Last week in The National Interest, Robert Farley wrote a fascinating article about how a war with Iran would go, Exposed: America Can’t Blow Up Iran’s Nukes. As I’m sure you will not be shocked to hear, those pushing for war with Iran have not thought this whole thing through. I think it is just a matter that a lot of people believe in the magic of total war, “If we can just fight Iran the way we fought Hitler, all will be well!” It’s just rubbish that shows as much ignorance about World War II as it does about the current situation with Iran.

Farley started the article with an overview of the situation in the Middle East. It isn’t good. Because of our brilliant idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein, we’ve created a power vacuum in the region. This was predictable. But what it means is that Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting for control. And it ain’t pretty. According to Farley, there has been a massive military buildup in the region, “Saudi Arabia purchases more arms in a year than Tehran’s entire defense budget.” It’s a totally messed up situation. A deal with Iran is probably the only way to cool what has turned into an arms race.

The most important takeaway from the article is that we can’t just drop a few bombs and knock out Iran’s nuclear program. If by “total war” the military hawks mean “perpetual war,” then they might be right. Farley noted, “If the United States launches a major strike on Iran, it can expect to launch another strike in a few years, and another strike a few years later.” But as time went on, Iran would become better at securing its operations from attack. And that would mean either we lose in our efforts or we continuously increase our attacks.

Another issue is that attacking Iran will only make it more sympathetic to the worldwide community. And Russia and China would help Iran from the start. That means, one way or another, the Iranian government would get the most sophisticated military equipment in existence. So basically, we aren’t capable of quickly knocking out Iran in a way that wouldn’t also start World War III. Any military action against Iran would require continuous attacks on Iran. And in the end we would fail to achieve our stated objectives.

Of course, I don’t think that the “Bomb, bomb bomb; bomb, bomb Iran” crowd wants war with Iran because it will make the US safer or the world a better place. These same people never talk about doing anything to North Korea. They just want another chance to have another bloody good war. And this is why we run into the same thing again and again: we start a war and it is reasonably popular. But then, as time goes on, the people tire of it and wonder why we got into the war in the first place. But the cheerleaders for the war are never held to account.

This isn’t about power. No one doubts that the United States has the most powerful military in the world. But I’m not sure that people quite understand how costly was everyone’s idea of a just war: World War II. Conservative estimates indicate that the war directly cost the lives of 60 million people. The vast majority of those (especially civilians) were on the Ally side. I don’t think the Allies had much of a choice about World War II. We definitely have a choice about Iran. As Farley noted, “The United States has the capability to inflict grievous damage on the Islamic Republic, but cannot solve the problem of Iran by bombing alone.” So the question is: what is our pain threshold? I’d have to say that it is really low. And it is best to think about this now rather than after the bombs start falling.

Last year I wrote, Why Republicans Will Nominate Rand Paul in 2016. My point was not primarily that Rand Paul would actually win the Republican nomination. It was that Rand Paul would sell his libertarian soul to get the nomination. Even by the time he was elected to the Senate, he had massaged his libertarianism to be acceptable to the Republican base. My favorite contrast in this regard is with his father who was for full drug legalization. Meanwhile, Rand Paul even holds his nose while offering the most tepid support of cannabis legalization.

My prediction at that time, “So by this time next year, he will have massaged every position so that it still sounds libertarian, while still being full of conservative red meat for the base.” And then, just a month later, I wrote, Rand Paul Continues to “Evolve” His Ideology. It was about how Paul wanted to go to war with ISIS. As I noted, “I don’t see this as anything different from America’s favorite comedy duo, McCain & Graham.” Indeed, there is no difference. I think that there is no more disingenuous politician than Rand Paul. The only thing he really believes is that he should be President of the United States.

Well, there is news on Rand Paul’s evolution toward becoming the Perfect Republican™. On Thursday, Paul Waldman wrote, How Rand Paul Is Losing His Distinctiveness. This time, it is about how Paul is pushing to increase funding for the military. Let’s think about this for a moment, because it is absurd. The United States spends 48% of what the entire world spends on military. So that’s 48% for the US and 52% for the other 195 countries. Basically: the US spends as much on the military as every other country combined. And yet we cowardly Americans just don’t feel safe enough. It’s pathetic.

