<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
    xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
    <title>Fareed Zakaria</title>
    <category>Fareed Zakaria</category>
    <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/section/fareed-zakaria/feed/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://www.durangoherald.com/section/fareed-zakaria/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description>Stay informed with the latest breaking news, local stories, sports, business, weather, and community events from Durango, Southwest Colorado, and the Four Corners region.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:03:32 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/as-the-worlds-most-successful-political-party-ends/</link>
        <title>As the world’s most successful political party ends</title>
        <description>Like most enduring parties, the Tories have embraced many different factions and ideologies over the years. But in the post-World War II era, they were defined by an advocacy of free markets and traditional values – a combination that was...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:33:07 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">923745A3-AF26-5173-E053-0100007FFE29</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[NEW YORK – Britain’s Tories are arguably the most successful political party of the modern age. The Conservatives have ruled Britain for nearly 60 of the 90 years since 1929 (the country’s first election with universal adult suffrage). But this week we watched the beginning of the end of the Conservative Party as we have known it. Like most enduring parties, the Tories have embraced many different factions and ideologies over the years. But in the post-World War II era, they were defined by an advocacy of free markets and traditional values – a combination that was brought to its climax in the person of Margaret Thatcher, the Tories’ most effective prime minister since Winston Churchill. The free market orientation made sense. The second half of the 20th century was dominated by one big issue – the clash between communism and capitalism. Throughout the world, parties aligned themselves on a left-right spectrum that related to that central issue: the role of the state in economics. In America in the 1950s and 1960s, the Democrats included Northern progressives and Southern segregationists, but they all agreed on the need for an interventionist state. We are living now in a new ideological era, one defined by an “open-closed” divide – between people comfortable in a world of greater openness in trade, technology and migration and those who want more barriers, protections and restraints. Parties of the future will likely be positioned along this new spectrum. You can see the breakdown of the old order by looking back at Britain’s last five prime ministers, two from the Labour Party and three from the Tories. All were in favor of Britain staying in the European Union. (Theresa May had voted to remain in the union, but once the referendum passed, she promised to carry out the will of the people and take her country out of Europe.) By contrast, Boris Johnson is remaking the Tories into the party of Brexit and this week expelled 21 Conservative members of Parliament, including very senior figures, who disagreed with the new party line. Many commentators in Britain have pointed to the analogies between now and 1846, when Prime Minister Robert Peel pushed through a free trade agenda that split the Conservative Party and kept it mostly out of power for a generation. No analogy is perfect, but when a party divides over a big issue – as did, for example, the American Whigs over slavery – it usually narrows its political base and electability. There hasn’t been a Whig president in America since Millard Fillmore left office in 1853. Not every situation will fall neatly on the open-closed spectrum. Many of the leading Brexiteers are staunch free marketeers and insist that they want a “global Britain.” It is odd, however, to be in favor of free trade and yet insist that Britain crash out of the EU, one of the world’s largest free trade areas – and Britain’s largest trading partner. More significant is the fact that whatever the views of the new Tory leaders, the people that voted for Brexit – and would presumably support what would essentially be a new Tory-Brexit Party – largely embrace a closed ideology. They are suspicious of foreigners and resentful of the new cosmopolitan Britain that they see in London and the country’s other big cities. They want less immigration and multiculturalism. They are more rural, traditional, older and whiter and want some kind of a return to the Britain in which they grew up. America, of course, has a similar constituency. While many of the Republicans who support President Trump might well be free marketeers, his base is largely animated by the same suspicions and passions that motivated the Brexit voters. Trump himself is an ideological omnivore – supporting free markets while simultaneously imposing the biggest tariff hikes since the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. The most likely future for the Republican Party is one that conforms with its voters’ preferences – for limits on trade and immigration and greater hostility toward big technology companies. In Britain, there is confusion on the other side of the aisle as well. The Labour Party has moved leftward and still contains elements that are skeptical about the European Union. Over time, Labour will probably move more robustly in a pro-Europe direction and, with the Liberal Democrats, try to create a new “open” governing majority. In America, the Democrats have to resolve similar differences mostly around trade, an issue on which many Democrats are as protectionist as Donald Trump. But what is happening now in Britain is a telltale sign. One of the world’s most enduring political parties is cracking – yet another reminder that we are living in an age of political revolutions. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/the-cancerous-consensus-in-todays-washington/</link>
        <title>The cancerous consensus in today’s Washington</title>
