In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 03 2015 09:59 oneofthem wrote: iranian hardliners can't hold onto power forever, and are already in de facto negotiation with the liberal/reformists. look at the election protests after 2009.
the cost of total crackdown is too great and censorship, while pervasive, is not going to sway the young all that much. it's a parallel story to the political trajectory of other totalitarian-ish states.
Well, the 2013 election was evidence of that. They allowed the election of a political reformist and pro-western President, after all.
The Iranian political elite are, I'm sure, quite aware of their own history (1979), which makes a peaceful transition of power incredibly likely. They are probably competent enough to recognize their own position as that of the Shah's before the Revolution.
the islamists are rather willing to relinquish domestic and economic policy to reformists and place those priorities higher, but given their stranglehold on the military, the revolutionary guard etc, the foreign policy/activities probably won't follow the reformist path too soon.
On April 03 2015 09:59 oneofthem wrote: iranian hardliners can't hold onto power forever, and are already in de facto negotiation with the liberal/reformists. look at the election protests after 2009.
the cost of total crackdown is too great and censorship, while pervasive, is not going to sway the young all that much. it's a parallel story to the political trajectory of other totalitarian-ish states.
I don't really see the "trajectory" you are talking about. It seems, outside of Western culture (and often within), that mostly what you see is a blip of freedom caused by the totalitarian regime failing to provide economic stability and prosperity, followed by a descent back to totalitarianism.
The pattern I just described happened in 1920s/30s Germany, 1990s-present Russia, happened over less than 2 years in Egypt a few years ago, happened many times in France from 1790-1960, nearly every country in South America. Its actually very hard to preserve a free society if you don't have a rabidly freedom-seeking populace, like America, or the institutional momentum of a place like England.
people, especially large city urban residents, want better economic situation. ideology driven government puts economy and development higher on the priority list, adopts more pragmatic course of action, but still keeps military power.
On April 03 2015 09:59 oneofthem wrote: iranian hardliners can't hold onto power forever, and are already in de facto negotiation with the liberal/reformists. look at the election protests after 2009.
the cost of total crackdown is too great and censorship, while pervasive, is not going to sway the young all that much. it's a parallel story to the political trajectory of other totalitarian-ish states.
I don't really see the "trajectory" you are talking about. It seems, outside of Western culture (and often within), that mostly what you see is a blip of freedom caused by the totalitarian regime failing to provide economic stability and prosperity, followed by a descent back to totalitarianism.
The pattern I just described happened in 1920s/30s Germany, 1990s-present Russia, happened over less than 2 years in Egypt a few years ago, happened many times in France from 1790-1960, nearly every country in South America. Its actually very hard to preserve a free society if you don't have a rabidly freedom-seeking populace, like America, or the institutional momentum of a place like England.
Define "Western", because Tunisia is doing quite well in its democratic experiment.
Democracy does not just suddenly appear out of thin air, and stabilize within a few years. A democratic tradition takes decades to cultivate, consolidate, and ultimately flower. All the modern democracies took year to build up the pluralism, civil society, political legitimacy, etc. that comprise a democracy.
Iran is an interesting case, because it's a curious mix of democracy and theocracy. For the most part, it has the basic structures that allow for the formation of a liberal democracy if you remove the theocratic elements: it has political parties, media structures, and elections, a fairly robust civil society, and both political legitimacy and general loyalty from the general populace. This makes it markedly different from places like Egypt, where much of these things were lacking, or Libya (where such structures, if they did exist, were torn down in the civil war). In France, there is no such democratic tradition until ~1860-70, really. In a formerly absolutist monarchy, there was no experience with voting and the other trappings of democracy, hence why in 1848-1852 Napoleon III was able to come into power: for the most part, the French population had no experience with political power and enfranchisement. It wasn't until 1870 that the various fraternities and societies had embedded democratic practices within the populace that the Third Republic was, ultimately, able to persist. The opponents of the Republic, by the 1920s and 30s, were no longer monarchists or Bonapartists (they were small minorities), but ultimately were Republicans who largely wanted a stronger executive and a presidential system (see the transition from the 4th and 5th Republics).
