We are ending a decade in nine days from today, although technically a decade begins with a “1”, not a zero, but to most people, the fact that the number changes from “1” to “2” as the first digit, marks it as a new decade.
So looking back ten years, what are the major events in public affairs that have had an impact?
In no special order, here are the most significant events of the past decade:
The “Arab Spring”, which led to turmoil in the Middle East, and led to civil war and massive bloodshed in the area, but ultimately being overcome by authoritarian leaders and conditions of anarchy and chaos.
The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), accomplished in the second year of the Obama Presidency.
The death of Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, after avoiding capture for nearly ten years.
The election of Pope Francis by the Catholic Church, having a massive impact on Catholic doctrine, and liberalizing the church’s doctrines and teachings.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, leading to sanctions against Russia by the US and many European nations, and leading to Vladimir Putin working to undermine western democracies for the remainder of the decade.
The rise of the terrorist group ISIS (ISIL), which controlled large portions of Iraq and Syria, and engaged in massive abuses and tortures and executions, eventually mostly overcome by efforts of European nations and the United States.
The candidacy and election of Donald Trump to the Presidency, despite his divisive rhetoric and elements of nativism, racism, and misogyny.
Gay Marriage decision of the Supreme Court, a revolutionary change in American society.
Restoration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba, after five and a half decades of total isolation.
The massive tragedies of gun violence in schools, theaters, churches, synagogues, nightclubs, open air concerts, shopping malls and supermarkets, with no attempt to address the issue due to the power of the National Rifle Association over Congress and President Donald Trump.
Russian intervention in the Presidential Election of 2016, helping to secure the victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote by 2.85 million votes, largest loss of popular vote of an Electoral College winner in American history.
The effects of the “Me Too” movement of women exposing sexual harassment against prominent public figures, causing many to lose their careers and reputations.
The horrendous policy of separating migrant children from their families at the southern border with Mexico and Central America, causing great condemnation of the Trump Administration.
The Robert Mueller investigation of the Trump Presidential campaign, and the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections of 2018, leading to the impeachment of Donald Trump after exposure of the Ukraine Scandal.
The growing reality of climate change and global warming, with the US under Donald Trump refusing to keep the Paris Accord of 2015 on goals for lowering of carbon emissions.
Interesting list, Professor. Permit me to offer my own, also in no particular order:
1. The US Supreme Court ruling re Citizens United, which codified and sanctified America’s $1= 1 Vote political system.
2. The national, sovereign Debt went from $12+ Trillion on 01jan2010 to $23+ trillion today.
3. In 2010, the US spent $2.5 Trillion on health care; in 2018, it spent $3.6 trillion.
4. The revelations of Edward Snowden on America’s panopticon.
5. The World population exceeded 7 Billion.
6. Brexit and the collapse of European unity.
7. The recovery of Russia from the disintegration of the USSR and the rise of China from the insanity of Mao as legitimate challengers to US global, unipolar hegemony.
8. “The Afghanistan Papers” and its revelations about “The Forever War.”
9. The University of Alaska [Fairbanks] Study about the collapse of WTC-7 on 9/11, and proof that that building did not fall because of fires.
10. The national and global explosion of Right-wing nationalism, nativism, populism, patriotism, racism, etc, and the national and global decline of the Left as a viable, functioning alternative.
As regards Your list, permit me a couple of questions:
re: The “Arab Spring” Other than who the dictators were and became, what did it actually, really change in the Middle East for the people who live there? What good did it accomplish and for whom?
re: ObamaCare. Why have health care costs gone up so markedly and the general state of Americans’ health gone down? See #3 above.
re: The “death” of bin Laden. How did that accomplish anything more than the recent death of al-Baghdadi, which was nothing? See #8 above.
re: The election of Pope Francis. What is the impact of the Catholic Church today in Swampland, on Wall Street, at the UN, in the EU, etc etc etc? And when will the Church get serious about its sexual predator problem?