        <description>But the real scandal is what both sides agree on. The best example of this might be the defense budget. Last week, the Democratic House, which Republicans say is filled with radicals, voted to appropriate $733 billion for 2020 defense...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:33:13 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8E478A6D-620B-60E8-E053-0100007F589F</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[You often hear that in these polarized times, Republicans and Democrats are deadlocked on almost everything. But the real scandal is what both sides agree on. The best example of this might be the defense budget. Last week, the Democratic House, which Republicans say is filled with radicals, voted to appropriate $733 billion for 2020 defense spending. The Republicans are outraged because they – along with President Trump – want that number to be $750 billion. In other words, on the largest item of discretionary spending in the federal budget, accounting for more than half of the total, Democrats and Republicans are divided by 2.3%. That is the cancerous consensus in Washington today. America’s defense budget is out of control, lacking strategic coherence, utterly mismanaged, ruinously wasteful and yet eternally expanding. Last year, after a quarter century of resisting, the Pentagon finally subjected itself to an audit – which itself, in true Pentagon style, cost more than $400 million. Most of its agencies – Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines – failed. “We never expected to pass,” admitted then-Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has identified $15.5 billion of waste. But that is after reviewing only $53 billion of the $126 billion appropriated for Afghan reconstruction through 2017. He wrote in a 2018 letter, “[We] have likely uncovered only a portion of the total waste, fraud, abuse and failed efforts.” Outside war zones, there are the usual examples of $14,000 toilet seat lids, $1,280 cups (yes, cups) and $4.6 million for crab and lobster meals. Remember when then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted that the Pentagon had about as many people in military bands as the State Department had active foreign service officers? Well, it’s still true today. Donald Trump says he is a savvy businessman. Yet his attitude toward the Pentagon is that of an indulgent parent. “We love and need our Military and gave them everything – and more,” he tweeted last year. Far from bringing rationality to defense spending, he has simply opened the piggy bank, while at the same time trying to slash spending on almost every other government agency. The Pentagon is the most fiscally irresponsible government agency, but the Republicans’ response has been to simply give it more. The much deeper danger, however, is spotlighted by Jessica Tuchman Mathews in a superb essay in the New York Review of Books. Mathews points out that we tend to think about the defense budget as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product, which is fundamentally erroneous. The defense budget should be related to the threats the country faces, not the size of its economy. If a country’s GDP grows by 30%, she writes, it “has no reason to spend 30% more on its military. To the contrary, unless threats worsen, you would expect that, over time, defense spending as a percentage of a growing economy should decline.” The United States faces a world in flux, to be certain, but surely not a more dangerous world than during the Cold War. The U.S. now spends more than the next 10 countries in the world put together, six of which are close allies – Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. And the real threats of the future – cyberwar, space attacks – require different strategies and spending. Yet Washington keeps spending billions on aircraft carriers and tanks. There are even more fundamental questions about the structure of the Pentagon. Why do we have an Air Force if the Army, Navy and Marines all have their own air forces? Why does each service have its own representatives to essentially lobby Congress? When he was Defense Secretary in the early 2000s, Donald Rumsfeld tried to force some coherence onto the department (a legacy overshadowed by his disastrous handling of the Iraq War), but he was mostly outmaneuvered by the Pentagon and Congress. “You refer to closing unneeded bases,” Rep. Rob Simmons of Connecticut said to Rumsfeld. “I only have one base, and I do need it.” Multiply this response by 535 members of Congress to understand the depth of the problem. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the kind of Republican who had a pragmatic skepticism about government. He was the kind of seasoned general who understood that peace came from a combination of military strength and diplomatic engagement. That was why in his presidential farewell address he spoke about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex.” Sixty years later, it looks like one of the most prophetic warnings any president has ever made. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/are-we-on-the-road-to-another-middle-east-war/</link>
        <title>Are we on the road to another Middle East war?</title>
        <description>“There is little doubt that even before the deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms,” it read. The White House has not subsequently explained how a country can violate the terms of a deal before that deal existed. This is...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jul 2019 11:33:18 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8DF74B10-D3AF-689A-E053-0100007FC1EA</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[NEW YORK – The best illustration of the incoherence of the administration’s strategy toward Iran came last week in a White House press release. “There is little doubt that even before the deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms,” it read. The White House has not subsequently explained how a country can violate the terms of a deal before that deal existed. This is not the only example of incoherence. When Donald Trump announced last month that he had called off military strikes against Iran, he said it was because he learned that an estimated 150 Iranians would have died in those attacks. Instead he has further tightened economic sanctions against Iran. The sanctions being levied against Iran are having a “massive and crippling” effect on the country, says Jeffrey Sachs, an economist who has studied the effects of such measures. “Sanctions like these are known to cause a significant rise in mortality,” he notes. “Given the size of Iran’s population, around 81 million, this is sure to be far larger than 150 deaths.” And keep in mind, the people who would have died in the military strikes likely would have been Iranian soldiers. Those who are now dying because of sanctions are newborn babies, mothers, the elderly and sick. An academic study points out that sanctions produce