The Iran Deal

When carefully considered, it should be clear that this deal sets us on an ineluctable path towards war.

In the short term, Iran is likely to appease extremists opposed to the deal by generously, and disproportionately, financing their internal institutions and regional adventurism from its windfall. The suggestion that Iran's youthfully skewed demographics foretell future moderation and reform seems dangerously naive. Dylann Roof, to take one recent high profile example, was 21. To take another: It appears to be largely young adults who are leaving middle class western homes to wage genocidal Jihad as part of ISIS. Bottom line: Iran is not likely to be, a reformed, more moderate, regime in 10 years than it is today.

Critics of the deal are probably wrong to fear this deal will allow an unreformed Iran to, with our blessing, reduce its nuclear weapon breakout window to a matter of weeks for the simple reason that future Presidents will likely consider themselves no more bound to its terms then they are to their own campaign promises.

President Obama and those in Congress who have supported this deal have been very clear: A nuclear armed Iran is an intolerable threat to American national security and all options must be on the table to prevent it. Should Iran fail to reform, which seems likely, this will be as true in ten years as it is now. In other words, whatever this deal may envision, should Iran fail to reform, the demands of national security will compel any future President to insist on extension of the restrictions on the Iranian program that preserve the one year breakout window.

The future President will have fewer options than might be available today. The Iranians would view any American attempt at diplomatic renegotiation as reneging, as proof of American perfidy and would be unlikely to engage. There would likely not be sufficient time to reinstate comprehensive, effective, sanctions. Given Iranian military development between then and now, any pinprick attack would be less viable. In other words, the future American President will likely find herself with the stark choice of allowing an unreformed Iran to develop a nuclear weapon or launching a war of regime change. As undesirable as the latter option is, no President will be able to allow the former on her watch.

America, would have likely had better options today. Our allies and partners may not have supported continued sanctions, but is hard to imagine that strongly enforced secondary sanctions which presented the choice “do business with either us or Iran” wouldn’t have held.

While time will tell whether those who argue that the pro-Israel community severely damaged itself in taking on a fight it couldn’t win were correct, there are reasons to hope they will prove wrong. The generally sympathetic-to-Israel members of Congress who backed this deal are more likely to work to repair, rather than wash their hands of, the American/Israeli relationship. Down the road, should Iran engage in destructive adventurism and fail to reform, and so pose an unresolved intolerable threat to America, those who vigorously opposed the deal will be strengthened (and should it reform, American political attention will turn elsewhere). In addition, given the broad Israeli consensus, this effort provided a rare opportunity for the deeply politically divided pro-Israel community to work, more or less, arm in arm. If built upon, there is opportunity for strengthening the community. Finally, while most Democrats did, in the end, line up behind their President, Democratic strategists may be now more sensitive to the danger Israel poses, as a wedge issue, to their party unity.

End of an Era

Mad Man was not only one of the best shows to [ever] appear on television, but, perhaps also, (and this goes hand-in-hand) one of the most deeply chewed upon. One perspective I have not seen discussed is, for me, the heart of the matter: Mad Men viewed through the prism of SciFi.

Mad Men dealt with, or was even "about", themes generally reserved for SciFi: Human nature and human reality. "Advertising" was used as the simulacrum, in place of robot overlords, clones or AI, to explore, and question, human agency and meaning. Don Draper's blunt "the universe is indifferent" resonates with the mountains of SciFi featuring small bands of isolated explorers struggling in, and against, cavernous space.

More fundamentally, SciFi has always used the conceit of "long ago and far away" to ease digestion of social criticism (Voltaire and Swift founded the genre as much as Shelley and Verne). At first light, of course, Mad Men flatters us, with our Sheryl Sandbergs and Hillary Clintons. But, in truth, it's sharpest critique, focused in the finale, is ultimately directed at the still present "sixties".

