AKP GOES KAPUT
A lot of folks are greeting this as good news . . . Turkey's Islamist-rooted government lost its majority in national elections after 13 years in power, raising the prospect of a coalition government and dealing a crushing blow to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's push to consolidate power. With almost all of the ballots counted, the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, was on course to win less than 41% of the vote, according to results published by state-run Anadolu news agency. That falls 18 seats short of the 276 needed to form a single-party government in Ankara's 550-member parliament. The count also showed a historic victory for the People's Democratic Party, or HDP, which was on track to secure 13% of the vote after campaigning on a pluralistic platform to woo minorities, liberals, left-wing and antigovernment voters. This marks the first time the party, rooted in Kurdish nationalism, has crossed the 10% electoral threshold to enter parliament. AKP getting knocked around is good news, but my sense back when I was living in Ankara is that certain traits are baked into the cake of the Turkish political system no matter which party is running the show: a deep vein of paranoia that every other country is out to get Turkey, a wariness that enemies within are constantly at work (admittedly, sometimes true) . . . while at the same time, a strange naiveté about the country's rough neighbors, particularly Syria and Iran, and an attitude towards Israel that is schizophrenic at best and nauseatingly anti-Semitic at worst. Back when I was there, the only force in Turkish life that seemed to consistently have a clear view of the country's real enemies and forces of destabilization -- i.e., Iranian mullahs, Assad, Islamist extremists, and terror groups -- was the Turkish military -- and obviously not everyone in it. They tended to have a cordial, if not warm, relationship with the Israeli military -- joint-training, etc. Of course, I'm not going to pretend that my knowledge about Turkish politics isn't dated. It is. Take that with as many grains of salt as you need. Anyway, I wouldn't expect Turkey to suddenly become a more useful, predictable, and enthusiastic partner to the United States in its rough neighborhood. But maybe it's a slight turn in the right direction. Our Patrick Brennan points out: Once upon a time, President Obama had looked to Erdogan's Turkey as a model for how to integrate Islam and democracy and modernize a Middle Eastern economy (Erdogan had aggressively marketed it thus, as well -- it wasn't Obama's invention). Erdogan still got a big chunk of the vote today, but with a troubled economy and his Islamist and authoritarian impulses proving stronger and more unpopular than expected, we have more evidence he wasn't the right man to bet on. Turkey is about to enter the horse-trading period of parliamentary politics, where every party scrambles to see which coalition option gives them the most leverage: The election results, which do not yet include independent candidates and the allocation of surplus votes, are liable to turn Erdogan from omnipotent president to a leader battling to maintain the political infrastructure that built him and landed him in the grandiose presidential White Palace, a new, 1,100-room structure whose construction he championed, and whose opulence may well have contributed to the political blow he received. The first difficulty will be to establish a government that will be able to sustain itself without having to face frequent no-confidence votes. At the moment, there appear to be two possible coalition partners for the AKP; one is the secularist MHP, headed by Devlet Bahceli, while the second, ironically enough, is the pro-Kurdish party headed by Selahattin Demirtaş. At least in theory, there is a chance of the three smaller parties forming a coalition, which together are projected to have more seats than AKP. But the ideological differences between them are too great for them to be able to function as a governing coalition, and they in any case wouldn't want to face AKP in opposition, since the latter still holds great sway over the Turkish public. Or, strangely enough, they could just try again with another election: Turkey should hold an early election if the ruling AK Party is unable to agree a coalition with parliament's two other opposition parties, the leader of Turkey's opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) said on Monday. How Will Flynn and LaHood Play in Peoria? We're about a month away from the primary elections in Illinois's special House election to replace Representative Aaron Schock. The primary election is on July 7 -- meaning there's an excellent chance turnout, usually low in special elections, will be even lower, with people still recovering from the fun of July 4 weekend, perhaps traveling for vacations, etc. Early voting has already started. It's a heavily-Republican district, so the September 10 Special House election is expected to be an afterthought. If