widespread drug shortages, and those who suffer most are “patients struggling with cancer, multiple sclerosis, blood disorders, and other serious conditions.” The Trump administration has created a humanitarian crisis in Iran and a geopolitical crisis in the Middle East with no strategy to resolve either. The Iran pact made Tehran commit to never developing nuclear weapons and agree to limits and intrusive inspections for 10-25 years. The international inspectors – as well as the intelligence agencies of the major powers – confirmed that Iran was adhering to the deal. By withdrawing from the pact, the Trump administration has allowed Iran to start moving away from these limits. For example, Tehran had agreed that it would not develop more than 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium until 2030. It had kept within those parameters since 2015. Last week, Iran exceeded that limit, justifying its move by pointing out that the United States had itself abrogated the pact. The United States’ actions toward Iran have also created a rift within the Western alliance. Europe had been strongly supportive of Washington’s Iran policy, and the joint pressure had worked well in bringing Tehran to the negotiating table. Now the Europeans are in open revolt against Washington’s unilateralism and have even made efforts to establish an alternative payment mechanism to the dollar for trade with Iran. Other nations in the Middle East sense Iran’s weakness and are moving to take advantage. Israeli officials have privately briefed Western diplomats that they might decide to strike at Iran’s existing nuclear facilities in the near future. Saudi Arabia, for its part, has celebrated the American campaign of maximum pressure as it pursues a broad anti-Iranian policy on several fronts. As the noose tightens around Iran, it has been reacting with incremental actions by its own military or more often associated militias – from Yemen to the Persian Gulf. Each of these then produces a response from Saudi Arabia or the United States. In other words, Trump has sharply ratcheted up regional tensions with no good plan to resolve them. The Trump administration is hoping for capitulation from the Iranians, in which they will return to the negotiating table and accept a deal far more onerous than the one they signed in 2015. It’s possible that this will happen but much more likely that this regional cold war gets more tense and the likelihood of miscalculation or accidental war rises. Even if there were some kind of temporary Iranian concessions, born out of desperation, they will surely not last. Wounded, embittered powers always find a way to return with a vengeance. The Trump administration seems to forget that the Iranian civilization has been a major player in the Middle East for thousands of years. It has a population more than double the size of Iraq’s and is more strategically located. It has a strong tradition of nationalism and statecraft and a history of resisting foreign domination. The path to stability in the Middle East does not lie in strangling Iran. That will only sow the seeds of resentment and revanchism, creating a more unstable region and one in which the United States will find itself mired for decades. Alas, this is the path on which we find ourselves moving. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/assaults-on-central-banks-will-leave-us-naked/</link>
        <title>Assaults on central banks will leave us naked</title>
        <description>Elected leaders – from Donald Trump to Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan to India’s Narendra Modi – have been steadily attacking the independence of their nations’ central banks. This could end very badly. A brief history of modern central banking. As...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2019 05:33:06 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8748A76B-D598-2BEF-E053-0100007FE26A</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[NEW YORK – Around the democratic world, there is a struggle taking place that might end up the most damaging and long-lasting consequence of this era of populism. Elected leaders – from Donald Trump to Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan to India’s Narendra Modi – have been steadily attacking the independence of their nations’ central banks. This could end very badly. A brief history of modern central banking. As The Economist points out, politicians in the 1970s would routinely use central banks to goose the economy before elections, to help them win. This helped create a wave of inflation that paralyzed economies and caused untold misery. The middle class saw its hard-earned savings evaporate within a few years. As a result, over the last three decades, countries around the world have given central banks much greater independence. The United States was one of the leaders in this regard, with Paul Volcker asserting the Federal Reserve’s independence and breaking the back of the “stagflation” that had crippled the American economy in the 1970s. Today, Trump is leading the charge in the opposite direction. He is attacking the Federal Reserve and asking it not only to cut rates but to take emergency measures to boost the economy – at a time of robust growth and low unemployment. To ensure that the Fed complies with his wishes, he planned to nominate two candidates to its board whose only qualification appeared to be a slavish devotion to the president. Last year, Erdogan issued a sweeping presidential decree allowing him to directly appoint Turkey’s central bank leadership. And in March, the country’s central bank spent a staggering $2 billion trying to prop up the Turkish lira in advance of local elections. In India, Modi pushed out two central bank governors so that he could find a more pliable one. He has succeeded. In February, the bank cut rates, apparently to help him in the national elections that are now underway. In addition, and more extraordinarily, he essentially raided the central bank’s coffers for $4 billion to buy the votes of poor farmers. In South Africa, the ANC is moving to change the structure of its central bank, long private and fiercely autonomous. In the Philippines, the president appointed a close political ally to head the bank. And even in Europe, populists now routinely target their central banks. The Italian governing coalition has been attacking the central bank’s leadership and questioning whether the bank should really be the steward of $100 billion of gold reserves. That could be the start of an effort to raid the country’s gold reserves to give the economy a short-term