Political Spin Removal

How To Leave Your Big Bank

2011-12-09T11:59:00.000-08:00

I decided to leave my big national bank and move to a local credit union. It was not easy. Here are some tips on how to do it.

First though, why do this? There are many reasons, but the main one is that the big banks don’t play fair. They are hoarding trillions in cash but refuse to make loans. Why? Because they do not want to properly value the mountains of bad mortgage derivatives they still hold from the financial crisis, because if they did that, it would be obvious that they are virtually insolvent. So they would rather perpetuate the national housing crisis than write down their own profits.

Secondly, most are indeed virtually insolvent. I had serious concerns about my big bank, which keeps announcing cutbacks and layoffs. Just because they are called “too big to fail” does not mean they are too big to fail.

Third, fees keep creeping up and service keeps declining. My bank told me the only way I could retain my no-fee checking account was to go 100% e-banking, totally online, which was fine with me, but they also said I was no longer welcome in the lobby of the bank and if I ever talked to a live person in the bank, I would have to pay a fee. Friendly!

Next, their software has become unstable. Several times I have been locked out of my accounts because of faults in their software that suddenly does not recognize me or any of my credentials. When I call the 800 number, the agent knows nothing can do nothing. Usually after a couple of days, the software rights itself and I can bank again. A financial institution must NOT have unstable software.

Next, I think it makes more sense to support banking in my own community instead of financing fat bonuses for parasites in New York.

I’ve been thinking about changing banks for a long time, but the Occupy movement convinced me to finally do it.

So here’s how it went.

1. The first thing is to write down all memorized passwords, pins, user ID’s and so on that you use at the big bank. Hide that scrap of paper in a secure location. You do this because the changeover to the new bank can take up to two months and you will forget all those secret codes as you develop new ones at the new bank.

2. Find a community bank you can work with. I surveyed several credit unions in my city for availability of branches near me, no-fee checking, ATMs and other services I need. I visited three of them. In two, I couldn’t get anyone’s attention. If you walk right up to a teller, the teller cannot open a new account and will only refer you to a “manager.” But the closest I ever got to a manager was a clerk who handed me some brochures. At the third CU, there was a greeter at the door who welcomed me and made an appointment for 5 minutes later with an appropriate manager.

3. Read the financial statement of the new bank. This is available in the lobby, or you can ask the manager for it. Just check the balance sheet to see if they are making money, not deeply in debt. If you don’t know how to read it, get a friend who does. Make sure your deposits are insured by the appropriate federal agency for that type of institution.

4. Verify that the new bank offers the services you need at rates you are willing to pay. My new CU has virtually free checking, savings, home and car loans, and they sell some kinds of insurance. The checking is “virtually” free because you must maintain a $25 savings balance to make the checking account work, so that is basically a one-time charge for opening a checking account, okay with me.

5. Open a test account with a minimal balance, just to see how the paperwork goes. I opened an account for a hobby that generates about $20 a month in deposits. With such an account, you can test the bank’s bill-paying software and other online services, get some checks printed, and you can try their ATM network. Most credit unions have collaboration agreements to honor each other’s debit cards, so even though the small bank has far fewer branches and fewer ATMs compared to the big bank, the collaboration makes a virtual network just as functional. Some of the participating credit unions charge a small fee for using their ATM with another bank’s card, but many do not. When you’re traveling, you can use the network, or use the old grocery store trick to get cash (pay with debit card and ask for cash back). The big stores will give $100 with no question.

6. Make sure you have enough money left in the big bank to pay a month’s worth of bills while you transfer your direct deposits over to the new bank.

7. If you have a credit card with the big bank, stop using it and start using a new credit card, either from your new bank, or from an airline, or somewhere else. If you have investment accounts, your new broker will roll them over. The new broker might be at your new bank, or be an independent broker, even an online service such as Fidelity or Vanguard, etc. If you have loans with the old bank, the new bank will help you move them over.

8. If all has gone well, open another account at the new bank to handle your main financial transactions (or just use the hobby account if you didn't really need it for that), then acquire and fill out the forms necessary to arrange for direct deposits to the new bank. You get direct deposit authorization forms from your employer, your pension manager, investment broker, social security, whatever. Send those in. Let a month to six weeks go by until you are sure deposits are going to your new bank, not your old bank.

9. While you are waiting, begin documenting your payee information for the new bank. You will find that the old bank will not reveal your payee information to you, because that is one way they make it difficult for you to leave. So when a new bill comes in the mail, or comes due online, write down all the information you need to pay it, including account number, the full address of where the payment goes, the customer service phone number, everything. Then you can enter that information in the new bank’s online bill payer service. Keep the written copy because the new bank probably will also hide most of the information from you (it’s a common bank strategy).

10. As direct deposits come in to the new bank, use them to pay whatever payees that you have set up so far online at the new bank, to make sure the bill payment system is working right. If you have authorized some creditors to debit your account directly, you need to contact them and change the debit to the new bank. Until all the deposits are finally coming in to the new bank, pay the rest of your bills out of the old bank until it is out of money, which will be after all the direct deposits have switched over to the new bank. Eventually, you will have transferred all your deposits and all your payees to the new bank.