Same thing can be said for Russia, Weimar Germany (though Weimar is also a very difficult case study to use due to the myriad exceptional circumstances that made up its politics).
In the case of the United States, democracy and its ideals were embedded in the founding of the various colonies, and in English common law/parliamentarianism.
On April 03 2015 09:59 oneofthem wrote: iranian hardliners can't hold onto power forever, and are already in de facto negotiation with the liberal/reformists. look at the election protests after 2009.
the cost of total crackdown is too great and censorship, while pervasive, is not going to sway the young all that much. it's a parallel story to the political trajectory of other totalitarian-ish states.
I don't really see the "trajectory" you are talking about. It seems, outside of Western culture (and often within), that mostly what you see is a blip of freedom caused by the totalitarian regime failing to provide economic stability and prosperity, followed by a descent back to totalitarianism.
The pattern I just described happened in 1920s/30s Germany, 1990s-present Russia, happened over less than 2 years in Egypt a few years ago, happened many times in France from 1790-1960, nearly every country in South America. Its actually very hard to preserve a free society if you don't have a rabidly freedom-seeking populace, like America, or the institutional momentum of a place like England.
Define "Western", because Tunisia is doing quite well in its democratic experiment.
Democracy does not just suddenly appear out of thin air, and stabilize within a few years. A democratic tradition takes decades to cultivate, consolidate, and ultimately flower. All the modern democracies took year to build up the pluralism, civil society, political legitimacy, etc. that comprise a democracy.
Iran is an interesting case, because it's a curious mix of democracy and theocracy. For the most part, it has the basic structures that allow for the formation of a liberal democracy if you remove the theocratic elements: it has political parties, media structures, and elections, a fairly robust civil society, and both political legitimacy and general loyalty from the general populace. This makes it markedly different from places like Egypt, where much of these things were lacking, or Libya (where such structures, if they did exist, were torn down in the civil war). In France, there is no such democratic tradition until ~1860-70, really. In a formerly absolutist monarchy, there was no experience with voting and the other trappings of democracy, hence why in 1848-1852 Napoleon III was able to come into power: for the most part, the French population had no experience with political power and enfranchisement. It wasn't until 1870 that the various fraternities and societies had embedded democratic practices that the Third Republic was, ultimately, able to persist. The opponents of the Republic, by the 1920s and 30s, were no longer monarchists or Bonapartists (they were small minorities), but ultimately were Republicans who largely wanted a stronger executive and a presidential system (see the transition from the 4th and 5th Republics).
Same thing can be said for Russia, Weimar Germany (though Weimar is also a very difficult case study to use due to the myriad exceptional circumstances that made up its politics).
In the case of the United States, democracy and its ideals were embedded in the founding of the various colonies, and in English common law/parliamentarianism.
I've often heard arguments that Iran, not Iraq, is the Mid-East country best suited for a Democratic government. They are fairly compelling, however I think this younger generation of Muslims in the Middle-East and Iran is more anti-Democratic (or Democracy for the purposes of imposing an Islamic regime) than those of the past.
Also, Tunisia is 4 years. That's not "doing well", the First French Republic lasted longer, the French also happened to control Tunisia for about a century, but I don't really know how much of their culture was passed on.
I've often heard arguments that Iran, not Iraq, is the Mid-East country best suited for a Democratic government. They are fairly compelling, however I think this younger generation of Muslims in the Middle-East and Iran is more anti-Democratic (or Democracy for the purposes of imposing an Islamic regime) than those of the past.
1) You're grossly overgeneralizing the Middle East: it's a fairly large mosaic of different countries, states, ethnic groups, and many, many different political movements and ideologies. The Middle East and Maghreb is not some monolith.
2) Iran is not like the various Arab states and others. Again, over-generalization, but this must be re-stated, because Iran has had a radically different mode of government, history, etc, than other Arab states affected in the Arab Spring. There is no basis of state comparison in the Middle East, really.
Show me statistics showing where the younger generation of Iran are MORE anti-democratic, when such a statement is glaringly inconsistent with the political trends of Iran over the past 10 or so years, when the 2009 election protests over electoral fraud (and in support of reformist candidates) were overwhelmingly supported by the Iranian youth as the main demographic.