sugar high. To get a sense of how much the intellectual mood has changed, consider this: Alan Blinder – a Princeton economics professor who had served as vice chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors – wrote an essay in 1997 arguing the Fed was so successful at policy-making, the government should adopt that model in other areas, like tax policy. He advocated the use of independent agencies and commissions to shield policy from the overt political influence of elected officials, who would want to manipulate policy for short-term advantage. Today, Trump would like to infuse the short-term passions of partisan politics into the Federal Reserve. Trump senses that the country’s mood has changed. The financial crisis and the bank bailouts have eroded the Fed’s credibility. And it’s not just in America – across the world, central banks are seen as having failed to rescue Main Street while being too solicitous of Wall Street. Some of this criticism is justified, though not in the U.S., where the actions of the Fed and the Bush and Obama administrations worked better than anywhere else. That’s why the American economy recovered fastest, and its financial sector is stronger than any other economy’s. But even where the critique has merit, the solution should not be to destroy the entire institutional structure of central bank independence. The assault on central banks will not have an immediate effect. But over time, their credibility will be eroded, their effectiveness will wane, and then, when the next crisis hits, we will all wish we had institutions that could weather the storm. But by then, it will be too late. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/anti-semitism-is-like-cancer-in-the-islamic-world/</link>
        <title>Anti-Semitism is like cancer in the Islamic world</title>
        <description>Their tweets and comments have been portrayed by some as evidence of a rising tide of anti-Semitism on the left. I don’t know what is in the hearts of the two representatives. But I believe that Muslims should be particularly...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2019 05:33:28 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">82588270-94CB-778C-E053-0100007FF4A7</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[NEW YORK – In recent weeks, attention has focused on two freshman Democratic members of Congress, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, both of whom are Muslim and have made critical statements about Israel and its most ardent American supporters. Their tweets and comments have been portrayed by some as evidence of a rising tide of anti-Semitism on the left. I don’t know what is in the hearts of the two representatives. But I believe that Muslims should be particularly thoughtful when speaking about these issues because anti-Semitism has spread through the Islamic world like a cancer. Omar and Tlaib are not responsible for this, of course, but they should be aware of this poisonous climate. In 2014, the Anti-Defamation League did a survey in more than 100 countries of attitudes toward Jews and found that anti-Semitism was twice as common among Muslims than among Christians, though it’s far more prevalent in the Middle East than the Americas. It has sometimes tragically gone beyond feelings, morphing into terror attacks against Jews, even children, in countries like France. It wasn’t always this way. In fact, through much of history, the Muslim Middle East was hospitable to Jews when Christian Europe was killing or expelling them. The historian Bernard Lewis once said to me, “People often note that in the late 1940s and 1950s, hundreds of thousands of Jews fled Arab countries. They rarely ask why so many Jews were living in those lands.” In his book “The Jews of Islam,” Lewis points out that in the Middle Ages, when polemics against Jews were common in the Christian world, they were rare in the Islamic world. In the early centuries of Islamic rule, he writes, there was “a kind of symbiosis between Jews and their neighbors that has no parallel in the Western world between the Hellenistic and modern ages. Jews and Muslims had extensive and intimate contacts that involved social as well as intellectual association – cooperation, commingling, even personal friendship.” One shouldn’t exaggerate the status of Jews back then – they were second-class citizens – but they were tolerated and encouraged to a far greater degree in Muslim societies than in Christian ones. Things changed in the Muslim world only in the late 19th century when, according to Lewis, “as a direct result of European influence, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-Semitic.” Muslims worried that the British, who came to rule much of the Middle East, were favoring the small non-Muslim communities, especially Jews. Muslims began importing European anti-Semitic tropes like the notion of blood libel, and noxious anti-Semitic works started to be translated into Arabic, including the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” What supercharged all these attitudes was the founding of Israel in 1948 and the determination of Arab leaders to defeat it. In their zeal to delegitimize the Jewish state, men like Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser promoted anti-Semitic literature and rhetoric. Arab states became vast propaganda machines for anti-Semitism, brainwashing their people with the most hateful ideas about Jews. Even the supposedly secular president of Syria, Bashar Assad, declared in 2001 that Israelis were “trying to kill all the values of the divine religions, with the same mentality that brought about the betrayal and torturing of Christ and in the same way that they tried to betray the Prophet Muhammad.” Religious states like Saudi Arabia were just as bad, if not worse. Anti-Semitism is now routine discourse in Muslim populations in the Middle East and far beyond. While some Arab governments have stepped back from the promotion of hate, the damage has been done. It should be possible to criticize Israel. As Peter Beinart has written, “establishing two legal systems in the same territory – one for Jews and one for Palestinians, as Israel does in the West Bank – is bigotry... And it has lasted for more than a half-century.” It should be possible to talk about the enormous political influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. I recall senators privately worrying that if they supported the Iran nuclear deal, AIPAC would target them. (Of course, this is true of other lobbies and is not the only reason senators voted against the deal.) These are legitimate issues to vigorously debate and discuss in America, just as in Israel. Unfortunately, by phrasing the issue as the two new representatives sometimes have, they have squandered an opportunity to further that debate. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/american-left-must-find-its-voice-on-venezuela/</link>
