mythology based sense of self may be so comforting. In the 1960's people understood this and tried to create a new American paradigm, a progressive mythology. Culture does not take grafts well but the legacy of this attempt accounts for much of our best instincts today. We must realize it is difficult to get people to give up something in exchange for nothing. A new American mythology needs to return to our cultural front burner. The cheap thrills of jingoistic patriotism are a powerful enemy but without fighting we will only watch things get worse.                                               

        The decision by congressional Republicans to keep fighting ACA even after the Supreme Court ruled its subsidies were legal shows their contempt for democracy. If ballots and laws cannot settle issues a regime of law is impossible. There is a word for using ever means to secure one's ends and refusing to accept any outcome besides your preferred one. It is War.  A Democratic Republic require's losers to accept their loser status and yes campaign in the future but refusing to accept victories by the other side ensures civil war as being the only way to effect change. The 'no compromise' position of the Tea faction shows the fragility of democracy. Democracy can only work if both sides are prepared to lose and lose gracefully.

States, in the USA sense, are stupid. Perhaps this is why the American conservative tendency has always been such enthusiasts for the US state. They are small enough to be dominated by a small elite yet to large for actual self government. They perpetuate the regional differences which are the source of diversity and color but also help set up one's prejudices as admirable traits because they are 'our 'prejudices. It is not accident that too often 'States rights' are a front for retrograde policy and short sightedness. Natural resources become a personal cash machine for those who value exploitation now over careful stewardship. Minorities can be easily turned into scapegoats and demonized by a majority run state. If the minority was in their own city/state they would have more power while if they were one of many competing sectors of a larger polity they would also have less local scapegoat status.                                                                                                                                                               This perennial US problem has raised its ugly head again with the Supreme Court now deciding on the fate of subsidies for Obamacare. Although it is obvious the opponents of ACA are looking for anything it is only with an exaggerated sense of the importance of 'states' can their argument be even slightly plausible, To think of a province or territory in a country ( the classic 'state') as being exempt from a law because they pouted and did not participate would be absurd in any other circumstance.     States can also be  the 'laboratory for democracy' they are touted to be. Issues such as Global Warming and cannabis legalization are able to be dealt with in a state precisely because the people  can be brought to a more progressive position than it would be possible to get nation wide. It is also true that the USA is way too large and disconnected from a national culture. The states are too small, the USA too large. Breaking the USA into five or six regional nations would be logical but is not in the realm of possibility. That said it is revealing to see how the concept of 'states rights' has been used for mostly regressive policies but can be used for progressive ones.

The declaration of war by the Republican led Congress against the EPA is the perfect example of the old joke 'if the opposite of pro is con what is the opposite of progress?'. Most issues in politics are not provable. they are a matter of viewpoint, of interpretation, of  ideology. The necessity of changing our approach to our Earth is not one of them. most issues allow a do-over. If we err on the side of too much economic regulation, or of too much laissez faire in most areas we can undo what we have done and proceed differently in the future. Environmental devastation is not one of them. The Republicans are against regulations which have an immediate, easy to understand objective such as reducing smog linked to asthma and chronic bronchitis. I guess none of their kids have respiratory problems. Coal ash can be tested and the various heavy metals and carcinogens measured physically. The extremists in the Republican party ague it is not a hazardous material and should not be regulated. Even Global Warming is beginning to be seen in its effects at the poles and with rising oceans. The problem with the solutions is that they require a different approach and view of the Earth than is conducive to unlimited profit making. Republicans have no problem witrh spending tremendous amounts of money on defense yet will not use the same calculations to analyze the effects of using our oceans and atmosphere as waste bins. Of course it is cheaper to dump all your trash in your neighbors land instead of paying a dump fee but my guess is that if one did this to Republican's gated communities they would howl. The entire world however is seen as a common garbage dump which they refuse to pay the dump fee.                                                                                   The proof that government regulation is the only way to stop unlimited pollution is the track record. Wwe already tried the  Tea Party/ small government approach. It was called the 19th century. In it we exterminated the passenger pigeon, almost wiped out the American Bison, cut down the great eastern hardwood forests and poisoned waterways. It is like a baseball game. Republicans would not dream of allowing a major league baseball game without an umpire yet they think business does not need any rules keepers. Either they think  a ball game is more important than  the fate of our planet or they really are blind to the provable science if it interferes with profits. Some laws are poorly written and may need to be adjusted from time to time. It is important though to remember that most government regulations are the reaction to egregious incidents which are the result of human greed and short-sightedness. It is not easy to pass legislation. Conservatives often act like bureaucrats invent the regulations instead of them being the result of laws passed by congress.  A law creates a disincentive for for individual sleaze. Of course a company can do the right thing on their own, but in competition with sleazy operators they are at a disadvantage. We tried to let business write its own rules. It failed and it is time for voters to get over tired stereotypes of counter cultural types and deal with the reality of environmental science. Barry Goldwater was considered conservative yet he was a conservationist as well as a conservative. Why the Right cannot acknowledge that pollution and environmental damage are a legitimate area for government just as they acknowledge national defense is must be due to greed and short sightedness. For the  company heads and their bought politicans the incentive is clear. The voters must stop being suckered by cultural tribalism and accept the scientific consensus on the fate of our earth.