re: Putin. Hasn’t he been “working to undermine western democracies” ever since he went to work for the KGB?
re: Trump. Wasn’t his candidacy and election more BECAUSE OF his divisive rhetoric and elements of nativism, racism, and misogyny, rather than “despite” it?
re: “The massive tragedies of gun violence… .” Given that “U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms [which] amounts to ‘120.5 firearms for every 100 residents’,” isn’t there more at work here than just the NRA? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership]
re: the “largest loss of popular vote of an Electoral College winner in American history.” Would You be complaining if Trump had won the popular vote and Clinton had won the College?
Happy Solstice.
Excellent list, Professor.
Debunking the WTC 7: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
Brexit and the collapse of European unity = not good.
Rise of right-wing nationalism and fall of democracy and liberalism = not good for the world.
The University of Alaska [Fairbanks] Institute of Northern Engineering’s “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7” uses hard physics and established architectural and structural engineering facts to thoroughly debunk and totally demolish the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s “long-awaited report” [16years after 9/11] on what brought down WTC-7. [http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7]
Popular Mechanics has been a champion and cheerleader of the “Official Conspiracy Theory” [that 19 Arabs with boxcutters, etc… You know the rest of the story] since 9/12.
Go to https://www.ktva.com/story/41015153/fire-did-not-cause-world-trade-center-building-7-collapse-uaf-study-suggests to see and read an evening news item on CBS affiliate KTVA-TV in Anchorage, broadcast Friday, September 6, 2019.
Rustbelt – Thanks for posting some truthful information.
Pragmatic – These changes are scaring me as well.
Are You implying, Princess Leia, that the UAF WTC-7 Report is not “truthful,” and that the NIST/PopMech story is ?
How truthful was this government about the Tonkin Gulf Incident back in 1964 that got us into Viet Nam?
How truthful was this government about the Kwaiti Incubator Babies back in 1990 that got us into the First Invasion of Iraq?
How truthful was this government about Saddam’s WMDs in 2003 that got us into the Second Invasion of Iraq?
How truthful has this government been about its 18-year, $6 Trillion “Forever War,” as revealed by “The Afghanistan Papers”?
Given that sterling record of “truthfulness” by this government when it comes to getting and keeping this nation involved in Wars, what is Your basis for assuming that this government is telling You the truth about what happened on 9/11: the only reason that that “Forever War” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Africa, etc, was able to be sold to the American people, in the first place?
i look forward to Your response.
Agree with the others. The official information about 9/11 is NOT a conspiracy theory.
Precisely, Rational Lefty!
The thing is, some of us here are in our 30s and the only wars we are most knowledgeable about are Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Questions That Will Ultimately Define Who We Are
Can our pluralistic democracy survive an attack by those who view themselves as engaged in a holy war?
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/24/the-questions-that-will-ultimately-define-who-we-are/
In his article calling for the removal of Donald Trump from office, Mark Galli of Christianity Today noted the unambiguous evidence that the president has abused his power. But then he added this.
[The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.]
That gets to the heart of the issue about Trump for many people of faith. The man has demonstrated a lack of morality in how he conducts himself in office, as well as in his personal life. Beyond his history of sexually abusing women (and bragging about it), are the ubiquitous lies. As we witnessed once again during the rally in Michigan when Trump suggested that Representative John Dingell was looking up from hell, there is also the cruelty.
When it comes to the latter, Kathleen Parker wrote that it is a shame that cruelty isn’t an impeachable offense. But I was immediately reminded of the powerful piece from Adam Serwer titled, “The Cruelty Is the Point.â€
[Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright.]
That is a harsh assessment and I personally know people of faith who abhor Trump’s particular brand of cruelty. But Serwer isn’t completely wrong in his assessment. The culture of resentment on which the president’s base of support is built assumes that they are at war. As such, they revel in the president’s cruelty. For example, here is Evan Sayet.