11. Use your new bank account to pay off the balance on your old bank credit card, or, if you can’t do that, transfer the balance to the new card.

12. When all is good, write a check against the old bank to zero out the balance and deposit it in the new bank. Be sure to get an accurate current balance at the old bank, net of any fees. You can do that at their ATM. After that check clears, notify your old bank in writing or email that you are closing the account. If you fail to do that, they can continue to assess fees on you and when you don’t pay them hassle you and your credit rating. You can just cut up your old bank credit card or you can call the 800 number and cancel it. (cartoon soxfirst.com)

Are the Super-Rich Really Job-Creators?

2011-11-28T11:13:00.000-08:00

In a New York Times op-ed column today, the ever-surprised economist, Paul Krugman, argued that it makes sense to tax the rich (“Things to Tax: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/opinion/krugman-things-to-tax.html?_r=1&ref=opinion). To those who say taxing the rich wouldn’t raise much revenue, he counters that “The I.R.S. reports that in 2007, that is, before the economic crisis, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money…” Let’s note also, that’s from just one-tenth of one percent of taxpayers.

Republican Senator John Kyl is ready with a well-worn comeback. Also in the New York times today, Kyl argues that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be continued because, “increasing taxes on the most affluent Americans, including small-business owners who report business income on their personal tax returns, would undermine the fragile economic recovery. The best way to hurt economic growth is to impose more taxes on the people who do the hiring…” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/us/politics/senator-questions-extension-of-tax-cut.html ).

This is a common Republican refrain, though patently bogus. Do the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners in America actually “do the hiring?” Notice that Kyl’s criterion is “small-business owners who report business income on their personal tax returns.” That’s a different group than the top 0.1% of income earners.

Anybody can report business income. That doesn’t mean they are creating jobs. If you sell some stuff on Ebay, you should report that as business income, even though it doesn’t make you a job creator and it doesn’t automatically put you in the top 1% of earners.

What is “business income?” The treasury department defines small business income as any ordinary income, long-term or short-term gains, from sole proprietorships, S corporations, partnerships, estates and trusts. (factcheck.org, March 6, 2009).

By this definition, are the rich the small business owners? 73% of Americans in the top two tax brackets report some kind of business income on their tax returns, but that does not mean they are “hiring employees” or “creating jobs.” They could be just cashing their trust fund checks.

It is a crude sleight of hand to suggest that anyone who is rich is automatically a job-creator. If that were true, it would be hard to explain why employment has not jumped way up over the past ten years while the incomes of the upper 1% of Americans rose 18 percent. (http://mediamatters.org/research/201110200011). It must be that all those rich people were not actually “hiring,” as Republicans claimed.

Some of the super-wealthy are corporate executives whose companies do create many jobs. It is hard to imagine that increasing the marginal tax rate on their personal income would cause their companies to hire fewer people. And anyway, they are not “small” business owners, the ones who actually create most of the jobs in America.

In fact only 27% of upper income tax returns show business income that makes up more than half of wages. Presumably, a real small business owner would take home most of his or her wages from the business (factcheck.org, March 6, 2009). The vast majority of people who report business income on their tax return are not running a small company that’s on a hiring spree. And even among those who are, only 2% of them earn enough money to make it into the top tax brackets (factcheck.org).

The categories, “rich” and “job creator” are almost non-overlapping. Yet Republicans routinely equate them. It is a spurious equation and I can’t understand why the news media let it go uncommented. Even Krugman doesn’t mention it. It is a completely false argument that taxing the rich destroys jobs. How Republicans continue to get away with spouting such nonsense is a mystery.

Why the Wheels Fell Off

2011-09-06T14:10:00.000-07:00

Three years after the financial collapse of ’08, the American economy is still on life support. The main devastation occurred in unemployment, which remains above 9% nationally, as high as 25% in some regions and much higher among some age and ethnic groups. Even among those employed, the mortgage crisis limits economic growth, with almost half of mortgages worth more than equity, and tens of millions of houses in foreclosure. GDP has been limping along at 1% for years, with no prospect of an upturn as long as consumers don’t spend (what would they spend?) and retail credit remains inaccessible. There is talk about continued recession for at least two more years, more likely six.

What happened is that rich people took all the money. They left next to nothing for the rest of us. They played the capitalist game and won. They are still winning, and I expect will continue to do so, barring the unforeseen. This does not make the rich, bad people. The whole point of the capitalist game is to get rich. There are winners and there are losers. But the present outcome, painful recession for most people, is the inevitable consequence of the rich siphoning off America’s wealth over the last thirty years. It could have been moderated, but it wasn’t. Now here we are.

First, let’s make sure we understand that in fact, the rich have siphoned off the country’s wealth. According to G. William Domhoff (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html),

As of 2007, the top 1% of American households (the upper class) owns 34.6% (more than a third) of all privately held wealth in this country.

The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) holds 50.5% (more than half).

This means that the wealthiest 20% of Americans hoard 85% of the country’s wealth, leaving only 15% for the rest of us (wage and salary workers).