Like, what.
Also, Tunisia is 4 years. That's not "doing well", the First French Republic lasted longer, the French also happened to control Tunisia for about a century, but I don't really know how much of their culture was passed on.
1) WELL OF COURSE, they just had a democratic revolution. However, all signs of Tunisian democracy stabilizing and lasting are positive. It'll be another 10 or 20 years before we can say for sure (like, for instance, the Visegrad states or the former Soviet states), but thus far, Tunisia is the brightest success story in the Arab Spring. Moreover, a comparison to the First Republic is shoddy, since the First Republic underwent numerous government changes and overthrows within it's tenure: it is not a good basis of comparison.
2) The same could be said for Algeria and Syria, so...what, Tunisia was just more French? If this isn't the case, than you accept this line of logic is absurd and useless, when there are ultimately far more facets of democratic consolidation than this idea that "western culture" is key. It ignores everything from the pre-existing political order that was overthrown (by in large, secular Arab nationalist dictators maintaining power through, usually, repression), to the pre-existing organizations and segments of civil society.
This whole equation of Western Culture=Democracy is complete and total rubbish worthy of some late 19th century imperialist. This is shallow and honestly useless analysis, when the corpus of political science has quite a large chunk of analysis dedicated towards the development of democracy.
I'm sorry but no, this line of thinking is ridiculous.
On April 03 2015 09:59 oneofthem wrote: iranian hardliners can't hold onto power forever, and are already in de facto negotiation with the liberal/reformists. look at the election protests after 2009.
the cost of total crackdown is too great and censorship, while pervasive, is not going to sway the young all that much. it's a parallel story to the political trajectory of other totalitarian-ish states.
I don't really see the "trajectory" you are talking about. It seems, outside of Western culture (and often within), that mostly what you see is a blip of freedom caused by the totalitarian regime failing to provide economic stability and prosperity, followed by a descent back to totalitarianism.
The pattern I just described happened in 1920s/30s Germany, 1990s-present Russia, happened over less than 2 years in Egypt a few years ago, happened many times in France from 1790-1960, nearly every country in South America. Its actually very hard to preserve a free society if you don't have a rabidly freedom-seeking populace, like America, or the institutional momentum of a place like England.
Define "Western", because Tunisia is doing quite well in its democratic experiment.
Democracy does not just suddenly appear out of thin air, and stabilize within a few years. A democratic tradition takes decades to cultivate, consolidate, and ultimately flower. All the modern democracies took year to build up the pluralism, civil society, political legitimacy, etc. that comprise a democracy.
Iran is an interesting case, because it's a curious mix of democracy and theocracy. For the most part, it has the basic structures that allow for the formation of a liberal democracy if you remove the theocratic elements: it has political parties, media structures, and elections, a fairly robust civil society, and both political legitimacy and general loyalty from the general populace. This makes it markedly different from places like Egypt, where much of these things were lacking, or Libya (where such structures, if they did exist, were torn down in the civil war). In France, there is no such democratic tradition until ~1860-70, really. In a formerly absolutist monarchy, there was no experience with voting and the other trappings of democracy, hence why in 1848-1852 Napoleon III was able to come into power: for the most part, the French population had no experience with political power and enfranchisement. It wasn't until 1870 that the various fraternities and societies had embedded democratic practices that the Third Republic was, ultimately, able to persist. The opponents of the Republic, by the 1920s and 30s, were no longer monarchists or Bonapartists (they were small minorities), but ultimately were Republicans who largely wanted a stronger executive and a presidential system (see the transition from the 4th and 5th Republics).
Same thing can be said for Russia, Weimar Germany (though Weimar is also a very difficult case study to use due to the myriad exceptional circumstances that made up its politics).
In the case of the United States, democracy and its ideals were embedded in the founding of the various colonies, and in English common law/parliamentarianism.
I've often heard arguments that Iran, not Iraq, is the Mid-East country best suited for a Democratic government. They are fairly compelling, however I think this younger generation of Muslims in the Middle-East and Iran is more anti-Democratic (or Democracy for the purposes of imposing an Islamic regime) than those of the past.