[The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.
The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.
With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War…
So, to my friends on the Left – and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial†and “dignified†and “proper� Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war.]
That is only a bit more militant than something we recently heard from the attorney general during a speech he gave at the Federalist Society.
[In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end…
Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing…
…there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy war.]
As our culture continues to open the doors of belonging to those who have traditionally been left out, the people who hold that worldview see themselves as losing a “holy war†with enemies who are out to destroy them. That is what feeds their sense of resentment and victimhood. As Lance Mannion wrote, “if they are under attack, then they’re free to fight back.†It is in that sense that they embrace Donald Trump’s cruelty rather than find it appalling.
The question this raises for the rest of us is whether our pluralistic democracy can survive an attack by those who view themselves as engaged in a “holy war.†Is there a place for reasoned dialogue and disagreement with those who have chosen to use “any means necessary†to impose their will on everyone else? On the other hand, can our pluralistic democracy survive if we join them in sacrificing reasoned dialogue on the alter of winning at all costs? Finally, will these questions ultimately be answered if Donald Trump is resoundingly defeated at the ballot box in 2020? Or will the challenge persist?
To be honest, I don’t have the answers to those questions. As we head into the new year, they will continue to be front and center as our country struggles with defining who we are and what we want to become. What I can promise is that the Washington Monthly will be here as those questions unfold and we’ll do our best to reflect on how they’re being answered.
I hope you’ll join us for that journey and, to help us keep that promise, please take a moment to donate to our current fundraising drive. We can’t do this without your financial support. Thank you!
The Iraq War, was a disastrous, expensive, and stupid mistake, but the Afghanistan War was a justifiable war against a country that harbored the perpetrators of 9/11. I do agree that it’s time to pull out now but it’s not wise to do it rashly, the way Dumb Dumb Trump would.
Seconded, FR.
The rest of us also second that, FR.
We have family coming for Christmas, so we’re finished with this conversation. See you and D after the holidays.
Before I exit, a bit about Brexit –
The Beginning of Brexit
Boris Johnson may soon regret having gotten what he wanted.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/24/the-beginning-of-brexit/
As Boris Johnson stepped up to the podium on Friday, December 13, he paused momentarily.
What may have gone through his mind is anyone’s guess: He may have thought back to his school days at Eton College; one of his classmates was another Prime Minister, David Cameron, who started the United Kingdom’s long road toward exiting the European Union. Or maybe he thought back to the moment last year when he categorically stated that he would never be the British premier: “I’ve got more chance of being reincarnated as an olive.†How times have changed.
Maybe—and hopefully—Johnson thought about something far more important: What’s next? The debate, after all, is now over. Following last Friday’s vote in the Houses of Parliament, Brexit will really happen. With the deal approved, Johnson will confirm to the European Union that the UK will leave on January 31. In other words, he will begin his premiership by finally getting what his Eurosceptic supporters have long wanted—and what he promised to “die in a ditch†to deliver.
But it won’t be simple. That is merely the beginning of a long and arduous process. For one, Johnson promised voters he would seek to renegotiate better trade terms with the EU once Brexit was complete. That will not come easy. There will be three key political questions that will have to be answered as well.
Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom will be fiercely contested. As a Scotsman myself, Independence does seem an attractive option. (I consider myself an EU national above all else, and Scotland separating itself from the UK could be the best way for me to become an EU citizen once more).
Still, there are multiple holes in the argument that Scotland should seek independence from the UK to join the EU. For starters, there is no guarantee that Scotland would be welcomed back. Spain may well veto Scotland joining to stave off fresh attempts for Catalonian Independence. What’s more, it’s highly unlikely Scotland would meet the various financial and policy criteria the EU requires for members. Not to mention, the mandate from the Scottish people is not fully there—only 46 percent of the Scottish electorate voted for nationalist parties last year, up just 1 percent from the Independence Referendum in 2014. But the greatest Independence obstacle is none other than Boris Johnson. He has categorically ruled out allowing another a referendum for the duration of his tenure.