If you exclude the value of one’s home from the calculations (because the rich often have very expensive homes), then you see that just the top 1% of households owns 42.7% of the all the nation’s financial wealth. The richest 20% hold more than 93% of financial wealth. That’s basically all the money there is! Nearly all of the country’s money is in the personal bank accounts of just a few people. The rest of us are left to squabble over the remaining 7%.

The rich are the big winners in the game of capitalism, and the winnings have been huge. A hundred years ago, the richest 1% of Americans owned only 18% of the nation’s wealth (Noah, http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026). Today’s huge wealth inequality is a recent phenomenon, since about 1980. It is the most obvious outcome of a capitalist system gone awry, and an explanation of the current economic recession.

Today’s painful recession is the consequence of the richest people having sucked all the money out of the economy since 1980. The rich are not having a recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is about 11,000 today, down a few percentage points from its bubbly high of three years ago, but by no means disastrous for the companies indexed, such as American Express, Chevron, IBM, Microsoft, Verizon, and others. Some of the big banks are having disasters recently, but that is a separate situation, and long overdue anyway. Most large businesses are doing well, making plenty of money. It’s ordinary wage-earners who are hurting.

How did nearly all the money in America flow to the top 20% of bank accounts, leaving the rest of us in recession? In my opinion, the main factors since 1980, in order of importance, were:

1. The information technology revolution.
2. Failure of education.
3. Government corruption and incompetence.
4. Globalization of economics.

The rise of the computer put a lot of people out of work from automation. I made much of my personal wealth doing just that (although not for that reason – I plead naïvete). I spent many years automating the pulp and paper industry with computer controls and robots, putting scores of hard-working people out of jobs forever. My bad. As a possible redemptive factor, I spent many more years using networked computers trying to educate the youth. However, I had far more success with the former than the latter.

Other aspects of the computer and information revolution made it easier for those who understood and controlled technology to separate people from their money, through deceptive and unscrupulous advertising and marketing (e.g, Big Pharma, Big Finance, etc.), and accumulation and exploitation of information about people. Technology and information resources are expensive and knowledge-intensive. Those who could understand it, and who could afford to put it to work, reaped wealth. Those who couldn’t, suffered. The technology revolution was not neutral – it favored the economically privileged and the well-educated, and still does. It was a primary factor causing wealth to flow from the bottom to the top of the economic pyramid.

And that brings me to the second cause of today’s financial crisis: failure of education. I have been a lifelong educator of youth and adults (except for my two-decade stint as a technology raptor). From personal experience, I can say that the educational system in this country is largely ineffective, virtually moribund. The basic cause of that is economics. Teachers are not well-paid because their product is very long-term (tomorrow’s leaders, movers, and shakers) and as we know, future value is heavily discounted. Also, students don’t vote, so why worry about them? Consequently, society as a whole has little incentive to properly finance education. Granted, many teachers are incompetent and curricula laughable, but those are consequences of economic underdevelopment, not causes.

There are plenty of smart people in this country who would become educators if they thought they could make a living at it. But except for the most elite, it is not possible. I myself dropped out of academia for twenty years because I needed to make some money. If a starting college teacher made $75,000 a year (instead of 30,000), and could expect salary growth comparable to a business or legal career, there would be qualified candidates. Actually, if there even were such a thing as a starting college teaching position, it would be an improvement. About half of college teachers are now “adjuncts,” which means part-time, with no health-care or pension, and that percentage is on the rise. Currently, postsecondary education is not a viable career for a principal earner. The situation is comparable for K-12 education (but much less so for educational administrators, who do better).

This economic analysis assumes that talent in education, as in any other field, costs more than lack of it. It is simply not reasonable that widespread, high-quality education in this country is impossible. The problem is that inadequate investment is made in classroom and administrative talent. There are also profound structural flaws in the educational system that entrenched interests are loath to address. In addition, political corruption favors the status quo (see #3: Corruption). The failure of education ultimately makes it easier for the economic elites to separate ordinary people from their wealth.

Third on my list of causal factors is government corruption and incompetence. The corruption is a direct consequence of how American politics is financed. The rich pay the politicians, who in turn, write laws that favor the rich. It’s an incestuous system that works well for both sides, selling power for money, trading money for privilege, all at the expense of ordinary people. It is not overt bribery, usually; this is not suitcases full of money. No, just as racism and sexism have moved from being overt to subtle, government corruption at all levels is now only detectible to the discerning. Just a special-purpose clause in a bill here, an appropriations contingency there, a blind regulatory eye, a tax loophole, and plenty of rhetorical obfuscation. It doesn’t take much to shave points off a game.

I’m not saying that illegal things are being done (though recent history suggests some of that goes on too), only that corrupt things are being done. Actions are corrupt when they violate the trust that ordinary people grant to politicians when they ask them to work on their behalf. Anyone who doubts that the American political system is corrupt is under-informed (see #2: Education).