        <title>American left must find its voice on Venezuela</title>
        <description>It must pursue a foreign policy that helps usher out the odious regime of Nicolas Maduro without triggering a backlash against perceived American “imperialism.” It must support a political transition that doesn’t threaten the old guard so much that they...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2019 05:33:21 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">81C9C748-D121-4B27-E053-0100007FF570</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[NEW YORK – The Trump administration faces a test in Venezuela. It must pursue a foreign policy that helps usher out the odious regime of Nicolas Maduro without triggering a backlash against perceived American “imperialism.” It must support a political transition that doesn’t threaten the old guard so much that they fight to the end. And the U.S. must join with other nations to help a country that’s virtually been destroyed over the last decade. All this requires careful diplomacy and quiet pressure, not bombast. But Venezuela also poses a challenge for the Democratic Party. Can it find its voice on Venezuela and foreign policy? So far there are worrying signs that the new Democratic policy could turn out to be an isolationism that is not so different from Donald Trump’s own “America First” instincts. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii says, “The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela. Let the Venezuelan people determine their future.” Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota says, “We cannot [hand-pick] leaders for other countries on behalf of multinational corporate interests.” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders notes, “We must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups.” Does one really have to explain that Venezuela’s problems are primarily caused by its government? That the Venezuelan people have not been allowed to pick their own leaders for years, going back to Hugo Chavez’s rule? The current government has clung to power by crushing opposition, muzzling the media and using lethal force against protesters. During a single week in January, pro-Maduro forces allegedly killed at least 30 people and arrested at least 850, according to the United Nations. The Chavez-Maduro regime has destroyed what was once Latin America’s richest nation, producing an inflation rate of 1 million percent. (Prices double approximately every 19 days.) The simplest, bleakest indicator of how bad things are in Venezuela is that since 2015, an estimated 3 million Venezuelans have fled the country. That’s about 10 percent of the country. But millions more Venezuelans are staying and fighting. They have come out in droves to vote against this government, almost defeating Maduro in 2013 despite an unfair election, and successfully bringing an opposition parliament to power in 2015. For the last few years, Venezuelans have organized massive protests against the regime, enduring tear gas, arrests and killings. They have now rallied behind an opposition leader, Juan Guaido, and are using a constitutional process to shift control of the government from the regime to the elected parliament. The Venezuelan government has used its oil wealth to support anti-American movements throughout Latin America. It is well-documented that it has developed ties with Iran and even Hezbollah. The Maduro regime is supported by a rogues’ gallery of strongmen, from Vladimir Putin to Xi Jinping to Recep Tayyip Erdogan. There is a larger debate to be had about the path forward for a progressive foreign policy. There are lessons to be learned from the overextension of American power abroad, from interventions that have gone on too long. Policy toward Venezuela will require tact, caution, regional engagement and more. But to shield us from the danger of mistakes and bad actions, the answer is surely not resolute inaction. In a brilliant book released last year, “A Foreign Policy for the Left,” the political philosopher (and card-carrying leftist) Michael Walzer argues that the position of the left has tended to be inaction. The world is complicated, American power can be misused, so best to just stay the hell out. But those criteria could be a counsel for inaction at home as well. A swift transition to Medicare for All would also be fraught with complexities and risks. Walzer makes a powerful case that “in a world beset by wars and civil wars, religious zealotry, terrorist attacks, far-right nationalism, tyrannical governments, gross inequalities and widespread poverty and hunger, [the world] requires intelligent leftist attention.” One additional example: You cannot tackle climate change without a deep and continuing engagement with the other 95 percent of humanity. “Our deepest commitment is solidarity with people in trouble,” writes Walzer. Right now, there are millions in trouble in our hemisphere who are trying to help themselves. They deserve the active support of the American left. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/not-the-best-of-all-possible-worlds-but-close/</link>
        <title>Not the best of all possible worlds – but close</title>
        <description>On one side, President Trump and Fox News hosts slam the out-of-touch establishment that, according to them, has run things into the ground. On the other side, left-wingers decry the millionaires and billionaires who, in one author’s phrase, “broke the...