The second major issue concerns the fate of the left. The Labour Party will face some major existential questions following an abysmal result in this month’s election. It has been 80 years since the party suffered such a shocking defeat, losing seats which had been Labour strongholds for more than a century. Labour’s stance on Brexit was neutral—at no point did Jeremy Corbyn state whether he was in favor of remaining or leaving the EU. Indeed, that was the official party line. Members of Parliament would have their own individual preference—the majority were, in fact, remainers—but they had to stand on a ticket of neutrality. But Corbyn proved to be more unpopular than any of their stances on Brexit. Many of his policy ideas, such as free universal high-speed WiFi, universal free dental checkups, and the banning of all private schools, were considered wishful at best and ill-thought through. Perhaps his greatest failure was a lame response to the numerous anti-Semitism allegations made against him and close allies in the party.
The Labour Party must now regroup. It will need to find a new identity in a post-Brexit world. Otherwise, it stands to become relegated to irrelevance much in the same way Israel’s Labor Party has descended over the last 15 years.
Early in the new year, Corbyn will step down from his role as Labour leader. That will begin the battle for the new soul of the party. Hard-left candidates like the Corbyn allies Rebecca Long-Bailey and Clive Lewis are amassing support already. Both are also senior officials in Corbyn’s leadership team. Other more centrist candidates have been cautious about putting themselves forward. So far, only Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry has entered the fray, while it is expected that Brexit-backing Lisa Nandy and remain-stalwart Yvette Cooper will both vie for leadership, too. The real joker card, however, will be Sir Keir Starmer, a human rights lawyer and the Shadow Brexit Secretary, should he choose to enter the race. In Corbyn’s shadow cabinet he was considered to be the bridge between centrists and left-wing MPs. He is rumored to be the candidate Johnson would fear the most.
Yet whoever the party members choose, the utmost priority should be to end the infighting that has weakened the British left and enabled the rise of Brexiteers in the first place.
Finally, and probably most importantly, Johnson must also come up with an answer for the issue of the Irish Border. Get that wrong and we could see a return to The Troubles. The prime minister’s current plan requires check points between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, which is deeply unpopular among unionists, who want one united country with no soft borders with the EU. At the same time, not having a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland was an red line for the EU during negotiations—a condition to which Johnson agreed. Johnson is in a precarious situation. His electorate wants one thing, but the European Union, Ireland, and Northern Ireland all want something else.
The other problem is that there is no clear map of where the exact border should go. The official border has never been drawn out, meaning that there are multiple landowners with land that will be split in half. The line could go directly through homes, villages, and streets.
There are other questions to be resolved, too. Will there be a gap between the two nations with a neutral zone? And, of course, who will pay for the border? Both the UK and the EU have, unsurprisingly, failed to find common ground. The EU insists that the bulk of the expense should be on the UK, since it’s the UK that wants the border in the first place. But paying for brand new buildings, new staff to police the border 24 hours a day, new checkpoints, and other facilities will add up quickly, and it does not appear that Johnson’s government is planning to allocate any funds in a future budget for a border.
But Johnson will need to prioritize this issue over all others. If he gets the border plan wrong, there could be violence. Irish Republicans would not take kindly to having the North cut away with a border while Ulster Unionists would have similar sentiments should the border remain between Northern Ireland and the UK. Johnson and his government will be responsible for any bloodshed.
Nevertheless, the argument the United Kingdom has been having with itself over the last four years is over. Brexit will happen. But how it will happen and what happens next remains anyone’s guess. Johnson will face huge dilemmas as he tries to ensure his plan does not result in chaos. At the moment, he is basking in his victory, but he is still in a precarious situation. The UK is fractured to the point that it may never fully heal as a whole. So while the Brexit debate is over, the real journey of Brexit has only just begun.