you've been reading Breitbart.com for years, you may recognize candidate Mike Flynn. Being connected in the world of conservative media has its advantages; Flynn has already been endorsed by Stephen Moore, David Bossie, Erick Erickson, and Dana Loesch. The other big name is state senator Darin LaHood -- son of Ray LaHood, former Republican congressman and Obama's first Secretary of Transportation. Ray LaHood, oh, he's a not-lawyer at the lobbying firm DLA Piper, where he's completely not lobbying. He recently appeared on MSNBC to declare "America is one big pothole" and attributing the Amtrak crash in Philadelphia to insufficient federal spending, adding, "Republicans are short-sighted and have a blind spot" on infrastructure spending. For what it's worth, Darin LaHood says on the issue of spending, "For far too long the Federal Government has not been living within its means. Our national debt is $18 trillion and growing and we continue to have a government that spends, taxes, and borrows too much. In Congress, I will push to rein in government spending in order to tackle the national debt, ensuring that our children and grandchildren are not forced to pay for the mistakes of our generation." No, really, that's all it says on the "SPENDING" section of his web site. Ace of Spades gives Flynn the highest praise he can imagine: Flynn has offered to give the voters an informed choice -- offering to debate LaHood at any time, in any forum. LaHood, favored simultaneously by John Boehner and Barack Obama, has refused. As Flynn said, when he told me about his plans to run: We can't just keep electing Democrats in Disguise and then whine that we're not advancing conservative politics. At some point, we have to either make different choices, or admit to ourselves that we actively wish to be ruled by Boehner and Barack. Flynn is no lightweight. In addition to having been Illinois legislative point-man in DC for years, and then working on the writing side of conservative politics for both Reason and Breitbart.com, he's also, honestly, a genius, and I do not use that term lightly, generally believing that I should not dilute the power of the word by employing it to describe anyone but the most truly deserving of recognition for the incandescent brilliance of their minds, by which I chiefly mean myself. Must We Flip Out Every Time a Celebrity Does Something Outrageous? Friday Bob Costa and Philip Rucker wrote a piece entitled, 'Caitlyn Jenner comes out, and social conservatives take an apocalyptic view.' The piece concludes . . . Bryan Fischer, a firebrand who bashes minorities of all stripes — Muslims and Mormons, blacks and gays — said on his American Family Radio program Monday that he refuses to refer to Jenner as a woman. "If you want one snapshot of just how corrupt — how morally corrupt, how morally bent, how morally twisted, how morally confused, how morally bankrupt — we have become," Fischer said, "all you've got to do is take a look at the cover of Vanity Fair magazine." To quote Tonto, "What do you mean, 'we,' paleface?" Do you control what Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner does? Did you make the decision to put Jenner on the cover? So how is this your fault? Fischer doesn't mean "we." He means "they." And here's what I don't get -- was the cover of Vanity Fair ever really American Christians' preeminent measuring stick for moral corruption, confusion, bankruptcy, etc.? Remember the 1991 controversy about pregnant, naked, Demi Moore? Demi Moore's painted body? Cindy Crawford shaving K.D. Lang? (There is no punctuation rebellion in this dojo.) Tom Ford's naked actresses? Paris Hilton topless? Miley Cyrus's topless photo shoot? Tony Soprano with a naked blonde? Tiger Woods looking thuggish? Did we ever look to the cover of Vanity Fair for wholesome images of all-American figures exhibiting Christian modesty? What's your measuring stick for America's moral health? The abortion rate is at the lowest it has been since 1973. Teenage-pregnancy and birth rates are down sharply, too. Doesn't that seem like a bigger, and more consequential deal than Jenner being on the cover of Vanity Fair? The divorce rate has been falling for more than three decades. If you're absolutely convinced America's strength as a good country full of good people is dependent upon the good judgment and behavioral restraint of Hollywood stars . . . well then, we're in trouble. It just feels like we should all be beyond the point where any of us exclaim with shock, "I can't believe that member of the Kardashian family did that!" ADDENDA: Today I journey to California, to address the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley Tuesday night. I'm going to be talking about the 2016 election, the direction of the GOP, what I think makes for good campaign coverage (hint: not traffic tickets), how to preserve your sanity during the election, and probably a few things about The Weed Agency, pop culture, and my upcoming humor book on fatherhood co-written with Cam Edwards. | 
Comments
Post a Comment