I don’t think for a minute that Rand Paul thinks that the military is being hurt by its cutbacks. He’s just continuing to do what he’s always done. But you have to wonder, since he doesn’t believe in anything but his right to power, why did he spend all this time pretending to be a libertarian? Part of it is what I discussed about him last year: most conservatives like to think of themselves as libertarians. In theory they are all libertarians. It is only when actual policy comes up that they decide that it is better to be able to tell people what to do.

My guess would be that there is a more personal reason why Rand Paul has pretended to be libertarian — or at least libertarianish. He needed the resources that his father’s presidential campaigns have created. Now he’s a top tier Republican and isn’t so reliant on them. Of course, this does not mean that the Ron Paul supporters will abandon him. And this goes back to what I’ve long said about real libertarians, and is even more true of the libertarianish folk in the Republican Party: it’s all about low taxes. So they won’t abandon him. And the kids who support Paul because they want legalized cannabis are going away regardless because that has become the Democratic Party position — which they get without all the conservative baggage.

Waldman noted that the Republican Party is built on four ideas: “low taxes, small government, ‘traditional’ social values, and a large military.” But he thinks this creates a dilemma for Paul. But it really doesn’t. For one thing, neither Paul nor the Republican Party are actually for small government. But that gets to how one can claim to be for small government even as they think that having 48% of the world’s military spending is just not enough. Republicans believe in certain types of spending. According to them, if we just got rid of stuff the government shouldn’t be doing (eg, healthcare, retirement), there would be plenty of money for tax cuts and increased military spending.

There is just one step that Rand Paul must take to become a big player for the Republican presidential nomination. He can’t just be for more military spending. Walking the walk is really not what Republican politics is all about. He has to be able to talk the talk. He needs to start screaming about all the threats that the United States faces. He can’t say, “I would go to Congress and ask to go to war with ISIS.” He must say, “I love America so much I would disregard the Constitution and just go to war with ISIS. And Iran! And North Korea!” He can’t just be in favor of permanent war; he has to clearly enjoy it. And I don’t think he’s going to have any problem taking this final step.

I just read an amazing article by Seth Masket at Pacific Standard magazine, Making Voting Harder Is a Time-Honored American Tradition. When I first saw the headline, I wasn’t going to read it. I thought that I knew what it was about. I know the ways that conservatives — from the very start of the union — tried to limit the franchise of voting. But that isn’t what the article is really about.

The whole system of registering to vote was not a conservative effort. It was rather the result of progressive reforms. There was certainly a lot of racism and general elitism. But the main thing was that the progressive movement was largely focused on anti-corruption. The belief was that many of the party machines were manipulating the vote. So they tried to stop this by requiring voter registration. This probably did have the effect of stopping that kind of corruption — but only by introducing a whole new kind of corruption that we live with today. Check out this graph:

What we see here is that eligible voters voted in very high numbers until registration was required. And then it plummeted. So we got rid of explicit corruption in the form of well organized political operations. And we replaced it with implicit corruption in the form of an electorate that is heavily skewed in the direction of wealth. And as you can see, there is basically no change in voting behavior ever since — for the last one hundred years.

Masket noted what’s perhaps most important for us to take away from this graph:

I get annoyed every time I hear people — especially retired people — claim that the young and the poor shouldn’t vote given that they don’t care enough to make time for it. But the people who claim this don’t have to make time for it. They don’t have to pick the kids up after school. They don’t have to be on time for work. They don’t have to re-register to vote because they had to move. But instead of feeling their entitlement, these older and wealthier voters think that they are better than the people whose lives don’t make voting convenient.

It is in this context that the new Oregon voter registration law is so powerful. It takes an important impediment out of the way of people who want to vote. Throughout the last half of the 19th century, 80% of eligible voters showed up to vote in presidential elections. We could have that again. But of course, there are a whole lot of very powerful people who don’t want 80% of the people showing up to vote. Imagine how much better this country would be if we had 80% turnout. The Republican Party would have to change in major ways or be relegated to a regional party. Either would be an improvement. But more important: the Democratic Party would be far more populist. The laws passed in Washington would have something to do with what the people actually wanted. The country would be a lot closer to having a government of the people, by the people, for the people. As of now, it has perished from this nation.