To me, Brexit sounds like a big f–ing mess.
FR wrote: “The Iraq War, was a disastrous, expensive, and stupid mistake, but the Afghanistan War was a justifiable war against a country that harbored the perpetrators of 9/11. I do agree that it’s time to pull out now but it’s not wise to do it rashly, the way Dumb Dumb Trump would.”
The people of Afghanistan did not harbor the alleged perpetrators of 9/11; its government did. And it is the people of Afghanistan that have suffered by our “justified” invasion and destruction of their land, their country, their civil society, and their culture. And how are the people and land of Afghanistan in any way different ~ or “better” ~ today than it was on October 7, 2001, when we invaded?
And if Iraq was “disastrous, expensive, and stupid,” how does that make pulling out of Afghanistan ~ after accomplishing absolutely nothing in 18 years but make the US military industrial complex $6 trillion richer ~ “rash”? How much longer do You propose we stay? Until there is “peace”?
3,000 people [not just Americans] got killed on 9/11. How many Afghanistanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Libyans, Somalians, Yemenis, West and Equatorial Africans, and Syrians have to be killed [crippled, widowed, orphaned, rendered homeless, jobless, hopeless, and futureless] before the need for America’s “justifiable” revenge, retaliation, and retribution is satisfied?
RL wrote: “Agree with the others. The official information about 9/11 is NOT a conspiracy theory.”
Oxford defines a conspiracy as “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”
Do You agree that 9/11 was a conspiracy?
It defines a theory as “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained; eg ‘Darwin’s theory of evolution’.”
How, then, is the “official information” about 9/11 NOT a conspiracy theory? Albeit, the “Official Conspiracy Theory,” but a conspiracy theory, nonetheless.
Southern Liberal wrote: “The thing is, some of us here are in our 30s and the only wars we are most knowledgeable about are Afghanistan and Iraq.”
What about the Wars in Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, West and Equatorial Africa, and Syria? Are You knowledgeable about them?
And those of You in Your 30s who are unfamiliar with what the Vietnamese call “The American War” and the First Iraq War [the “liberation of Kuwait”] would do well to learn about them. They will help You understand “The Forever War” in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond.
And You would do very well to become more knowledgeable about the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq if for no other reason than that Y’All are going to be paying for them for the rest of Y’All’s lives.
i’m not in the least bit surprised that nobody even hinted at answering my question about why You believe what the government told You about 9/11 as justification for “The Forever War,” given the Lies it told You in order to justify the Viet Nam, First Iraq, and Second Iraq Wars.
i have been asking that exact same question to America’s anti-War Ruling Elite for several years now, and have received the same response.
Merry Christmas.
i would say that there is a very good chance that Boris Johnson may be the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Just as there is a very good chance that Donald Trump may be the last President of the United States.
Dude, take a break and go celebrate Christmas.
LOL, yeah, hush for a while, dude.
But, but, but….”dudes”…: i’m on break every time i hang out here. Y’All have a grand holiday. i can’t wait to see those new articles of impeachment. lmfao.
Correction – Other than Former Republican and Rustbelt Democrat and maybe D, the rest of us are ladies. For us ladies, military issues are lower on our list of what we vote for than domestic issues (healthcare, education, etc.).
Well, Ladies; as i said above: Y’All would do very well to elevate “military issues” on Your list of what and ~ more importantly ~ who You vote for; if for no other reason than that Y’All are going to be paying for them for the rest of Y’All’s lives.
For example: How much would that $738 Billion in this FY2020’s NDAA accomplish being spent, instead, on “healthcare, education, etc.”?
When the primary rolls around for my neck of the woods, I plan to vote for Biden. Like the rest of my family and friends, I think that Biden has the best chance of beating Trump.
Martin Longman thinks that the primary will be won by either Bernie or Biden.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/26/biden-and-sanders-were-always-in-the-drivers-seat/