"Balance, diversity, creativity - these are the elements of Republican equation. Republicans agree, Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications, but we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are Republicans. This is a party, this Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists."
This quote, from Barry Goldwater's speech to the 1964 Republican National Convention, described a political party, and nation, accepting of diversity. The global conversation has since strayed from Goldwater's 1964 speech. Divisive language and confrontation are the 'new politics' of the 21st century.
'New politics' is disunity. It is the language of 21st century. Each label of an individual member of society results in the delineation of contrast with another person or group of people. Democrats are pitted against Republicans, capitalists against socialists. The connotations associated with these labels are so burned into the global mindset that the bias inherent in these words and labels automatically sets people for or against a cause, and by extension each other.
The rift is ever-increasing and ever-expanding. News organizations and political parties use polarization to
'turn out their bases' and gain traction with party members. 'New politics' is a BBC article published on June 24, 2019, entitled "Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Turkey's pugnacious president." It is the Fox News article entitled "Rep. Collins: We saw a dark day in the House, we saw Speaker Pelosi abuse her oath of office." It is the breakdown of the Brexit conversation due to a failure to compromise. It is brand politics. Republicans claim that impeachment, supposedly a solemn constitutional check on the President, is being used to turn out the Democratic party's base. The polarization between the parties is so intense that the true merits and facts of impeachment cannot be discussed in any objective manner by the leaders elected to govern the United States.
The only way to resist the war of words is to abandon these fraught labels. When one party declaims a position simply based on the source, we must step back and evaluate the position and not just the speaker. We must find a way to have common conversation as a society and not continue to exist in the internet- and cable TV-based echo chambers that reflect our own opinions and amplify our factionalism. The only way to avoid 'new politics' is to establish a global discourse.
WHY Would IRAN StriKe?
U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly canceled negotiations with the Taliban after it attacked American troops in Afghanistan. Why did Iran, seething under tightened U.S. sanctions, put its own negotiations at risk by provoking the United States? There are a few reasonable explanations to this question, which, ironically, seem to be in response to U.S. sanctions.
After the United States withdrew from former-President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump administration sanctioned Iran, threatening to cripple their economy. With their commercial industries under attack, Iranian President Rouhani needed a show of strength utilizing their last available option: military force. And, there was no better nation to target than Saudi Arabia, the top oil exporter in the world. This move did two important things for Iran. Most importantly, it was a show of strength in a time when their nation seemed to be economically crumbling and playing defense. Furthermore, they exposed the volatility of the top oil exporting country in the world. After the attacks, the average increase in gas prices within the United States neared 15-20%. Under U.S. sanctions, Iranian oil may not be exported to other nations. Thus, when Iran conducted their drone strike, countries that imported oil from Saudi Arabia might be more inclined to switch to Iranian oil, both strengthening Iran's economy while indirectly protesting U.S. sanctions.
Recent Russian elections show rifts in Putin's political foundations. Incumbent President Vladamir Putin's party, United Russia, is set to occupy 26 out of 45 seats on the Moscow City Council, down from 28. The Communist Party is set to assume 13 of those seats. Other local election results show a similar or larger decrease in United Russia's power.
However significant these local losses may seem, United Russia still retains significant power. Local elections may portend a larger movement, but Putin will not cede national seats easily. Of note, the strategy that United Russia's opposition used was to vote for someone that was anti-United Russia, rather than for another individual party. Therefore, even if United Russia were to be voted out of power, these other parties might not be able to form a majority coalition, leaving United Russia in control. Finally, this possible change in leadership may affect international relations. Since Russia's authoritarian ideology conflicts with that of many western nations, historical tensions are unlikely to deescalate between Russia, Europe, and North America. After United Russia, the leading political group is the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. This party is still vastly unpopular with the rest of the world and even inside Russia, as they wish to impose a quasi-Stalin government. As of right now, many Russians view a government without Putin at the wheel better than one with him.