The fourth and final causal factor in my list is globalization of economics. This came about mainly as a consequence of the technology and information revolution (see #1), which allowed rationalization of labor markets and currencies. As a result, jobs flowed out of America’s expensive labor market to cheaper markets abroad, to the great benefit of many millions of people around the world (e.g., in China, Mexico, and elsewhere), but to the loss of high-priced American workers.

Globalization of labor will continue, eventually consuming the livelihoods of the American affluent. We are already seeing this as jobs like legal research, financial trading, and X-ray interpretation move offshore. That trend will continue as global economics reaches equilibrium over the next couple of centuries, when even the most wealthy will find it difficult to exploit market anomalies to their own advantage.

Beyond labor market equilibration, globalization of trade, especially in oil, has sucked money out of the economy and funneled it to Big Oil. It is largely due to government corruption and incompetence (see #3) that America’s addiction to oil has not been treated in the past half century, despite numerous and obvious warnings.

What should be done, what can be done, about the current economic recession and its dark shadow of unconscionable wealth inequality? I have ideas, but that’s a different essay. Here I want only to enumerate my perception of the fundamental, distal factors causing the deep economic hole we are now in and from which we may never fully emerge.

Paper Training David Brooks

2011-07-05T09:19:00.000-07:00

In today’s New York Times, Op-ed columnist David Brooks, the last rational conservative in the country, claims that the Republican party is unable to make a decision that does not even require a brain: compromise on the negotiations to raise the national debt ceiling. Republicans have the opportunity to significantly cut government spending and put long term limits on the growth of the federal government, with negligible harm to current economic growth. (www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion).

These are all allegedly goals that Republicans hold in high priority. Yet they reject the opportunity to achieve them because the word “tax” has been mentioned. They are so religiously, irrationally, fetishistically, unreasonably opposed to any sort of revenue increase, they literally will walk out of negotiations if even the phrase, “closing tax loopholes” is mentioned. (http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-24/news/29699882_1_budget-talks-jay-carney-debt-limit)

Are Republicans mentally deficient, then? Brooks notes that they do not accept the logic of compromise, reject clear evidence, won’t hear expert opinion, deny the legitimacy of scholarship, have no economic theories to back up their position, lack moral grounding, indulge fanatical “fixation” on worshiping “their idol” of resisting all forms of government revenue increase, and are “not fit to govern.” Other than that, though, I wonder how he feels?

Now, I am no fan of these Republican tactics either. I would add to Brook’s litany of complaints that the Republican behavior is hypocritical, even extremely cynical. They care nothing for governmental fiscal responsibility, as the previous eight years of Republican rule amply demonstrated (two unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts for the rich, failure to regulate the financial industry, unfunded drug benefits for the elderly, untrammeled military spending, and on and on and on). The record speaks for itself: Republicans care only for money and power, nothing else. Their talk about fiscal responsibility is transparent cover for their greedy pursuit of personal gain through economic rape of the country. Touche, Brooks.

Nevertheless, purely as an exercise critical thinking, it might be interesting to consider: what could they be thinking in the current negotiations about raising the government’s debt ceiling? Surely they realize that if the U.S. government defaults on its debt, the worldwide consequences would be catastrophic. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that these Republican negotiators are not mentally deficient and that they do have a rational strategy. What would it be?

I think it might be the same strategy one uses in paper-training a puppy. You want the dog to stop peeing on the floor, so what do you do? You whap it on the nose with a rolled up newspaper in the presence of its smelly offense, and you reward it with a dog biscuit when it goes on the paper. Simple, and effective.

Here is what you do NOT do: You do not try to reason with the animal, explaining why it is better for everyone’s health and state of mind, and for the relationship itself, that peeing should take place only on the paper. You also do not give a dog biscuit reward when the puppy pees a little closer to the paper than usual, because it was “pretty close” or “at least in the right direction.” It’s pee on the paper or nothing. You also do not refrain from the painful and humiliating swat on the nose when the animal pees “just a little”on the carpet. It’s swat if you missed the paper, no compromise.

Republicans believe, let us suppose, that discussion on the matter of federal spending, is pointless. Many discussions have been had in the past, all to no avail. Spending continues to increase and so do taxes to pay for it, they believe. The Republicans may also realize that they have no legitimate standing to argue for restraint, given their own history of profligacy.

So if discussion is pointless, that leaves only behavioral control. Like any good animal trainer, they will enforce a painful and humiliating government shutdown as long as the government continues to pee money on the carpet, and they will only allow the biscuit of revenue when the government shows proper restraint, which is to cut Medicare and Social Security.

There is a logic to this strategy, even though it incorrectly presupposes that Republicans have the intellectual, moral, or political authority to arrogate the role of trainer. But they do have a bit of leverage with the debt ceiling limit looming and control of the House. Of course the proper way to train the government is to win a popular mandate at the ballot box, but they haven’t been able to accomplish that, so this is an opportunistic substitute. It’s a flawed logic, but it is a logic, and a case could be made that the Republicans are being canny, not retarded.

However, I do agree with Brooks that this animal training strategy is so primitive, so flawed, so misconceived, that it will backfire and result in their own humiliation in November, 2012.