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2019 05:33:48 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8150E8A6-4AAB-548C-E053-0100007FDB11</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[NEW YORK – This year’s World Economic Forum, more than usual, prompted a spirited round of elite-bashing, which has now become the trendy political posture on both right and left. On one side, President Trump and Fox News hosts slam the out-of-touch establishment that, according to them, has run things into the ground. On the other side, left-wingers decry the millionaires and billionaires who, in one author’s phrase, “broke the modern world.” Underlying these critiques is a bleak view of a dysfunctional global order, producing stagnant incomes, rising insecurity and environmental degradation. But is this true? On the simplest and most important measure, income, the story is one of astonishing progress. Since 1990, more than 1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty. The share of the global population living in these dire conditions has gone from 36 percent to 10 percent, the lowest in recorded history. This is, as the World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, notes, “one of the greatest achievements of our time.” Inequality, from a global perspective, has declined dramatically. And all this has happened chiefly because countries from China to Ethiopia have adopted more market-friendly policies, and Western countries have helped them with access to markets, humanitarian assistance and loan forgivenesss, policies supported by these elites. The child mortality rate is down 58 percent since 1990. Undernourishment has fallen 41 percent, and maternal deaths (women dying because of childbirth) have dropped by 43 percent over roughly the same period. I know the response that some will have to these statistics. The figures pertain to the world in general. Things might have improved for the Chinese but not for the denizens of rich countries. That sense of unfairness is what is surely fueling Trump’s America First agenda and much of the anger on the right at the international system. (More bewilderingly, the left, traditionally concerned about the poorest of the poor, has become critical of a process that has improved the lives of a billion of the world’s most impoverished people.) When criticizing the current state of affairs, it’s easy to hearken back to some nostalgic old order, the modern world before the current elites “broke” it. But when was that golden age? In the 1950s, when Jim Crow reigned in America? The 1980s, when two-thirds of the globe stagnated under state socialism, repression and isolation? What group of elites ran the world better than our current politicians and businessmen? Even in the West, it is easy to take for granted the astounding progress. We live longer, the air and water are cleaner, crime has plunged and information and communication are virtually free. Economically, there have been gains, though crucially, they have not been distributed equally. But there have been monumental improvements in access and opportunity for large segments of the population that were locked out and pushed down. In the U.S., the gap between black and white high school completion has almost disappeared. The poverty gap between blacks and whites has shrunk (but remains distressingly large). Hispanic college enrollment has soared. The gender gap between wages for men and women has narrowed. The number of female CEOs at Fortune 500 companies has gone from one to 24 over the last 20 years. Female membership in national legislatures of OECD countries has almost doubled in the same period. No countries allowed gay marriage two decades ago, but more than 20 countries do today. In all these areas, much remains to be done. But in each of them, there has been striking progress. I understand that important segments of the Western working class are under great pressure, and that they often feel ignored and left behind by this progress. We must find ways to give them greater economic support and moral dignity. But extensive research shows that some of their discomfort comes from watching a society in which these other groups are rising, changing the nature of the world in which they’d enjoyed a comfortable status. After 400 years of slavery, segregation and discrimination in America, blacks have been moving up. After thousands of years of being treated as structurally subordinate, women are now gaining genuine equality. Once considered criminals or deviants, gays can finally live and love freely in many countries. The fact that these changes might cause discomfort to some is not a reason to pause, nor to forget that it represents deep and lasting human progress that we should celebrate. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/what-khashoggis-deaths-says-about-america/</link>
        <title>What Khashoggi’s deaths says about America</title>
        <description>First, Saudi Arabia. As has been often noted, Jamal Khashoggi used to be part of the Saudi establishment. Although not a member of the House of Saud, he was well-born and well-connected. He edited an important Saudi newspaper and worked...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 06:03:07 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7897DD7D-0F5A-22D3-E053-0100007FFD69</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[NEW YORK – The apparent murder of Jamal Khashoggi tells us something important about Saudi Arabia. But it also tells us something important about America. First, Saudi Arabia. As has been often noted, Jamal Khashoggi used to be part of the Saudi establishment. Although not a member of the House of Saud, he was well-born and well-connected. He edited an important Saudi newspaper and worked for senior royals. I first met him 14 years ago; he was one of the people who assisted me when I spent a week in Riyadh and Jeddah. Khashoggi was working for Prince Turki al-Faisal, the longtime head of Saudi intelligence who was at that time ambassador to Britain and would later become ambassador to the United States. Turki is one of the sons of King Faisal -– in other words, as senior a royal as you can get, other than the monarch. Khashoggi was, even in those days, a liberal and a reformer but always moderate and incremental in his approach. He worried that too much reform would be disruptive. “I would like to see my government taking harsher measures against [extremist elements],” he told me in 2005. But at the same time, he warned about going too fast. “We do not want to break the society,” he said. Watching Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s approach today, a mix of authoritarianism and real reforms, Khashoggi became more critical but was never a radical. So why was he apparently seen as so threatening? Perhaps because he was respected within the Saudi establishment. Harvard’s Tarek Masoud suggests that the Khashoggi affair might signal that there is greater dissent within the Saudi establishment than we had believed. If so, this is significant. Historically, Saudi Arabia has maintained stability because it was really a patronage state, not a police state. The kingdom has typically dealt with its critics and dissenters by buying them off – most importantly in the case of hardline clerics. It employed this strategy again most recently after the Arab Spring, when it massively increased subsidies to the