Also, Tunisia is 4 years. That's not "doing well", the First French Republic lasted longer, the French also happened to control Tunisia for about a century, but I don't really know how much of their culture was passed on.
this is pretty wildly inaccurate with respect to iran. are you confusing this discussion with egyptian mobs?
Wow what the fuck. So they are totally cool with breaking one of the Ten Commandments, but disobey a minor rule and you're an irredeemable sinner to them. And they say this while wearing clothes made of more than one type of fiber, which was also forbidden in Leviticus.
On April 03 2015 09:59 oneofthem wrote: iranian hardliners can't hold onto power forever, and are already in de facto negotiation with the liberal/reformists. look at the election protests after 2009.
the cost of total crackdown is too great and censorship, while pervasive, is not going to sway the young all that much. it's a parallel story to the political trajectory of other totalitarian-ish states.
I don't really see the "trajectory" you are talking about. It seems, outside of Western culture (and often within), that mostly what you see is a blip of freedom caused by the totalitarian regime failing to provide economic stability and prosperity, followed by a descent back to totalitarianism.
The pattern I just described happened in 1920s/30s Germany, 1990s-present Russia, happened over less than 2 years in Egypt a few years ago, happened many times in France from 1790-1960, nearly every country in South America. Its actually very hard to preserve a free society if you don't have a rabidly freedom-seeking populace, like America, or the institutional momentum of a place like England.
Define "Western", because Tunisia is doing quite well in its democratic experiment.
Democracy does not just suddenly appear out of thin air, and stabilize within a few years. A democratic tradition takes decades to cultivate, consolidate, and ultimately flower. All the modern democracies took year to build up the pluralism, civil society, political legitimacy, etc. that comprise a democracy.
Iran is an interesting case, because it's a curious mix of democracy and theocracy. For the most part, it has the basic structures that allow for the formation of a liberal democracy if you remove the theocratic elements: it has political parties, media structures, and elections, a fairly robust civil society, and both political legitimacy and general loyalty from the general populace. This makes it markedly different from places like Egypt, where much of these things were lacking, or Libya (where such structures, if they did exist, were torn down in the civil war). In France, there is no such democratic tradition until ~1860-70, really. In a formerly absolutist monarchy, there was no experience with voting and the other trappings of democracy, hence why in 1848-1852 Napoleon III was able to come into power: for the most part, the French population had no experience with political power and enfranchisement. It wasn't until 1870 that the various fraternities and societies had embedded democratic practices that the Third Republic was, ultimately, able to persist. The opponents of the Republic, by the 1920s and 30s, were no longer monarchists or Bonapartists (they were small minorities), but ultimately were Republicans who largely wanted a stronger executive and a presidential system (see the transition from the 4th and 5th Republics).
Same thing can be said for Russia, Weimar Germany (though Weimar is also a very difficult case study to use due to the myriad exceptional circumstances that made up its politics).
In the case of the United States, democracy and its ideals were embedded in the founding of the various colonies, and in English common law/parliamentarianism.
I've often heard arguments that Iran, not Iraq, is the Mid-East country best suited for a Democratic government. They are fairly compelling, however I think this younger generation of Muslims in the Middle-East and Iran is more anti-Democratic (or Democracy for the purposes of imposing an Islamic regime) than those of the past.
Also, Tunisia is 4 years. That's not "doing well", the First French Republic lasted longer, the French also happened to control Tunisia for about a century, but I don't really know how much of their culture was passed on.
this is pretty wildly inaccurate with respect to iran. are you confusing this discussion with egyptian mobs?
No. I understand that these are different countries, with different cultures, and different religious sects. I'm just not as confident in the youth as many people seem to be.
Also, Re- Tolkien. I don't think Tunisia is more French. I just pointed that out as a quirk. However, the rest of your points are silly, because as I said, historically 4 years is nothing. You need to survive at least 1 major economic collapse,that can be "blamed" on the free government, to even get on my radar. Just like how that is what really precipitated the collapse of the old regime, the new one must weather that to give me any confidence in it surviving. And that doesn't only happen through a coup, there is also the Russian model of a brief stint of freedom followed by a paternalistic creep towards the current government.