The Afghanistan Pullout

2011-05-14T15:46:00.000-07:00

The U.S. is scheduled to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in about a month, after a decade of fighting there. Full withdrawal is supposed to be by 2014. Everyone expects the July 2011 withdrawal to be a token number, more symbolic than a meaningful proportion of the 100K troops there, because the battle against the Taliban is still at high pitch and the Afghans are not yet competent.

However, with the recent decapitation of Al Qaeda, there is opportunity to rethink the Afghan plan. The U.S. could plausibly declare the “war on terror” essentially won, because we got the perpetrator of the 9-11 attacks. Then we can get out of Afghanistan (and Iraq too!) much more quickly. Those were Bush’s wars of choice, which Obama inherited, and promised in his presidential campaign to end quickly. This is his chance to do what he said.

There is talk among the punditocracy that we must not “abandon” Afghanistan. We must “stay the course,” and make withdrawal sensitive to “conditions on the ground.” What is behind this kind of cautionary talk?

The fear is that as soon as we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over (probably under the leadership of our man, Karzai). If that happens, then Pakistan may well go Taliban too, and then you’d have nuclear terrorists. Who they would attack first, the U.S., Israel, or Europe, is beside the point; we assume they would attack. Bad scenario. Therefore, do not pull the troops out of Afghanistan “prematurely.”

But that logic can be rethought. There are two sets of arguments for simply declaring victory and pulling out all the troops as quickly as possible. Argument set one is domestic: The war is very unpopular in the U.S.; it is bankrupting us, and Obama needs to win in 2012. One reason for the 2014 date for a “serious” drawdown in troops is that it would be after Obama’s re-election, so couldn’t hurt him, and might give Democrats a boost in the midterms. But that is chicken thinking.

The second set of arguments for pulling out now/soon from Afghanistan is that we are not accomplishing anything significant there anyway. We cannot kill or capture every Taliban terrorist in the country. They breed too fast. They can easily wait us out. As for “nation-building,” we aren’t doing much of that either. We’re trying, with clinics and roads, to make life better for the people, but we are not winning hearts and minds; the populace is ethnically divided and not susceptible to democracy; and it is an opium-based economy. Even the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, doesn’t’ want us there. Hawks like senator Joe Lieberman insist we need to “build a country we can be at peace with.” But he doesn’t say how to do that, and he can’t, because it is not possible, at least not in his, mine, or Obama’s lifetime. Our position there is unsustainable as a practical matter. We cannot win militarily and we cannot be successful politically. The writing is on the wall: Afghanistan is going to be an anti-western, fundamentalist, Islamic theocracy. Let’s plan for the reality, not the fantasy.

Once Afghanistan has gone over to the dark side, the Taliban probably will influence or virtually take over Pakistan too, which is already halfway down the slippery slope to a failed state. Maybe we could continue to prop up Pakistan, just as we have propped up Israel for decades, and keep the nukes out of the hands of the Taliban. That would be much cheaper than what we are paying to keep troops in Afghanistan. But even that plan is not a sure thing. The Pakis are extremely ambivalent about us. They love our money, but that’s about all. Many are sympathetic to the Taliban. It is not for certain that we can buy their allegiance for much longer, and it is seriously not clear if Pakistan can survive as the pseudo-democracy it is now.

Conclusion:

Let Obama put his silver tongue to work and convince Americans of the real problem: We are stalemated in Afghanistan and so we should get out and plan instead for surgical retaliations when the Taliban acts up, as they surely will. We can, without being public about it, switch from a “global war on terrorism” to more of a police footing, where we kill and capture perpetrators, but do not invade whole countries and fight literal wars on their soil. We need to keep our legal options open. The president probably does not want to give up his “war” authority to pursue badguys to the four corners of the earth, across international borders where necessary, but there is probably some kind of slippery political language to finesse the legal points.

We should also prepare to prop up Pakistan (with the money we save by ending the war!) and also prepare for a failed Pakistan and even for nuclear terrorists. How will we react? Why not plan for the real probable future world, rather than hanging on to the status quo like some talisman that lets us avoid lifting our heads. A “stay the course” policy in Afghanistan is like a child’s superstition: Step on a crack, break your mother’s back. Hey, that won’t save us. It is pure superstition, not realistic policy.

Obama could pull virtually all the troops out of Afghanistan now and be ready to react to the next move. Yes, it’s a reactive approach, but we cannot be proactive against the Taliban in Afghanistan. That is amply demonstrated by the “facts on the ground.” The Taliban will not act rashly before 2012 because they know a Republican victory would probably bring the troops back in. They will wait. That gives Obama time to be ready with a thunderbolt response. Meanwhile the troops stop dying, and the money stops hemorrhaging in Afghanistan, and we’re no worse off geopolitically.