To wit: All the major characters are, throughout the show, miserable; They are narcissistic and irresponsible and, nonetheless, deeply unhappy. The show questioned the possibility of happiness. The finale ("person-to-person") leaves most of the major characters with some, provisional, happiness through responsibility and self-giving: Pete with his family, Joan with her son, Roger with Marie and, of course, Peggy and Stan.

Don's ending is left more ambiguous. For me, the Leonard scene feels crafted to recall the The Carousel. Don created advertising to invoke "the pain from an old wound", to remind us of a "place where we ache to go again" -- this obsession on what we don't, or can't, have. Or, as Leonard describes it "You spend your whole life thinking you're not getting it, people aren't giving it to you." To which he adds the insight: "Then you realize they're trying, and you don't even know what IT is" -- our self-centeredness is an obstacle to our happiness. Don hugs Leonard, in part, perhaps, out of some Dick-Whitman complex, but also out of a feeling of responsibility, as a sort of apology. The series concludes with a different sort of advertising, one firmly focused on what we (all) share.

#LoveWins

The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges was, of course, correct: Marriage has "transcendent importance" is "essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations" and no-one should want to live in a State that deprives anyone of that liberty.

While I, generally, find Alito's opinions contain the clearest and most thoughtful analysis of what is most at stake, that is only somewhat true in this case:

1. The heart of Alito's dissent is a historical/technical argument:

   Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits... To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.

   Alito's views are in-line with mainstream constitutional conservatism, which is, above all, afraid of unelected Justices imposing personal views. Kennedy seems generally more aligned with an ideological conservatism that would reject this relativistic dismissal of unalienable rights. As a political matter, the conservative surrender of unalienable rights to the more political branches (who are perfectly capable of enforcing claims of majorities against minorities) has not impeded the progress of government benefits, but has left us with a current court doctrine in which Religious Freedom seems entitled to about the same level of constitutional protection now as was once enjoyed by the Marranos.

   Roberts, consistent with Alito, argues that respect for the court, and by extension its legitimacy, flows from the perception that it exercises "humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law." Scalia, similarly, observes that "Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers" and darkly warns that this decision moves the court "one step closer to being reminded of [it's] impotence." However, the reaction here provides strong indication that this sort of judicial conservatism has lost out, and one, more like Kennedy's, willing to assert unalienable rights is called for.

2. Alito goes on to contrast the current "understanding of marriage, which focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry" (which creates a right to same-sex marriage) with the traditional concern for providing "the best atmosphere for raising children" (which, for Alito, does not). He acknowledges that "this traditional understanding of the purpose of marriage does not ring true to all ears today" (a dramatic understatement) which "undoubtedly is both a cause and a result" of the fact that "more than 40% of all children in this country are born to unmarried women." Given this, he argues it is not irrational for states to fear that trading the traditional for the current understanding (by recognizing same-sex marriage) "may contribute to marriage’s further decay."

   He is certainly correct up to that it is too early to tell whether marriage divorced from family will be able to keep the promises that Hollywood, and now the Supreme Court, are making on its behalf. Should it fail, adherence to more traditional understandings will increase the privilege enjoyed by the upper class. However, even if this fear is not irrational, it hardly argues for denying people unalienable rights.

3. Alito's last section is concerned that this decision will be used to "vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy" as "some may think that turnabout is fair play". Both Alito and Roberts note that the democratic process, now shut down, was more likely to "tie recognition to protection for conscience rights."

   This is, of course, a secondary concern, with no certain outcome. It may turn out that, with this issue out of domestic politics, it may be easier for those with traditional views to portray their conscience rights as, mostly, harmless. Those committed to "stamp[ing] out every vestige of dissent" may find it harder to engage donors than was the case when more fundamental rights were at stake, especially as other civil rights issues come to the forefront. And as religious exercise is certainly also of "transcendent importance" and "essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations", perhaps its not too much to hope that, if challenged, the court will demonstrate that it's empathy is not just for-some.

As a final note, Thomas' dissent comes closest to asking, what to me is discomforting about this case. What does it mean to have a "Separation of Church and State" if the State is issuing licenses of "transcendent importance"?