Also I understand this "imperialist" critique. Democratic, or Republican governments as an ideal is not what we are talking about, we are talking about a free society, which typically result in those forms of governance. Democracy is not the ideal, pissing on a picture of Jesus/Mohammed without being arrested + building a factory without it being seized is the ideal.
Democratic is probably the wrong word to describe Iran because it entails human rights and such. Republican is better, because contrary to Sunni Islam, Shia Muslims,(in Iran specifically) have theological objections towards a dictatorial godlike ruler. But you're probably not going to get a Westernized society there anytime soon, Ironically that had to be forced onto them by an absolutist secular monarch.
On April 03 2015 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: Democratic is probably the wrong word to describe Iran because it entails human rights and such. Republican is better, because contrary to Sunni Islam, Shia Muslims,(in Iran specifically) have theological objections towards a dictatorial godlike ruler. But you're probably not going to get a Westernized society there anytime soon, Ironically that had to be forced onto them by an absolutist secular monarch.
i'm not particularly well versed in middle eastern politics, nor history, but isn't that last line of yours referencing what's happening in Jordan?
Nearly 40,000 low-wage workers will get an instant pay rise on Wednesday, when Seattle begins to phase in a landmark $15 minimum wage law that was passed amid controversy last year.
Beginning April 1, the minimum wage for an employer with more than 500 employees rises from just over $9 to $11 per hour; for smaller employers, it becomes $10 per hour.
Over the next few years, stepped increases in the minimum wage will continue, until all workers in the city of Seattle earn at least $15 an hour by 1 January 2017, more than double the federal minimum wage.
For minimum-wage workers like Crystal Thompson, who has worked at a branch of Domino’s in South Seattle, earning minimum wage for the past six years, the new legislation is life-changing.
Thompson, 33, is a single mother. Her son, who has a mild form of autism, sleeps on the living room couch in her two-room apartment. She doesn’t own a car. She has worked at Domino’s for six years, earning minimum wage, without a meaningful pay rise.
She told the Guardian that Domino’s classifies her as a customer service representative, but due to chronic short-staffing she does a whole range of things. “I cook,” she said. “I cashier. I do everything but deliver pizza. I pretty much run the store.”
She said she doesn’t get a lunch break. “I’m on my feet eight, 10 hours … it’s kinda tough. People are struggling from paycheck to paycheck. Struggling to pay the rent, struggling to [keep the] lights on, having to live off food stamps and government subsidies.
“We work really hard, and the cost of living is very high in Seattle,” Thompson continued. “We work hard for these corporations, you know? They can afford to pay us a little better.”
That’s why, in 2013, Thompson, along with fast-food workers across the country, went on strike to demand better pay. In many cities the striking workers were shrugged off. But in Seattle, the city’s politics were ripe for the idea of a hike in the minimum wage.
The tentative agreement reached with Iran is a very good one (even frequent critics of the administration and initial skeptics admit to this, see here and here), which is why I'm not surprised Conservative posters who have no clue whatsoever about the issue liken it to surrendering to Hitler.
Seems very premature to judge the deal, since it might change and could still be scrapped. Hailing a tentative deal is really just a placeholder to keep negotiations going with the perception of progress. It also ups the ante on Iran to keep them from walking away.
EDIT: To be more explicit, this isn't a "very good deal" until Iran removes those centrifuges, the IAEA signs off that they have them, and they ship their spent fuel to an approved country.
It would be premature to make definitive statements on how what's been agreed will translate into concrete results, but it's not "very premature" to judge the contents of what has been agreed so far. What's been agreed is a very good tentative deal. It doesn't change the fact that there are obviously still difficulties ahead for a finalized deal to be reached, and that like with every treaty/international agreement its actual implementation is going to be key and is not guaranteed, but the tentative agreement that we have at this point still looks very good, and the fact that both sides decided to make this step public is also good news.
Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.
It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City.
Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.
It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City.
Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing?
EPT