It's Not About Libya

2011-03-20T09:48:00.000-07:00

France, Britain, and U.S. forces (“The Allies” according to the New York Times, as if we were still in World War II), invaded Libya today or yesterday, establishing a no-fly zone to protect civilians being slaughtered by Qaddafi. The action was authorized by the United Nations (with the BRICs abstaining) and endorsed by the Arab League. The Arab League has now reversed itself, saying, essentially “Mashalla! We didn’t realize it would involve bombs!” But the no-fly has apparently been established, despite Arab racism and/or spinelessness. (Photo: Christian Science Monitor)

The political and military consequences of the attack, in Libya and internationally, remain to be seen. For example, will “The Allies” maintain the no-fly zone indefinitely, with one or two planes being shot down every few months, as was the case in Iraq's no-fly zone? Maybe that’s not too expensive to tolerate. And since Qaddafi is a nut job, you can expect him to violate the intentions of “The Allies” in some way, bringing more grief upon himself and his country. Maybe that is ok too. There is, as usual, no clear exit strategy for impulsive acts.

Why did Obama do it? Why did he urge “regime change” and offer to lead the operation? The man has a friggin’ Nobel Peace prize for God’s sake. I thought he understood more clearly than anyone, that an “optional” war is never justified. What was he thinking?

Sure, he acted like he was dragging his feet, and that the invasion was a “last resort” and a “humanitarian necessity,” blah, blah, blah. And no question that Qaddafi is a bad actor, just as Saddam Hussein was. It was a righteous move, as they say. But the fact is, war is hell, and Obama invoked it, and he didn’t have to do it.

This is yet another U.S. war of choice. And make no mistake, we have committed an act of war. Ask Secretary of defense Gates. Sure, Libyan people were being killed by the brutal government. Terrible thing. But what’s that got to do with the United States Government? People are being killed in Yemen. Should we bomb Yemen now? How about Syria? Things are pretty bad there. Let’s bomb Syria! Bomb Bahrain! How about Venezuala? Hey, lots of people are being killed in Mexico right now by the federal government there…. What’s the rule for bombing the crap out of other countries? There are other ways to deal with problems besides bombs. Obama has got to know that.

Perhaps Obama calculated that he did not want to appear “weak” by standing aside as Quaddafi slaughtered his people with impunity. Bill Clinton took a bad rap in the history books by standing by too long while the slaughter continued in Kosovo and Serbia. Obama did not want to appear “weak.” But I thought Obama was intellectually above that disease: the slavishness to future history that seems to infect every president. Is he already writing his memoir?

Obama has made a huge mistake, one that mocks his Nobel prize, aggravates even further relations with the Arab world, immensely complicates U.S. foreign policy (if there is one), and greatly diminishes the U.S.’s moral standing, and Obama’s personal moral standing. But the man is not stupid. So why did he do it?

What if this is all about Pakistan, and ultimately, getting the troops out of Afghanistan next year? My guess is that Obama's end game is ending both the Iraq and Afghan wars by 2012. This has nothing to do with Libya, or at least, very little. Pakistan, which often seems on the verge of anarchy, is a nuclear power that harbors al Qaeda and the Taliban, who we are fighting in Afghanistan. Why does Pakistan do that? Because leaders there think the U.S. is “weak” and will leave Afghanistan too soon and that the Taliban will take the place over. Pakistan is therefore currying favor with what it assumes to be its future neighbor, the Republic of Taliban. Essentially then, we are in a tacit war with Pakistan. We even bomb them every few weeks, have been doing so for months. Pakistan is the third war we are fighting that nobody talks about.

The Paki’s think the U.S. is weak because they read the papers the same as we all do. They know we are in a recession, that the two overt wars are killing us fiscally, and that those wars have lost whatever popular support they ever had at home, and that Obama (“man of peace”) has vowed to end both wars, and that Obama faces a fierce election in 2012. They know all that, and they also know we are covertly at war with Pakistan. They calculate that the U.S. has neither the nerve nor the resources to force Pakistan to play ball with the U.S. in fighting the Taliban either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan itself. That is Obama’s bind. He is stalemated in the covert war on Pakistan.

Solution? “Send a message” to our nominal allies in the war on terror, the Paki’s, one that will also be heard and seen in Teheran, on the other side of Afghanistan: We still have the will and the way to bring a world of hurt down on you at any time. Do not “misunderestimate.” That, I think, is Obama’s rationale for invading Libya. It’s not about Libya.

Is Obama’s presumed strategy justified and is it smart? There is insufficient information to assess, but we can say, it is extremely risky. We’ll have to wait and see what future historians say!

What Republicans Fear

2010-11-08T16:25:00.000-08:00

The big victory for the Republicans in the recent midterm elections was predictable and predicted, but still a mystery to me. For a long time I have been trying to figure out why so many people vote against their own economic and social self-interests. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not rational. At first I thought Republicans were just less well informed than others, so they genuinely did not understand what they were voting for. But I decided that can’t be right. There are plenty of well-educated Republicans and plenty (Lord knows) of uneducated democrats. Analyzing Republican rhetoric reveals several consistent themes, and I thought those themes might reveal what the attraction is.