people and gave bonuses to government employees. It worked. Yet MBS, as the Saudi crown prince is known, appears to be changing the patronage model, bringing it closer to the police-state one. He has mixed economic, social and religious reforms with an ever-tighter grip on power, shaking down businessmen, imprisoning activists, targeting news platforms – and now, it would seem, executing a columnist. Leaving aside their immorality, ruthless actions such as these tend to produce instability in the long run. Mohammed bin Salman is a complicated figure. He has moved Saudi Arabia forward in some areas while moving it toward greater repression in others. But the larger issue is that America’s foreign policy should not be based on personalities. Donald Trump’s worldview seems utterly rooted in his likes and dislikes of other leaders – from Kim Jong Un to Angela Merkel to MBS. In the Middle East, this has led to the blind subcontracting of American foreign policy to Saudi Arabia. Washington has watched and de facto endorsed the kingdom as it ramped up its war in Yemen, blockaded Qatar, quarreled with Turkey, and essentially kidnapped the prime minister of Lebanon. All these moves have, in large measure, failed. America’s Middle East policy should be based on its interests and values in the region, and these will never be perfectly aligned with any one country. Historically, this has meant being an honest broker, respected by all major powers. It is what allowed Henry Kissinger to practice shuttle diplomacy and pull Egypt away from the Soviet camp, and it is what helped Jimmy Carter forge the Camp David accords. This is why, from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to Barack Obama, the U.S. government has urged even its Arab allies to undertake serious political reforms. All this requires nuance, sophistication and ceaseless high-quality diplomacy. This is the price of being the leader of the free world, a job that we appear of late to have vacated. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/zakaria-there-is-only-one-way-out-of-afghanistan/</link>
        <title>Zakaria: There is only one way out of Afghanistan</title>
        <description>Now we get reports that the Trump administration is searching for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. However meandering the road, the administration is on the right path. But it is a very difficult one to navigate. The war in...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 23:00:53 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">72D1D7F1-361D-7C84-E053-0100007FAF71</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[NEW YORK — Donald Trump campaigned as someone who wanted to get America out of the Middle East. But he also cast himself as a tough guy, and his initial instincts in office were to show force – added troops, more aggressive rules of engagement, bigger bombs – in America’s war zones. “These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide,” he said when announcing a troop surge in Afghanistan. Now we get reports that the Trump administration is searching for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. However meandering the road, the administration is on the right path. But it is a very difficult one to navigate. The war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001, is already the longest military operation in U.S. history. Our involvement there cannot be compared to the U.S. military presence in Germany, Japan or South Korea. The permanent bases in those countries were designed to deter external aggression (from North Korea, for example). In Afghanistan, America is engaged in a military effort to ensure that the Kabul government is not overthrown by an insurgency. more comparable to a neocolonial force supporting a friendly local ruler. For this reason, both the Bush and Obama administrations sought a way out of Afghanistan. But they found it difficult to just leave and declare victory. First, the simple reality was that the Taliban inexorably advanced as American troops withdrew, putting the democratically elected Kabul government – which is friendly to the U.S – in mortal peril. Second, as America stepped back, it was clear that other countries – regional powers like India, China, Iran and Russia – would fill the vacuum. And finally, with all its factions, there was no single Taliban with which to negotiate. And yet, the United States cannot stay in Afghanistan forever. Our presence distorts American foreign policy, tying significant resources to an area of limited national interest. It also creates an inevitable dependency for the fragile Afghan government. America is spending $45 billion a year on security and economic aid for Afghanistan. That’s more than double Afghanistan’s entire GDP. So what is the right exit strategy? In an essay in Foreign Affairs, pre-eminent scholar Barnett Rubin argues that any political settlement will be extremely difficult and will require negotiations with both the Taliban and regional powers. The central reality Washington must come to grips with is that it will have to allow the Taliban a more formal role in power sharing. In a comprehensive 2014 report, a pair of Rand scholars showed that, historically, the key to ending protracted insurgencies has usually been to accommodate the insurgents within the new political order. In a conversation with me, Rubin offered some guidelines for a possible pathway to a political settlement. Don’t let the U.S. military be the lead negotiators, he cautioned, because their stark message to the insurgents has been “reconcile or die,” as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, has made clear. “This is not the way to start a dialogue with people whose entire culture is organized around personal and collective honor, which, by the way, is a much bigger factor in this war than so-called ‘extremist Islam,’” Rubin said. He added that it’s obvious that this conflict has no purely military solution. If there were, the war wouldn’t be in its 17th year. He pointed out that even maintaining the current military involvement requires better political ties with Afghanistan’s neighbors. “Look at a map,” Rubin said. “Afghanistan is landlocked. America needs supply routes.” The three countries that could help with access are Pakistan, Russia and Iran, and we have bad relations with all three. Rubin’s chief advice is to work hard at the diplomacy. Recognize that other countries have an interest in Afghanistan and engage them. A successful outcome is entirely dependent upon involvement from India, Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran. Rubin suggests appointing a special envoy, ideally conferred with broader legitimacy under the authority of the United Nations. But whatever the process, crucially, Washington will have to decide whether it is willing to get serious about Afghanistan. It cannot, for example, keep fantasizing about overthrowing the Iranian regime while simply hoping for a settlement in Afghanistan. Iran and Pakistan have the means to ensure that Afghanistan stays unstable forever. The largest regional issue is for Washington to decide how much to involve India, which would shift the strategic landscape altogether. This is the difficult, painstaking work of diplomacy that the Trump administration has tried to ignore, demean and defund. But if the president actually wants to extricate America from its unending wars, it’s the only way out. Fareed Zakaria writes for the Washington Post reach him at fareed.zakaria.gps@turner.