Some of the themes are admired traits of:

Plain working folks with common sense, not those Washington elites who tell us how to live
States’ rights, not federal government authority
Individualism, not collectivism
Low, or no taxes, not redistributive progressive taxation
Individual effort, not welfare
Personal overcoming of problems, without government programs
Voluntary charity, not wealth redistribution
Strong, aggressive, even bellicose defense policy, not nuanced negotiation
Absolutism, not compromise
Religion, not secularism
Strict morality, not permissiveness
Moral interpretation of sickness, weakness, poverty, crime, bad luck
Personal toughness, not mood-altering drugs (except for alcohol, nicotine, painkillers etc.)
Free market economics, not government regulation or interference
Strict, even literal interpretation of the constitution, without reliance on judicial precedent
Isolationism not internationalism
Uninhibited access to guns and weapons of all kinds, not regulation
Racial, or at least ethnic homogeneity, not multiculturalism
Tradition, not change
Untrammeled business practice, not labor unions
Economic growth, not inhibited by environmentalism or land use policy
Fear of God, intolerant of atheism or agnosticism
Non-acceptance, or intolerance of non-Christian religions
Non-acceptance, or intolerance of non-democratic forms of government
Heterosexuality only, no other patterns of sexuality
Anti-abortion, anti-free choice about conception
Merciless on crime, no mitigating circumstances
Appearance more than reality
Simple rather than complex solutions
Intuition or gut feeling, more than reason
Small government not large
Passive government, not activist
Government that spends no money except on constitutionally defined purposes
Conformity over creativity
American exceptionalism, not ordinariness
Low tolerance for and acceptance of different cultures, ways of life
Historical amnesia, not connectedness

I think that list hits the main points. These were culled from campaign speeches from the current midterm elections and other speeches going back to the 1950’s, such as speeches by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and others.

Democratic speeches tend to emphasize the mirror image of those values, but this is about Republicans, trying to understand why, for example, they trumpet the sacredness of the “free market,” which brought us the mortgage crisis, the S&L crisis, the collapse of banking credit, and so on. Why are they so against government programs when their own children go to public schools and they drive on public highways and are glad to have social security and medicare? Why are they vehemently against government regulation which has halved air fares, and helps keep E. Coli out of our vegetables, lead paint out of children’s toys, and poisons out of medicine? Why do they chafe against separation of church and state while worshiping every word of the constitution? Republican values listed above, with a few exceptions, generally act against the economic and social self-interests of most voters. So how do Republicans win elections?

I think I have found the answer. In a word, fear. Republicans are fundamentally, personally, deeply afraid. They are afraid of criticism, ridicule, seeming foolish. They are afraid of appearing weak. It is a mentality of victimization. They feel they are always only a hair’s breadth from being oppressed, ridiculed, hurt, abused, and abandoned. It is a childish, or childhood reaction, not a reasoned adult attitude.

The fear arises from these sources: 1. Childhood abuse and/or neglect; 2. Just bad parenting in childhood; 3. Poverty in early life. 4. Poor early socialization leading to social exclusion, victimization, and low self-esteem.

To manage this deep-seated fear, Republicans, unconsciously, engage in “reaction formation,” a defense mechanism that emphasizes and exaggerates strength, fearlessness, prosperity, membership, high esteem, moral probity, social status. Of course everyone would like to enjoy those attributes, but when they arise from a psychological defense system, they become unrealistic, highly exaggerated, grotesquely inappropriate, because they are based on deep, unconscious emotion. These desired values are displayed bigger and louder than is necessary or even reasonable, because they have the impossible burden of keeping the lid on fear.

Defense mechanisms are ultimately not completely effective, however. The unconscious fear will still get out. The reaction formation is only a loose fitting lid over a seething cauldron of unconscious emotion. Consequently, Republicans still deeply fear the poor. Why? Because they know (unconsciously) that they themselves are just inches away from that pathetic, weak, morally suspect condition. For the same reason they fear the sick and are not much interested in reaching out to alleviate that suffering. Not because they lack compassion, but because psychologically, they simply cannot afford to contemplate what it means to be sick, weak, a helpless victim of Fate.

Big guns, big military, bellicose policies? Of course. It covers up the weakness that might be evident in nuanced negotiation. Big business and wealth? By all means. That means strength, not weakness. Government regulation? None needed. Regulation is like mom or dad telling you what you can or cannot do. It is victimization, and that cannot be tolerated. Taxes? The fewer the better, because paying taxes is victimization, giving up your hard earned money/strength/respectability to a tyrant. States’ rights? Yes! Submitting to mandates of the federal government is just like being sent to your room. It is victimization. Leave us alone.

How do Republicans win elections? They appeal to fear, and that works especially well when people are in fact afraid, for their job, their house, their retirement, their health, their safety against terrorists. It’s immediate, and it's not rational, so people will vote for the perception or even promise of strength over any economic or social reality.

How can Democrats win elections? By minimizing fear, providing safety and prosperity. By convincing ordinary voters that they are OK, and that everything is going to be alright. Just the way you calm a child who is afraid. What you do NOT do is try to explain to them the tax codes or Fed policy, long term strategies for reducing the debt, or the subtle chess games of international politics. That is not what elections are about. It is not a rational issue. It is all about fear, and overcoming it, despite the campaign rhetoric that tries to focus attention instead on rational, intellectual, policy debates. That’s all just cover talk for the real issue: fear.