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/trump-lost-immigration-battle-may-win-the-war/</link>
        <title>Trump lost immigration battle, may win the war</title>
        <description>Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Postdu1-i-syn With this tussle, Trump sent a clear reminder to his supporters of one simple thing – that he is willing to get tough on immigration. The president’s cruelty made it easy to oppose his policy....</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 22:44:13 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6F98F95D-63A1-27F9-E053-0100007F038A</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=F213335F-B314-4EDB-A95A-DF46DE559BF5&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=F213335F-B314-4EDB-A95A-DF46DE559BF5&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Postdu1-i-syn NEW YORK – Democrats are exultant that Donald Trump had to reverse his policy of separating immigrant families at the border. And there is good reason to celebrate: The policy was mean-spirited and unnecessary. But I do wonder whether this episode will prove to be as damaging to the president as liberals think. With this tussle, Trump sent a clear reminder to his supporters of one simple thing – that he is willing to get tough on immigration. The president’s cruelty made it easy to oppose his policy. But in their delight at the Trump administration’s latest misstep, Democrats may be walking into a trap. The larger question is surely: Should the country enforce its immigration laws or, if circumvented, should we just give up? According to a UN report, last year the U.S. became the world’s leading destination for asylum-seekers, with a 44 percent increase of Central Americans, who comprised almost half the total at about 140,000. David Frum suggests in The Atlantic that most of these people are probably coming to escape poverty rather than violence (which has been declining), and that many hope bringing children will help them avoid punishment. That’s why, when asked in 2014 about the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who had come to the border, Hillary Clinton responded, “We have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay. We don’t want to send a message that’s contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.” Immigration has become an issue that motivates a large group of Americans passionately, perhaps like no other. Some of this might be rooted in racism. But it also represents a kind of heightened nationalism. In an era of rampant globalization, people want to believe that they still maintain some sense of stability and control. Nationalism has been around for centuries, but it is now, in a sense, the last doctrine standing. The great story of the 20th century was the loss of faith. Between the ascendance of science, socialism and secularism, people lost their trust in the dogmas and duties of religion. But this didn’t change the reality that they wanted something they could believe in, something with which they could have a deep, emotional bond. Nationalism has increasingly become that substitute for many on the right, being endowed with a strong and almost mystical attachment. For many on the left, by contrast, nationalism is more of an irrational affinity for a group of people with whom one shares an arbitrary border. Why should, say, a devout Catholic in New Hampshire feel a closer connection to a radical atheist who lives 2,500 miles away in California compared to a fellow Catholic a few hundred miles away in Canada? But such has been the power of nationalism that it continues to move people to great acts of courage, loyalty, cruelty and hatred. Immigration has become the litmus test of nationalism, perhaps because other sources have faded or become politically unmentionable. There was a time when nationalism was deeply intertwined in many corners of the globe with religion or ethnicity. And it would be described in those terms openly and proudly. But as Western societies became more diverse, and as minority groups within them asserted their own identities, it became more difficult to define nationalism by those older ingredients. So what remains? How does one define a nation? For Americans, political ideas and ideology have always been at the heart. That is why being a communist could be thought of as “un-American.” But beyond ideology, there has also been, even in America, a more emotional conception of the nation. And immigration has become a proxy for that gut feeling, the sense that the country must be able to define itself, choose whom it will allow to come in, and privilege its citizens over foreigners. The solutions to America’s broken immigration system are complicated. But Democrats would do well to remember plain symbolism as well, something Bill Clinton and Barack Obama never forgot, which is why their rhetoric and actions on immigration were often far more centrist than those of many current Democratic leaders. In politics, people recall a few simple things. To illustrate that point, a pollster in the 1980s once told me a story. A focus group asked a man whom he would vote for, Ronald Reagan or his Democratic opponent, Walter Mondale. “Reagan,” the man said. “Mondale is a communist.” The pollster explained that this wasn’t true. The man replied, “Well, maybe. I’ll still vote for Reagan. One thing I know, no one’s ever thought he was a communist!” Donald Trump might have lost this round. But no one will ever think he’s soft on illegal immigration. Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him at comments@fareedzakaria.com. © 2018 Washington Post Writers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
</channel>
</rss>