People hate negative “attack” ads because they are irrelevant ad-hominem messages. They miss the point. They do not address the issue of fear. Except when they explicitly do: “Candidate X will ruin your life, raise your taxes, embrace the terrorists, confiscate your retirement, eliminate your job, send you to your room.” But of course you must be able to prove those claims to get away with them (because of government regulations). The anti-Goldwater "Daisy" ad that showed a nuclear bomb going off behind a little girl was a perfect campaign ad.

Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs were only possible because, despite the Vietnam war, it was a time of prosperity. People (most voters) were not personally, psychologically afraid.

Another move is that, when circumstances are so bad that fear turns to literal panic or outrage, the fear becomes conscious, explicit, no longer the unconscious childhood fear that Republicans can cover up (more or less). In that case, voters will look for realistic, rational solutions. This happened for FDR and Obama. But unless actual safety and prosperity are then forthcoming, voters will quickly revert to the difficult task of tamping down irrational childhood fears and rationality is no good for that, so Republicans will win again. Voters can’t help it because the underlying fear is not conscious.

Are Democrats immune from this unconscious fear-driven approach to life, most of the time? Not entirely, but there is a difference. In brief, Democratic psychology is bimodal. There is a hump of poor, undereducated, badly socialized, socially marginalized, but communal-living people at the low end and a highly educated, self-aware, critical thinking hump at the high end. The low mode are the likely beneficiaries of Democratic compassion and government largess, but they are also exactly what a Republican unconsciously fears. Republicans eschew the unwashed masses but they can draw votes from them when people feel the fear.

This is a story that satisfies me, after many years of thinking about why people vote against their own self-interests.

Is Obama Threatened in 2012?

2010-10-23T15:56:00.000-07:00

Much is being made of the fact that this year, 2010, the midterm elections also happen be in a census year. After a census, congressional districts are redrawn (“gerrymandered”), a highly partisan political process led by the winning party and its governor in each state. Districts are drawn so that they are “pure” Republican or Democrat, so there is virtually no chance for dissent in any district, and therefore no serious competition for legislative seats. If, as expected, Republicans win more governorships and House seats this year, they will control the gerrymandering process, eliminating much competition for the next ten years, and that includes 2012.

The President will need, as always, 270 electoral college votes to win in 2012. The number of congressional seats in each state determines how many electors it gets. Republican states in the south, such as Texas, are expected to gain more electors after the census. So according to some sources (e.g., http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/23/midterm-races-hold-key-white-house-congress/) this will make it especially hard for Obama to get re-elected.

This is a spurious argument, I believe. Electors cast their vote according to the popular vote in their state. It is not illegal for an elector to ignore the popular vote and cast a ballot arbitrarily in a partisan way, but to my understanding that is extremely rare. So the census is not a direct threat to Obama.

A more serious threat is that the GOP will have some new Governors elected in 2010 and among them, there might be some credible presidential candidates, although two years is not much time to build an organization sufficient to mount a successful presidential bid. Still, their stable is awfully sparse now, and would benefit greatly from an emergent figure.

It’s true that Obama will have a difficult time governing if he loses the House majority to the GOP, as seems possible. However I think there are two silver linings in that scenario. One, the republicans will have to put their necks out when they are in charge. If they really want tax cuts for the rich and do not believe in health care for the poor, they will be forced to say so, and vote so. They no longer can throw stones from the sidelines without any responsibility. I believe the GOP has become so extreme that their bizarre ideas will be illuminated for all to see and that will be good for Democrats in 2012.

Secondly, I am not so sure that congress will be gridlocked for the next six years. Unless the Republicans really are delusionally detached from reason, some of them are going to have to realize that it will look bad for them in 2012 if they continue to act like petulant children. The more reasonable among them, and there must be some of those, will be forced to talk reasonably about reasonable legislation and make reasonable compromises, to get reasonable things passed. It could happen.

It is almost inconceivable that Obama could fail to get re-elected in 2012. By then, people will be more familiar with the Health Care act and maybe the Financial Reform act too, and will appreciate those. The economy will almost certainly be better by then, although probably still limping. Both wars should be essentially over. Guantanamo should be closed. And, I think Obama will compromise on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, renewing them even for the rich for two more years, so that in 2012, it will be the Republicans who have to explain why it is good for America for the richest 2% of the population to get an enormous tax cut. That’s a tough sell even for wing nuts. However, most Americans consistently vote against their own best economic interests by electing Republicans, I think because of a lack of critical thinking ability, which is my fault (I am an educator).

Republicans in the Ascendant?

2010-07-11T16:12:00.000-07:00

Senator Kit Bond, Republican from Missouri, sent a letter to the Economist magazine, published July 3, 2010. I thought it was noteworthy in revealing a lack of critical thinking, and conversely, a penchant for rhetorical fallacies, especially imprecise metaphors and emotionally loaded modifiers. Both sides of the political divide indulge this kind of phatic speech but this is a particularly interesting example because it seems like he is trying to be even-handed and facts-based, but just can’t manage it.

The new Republican agenda
SIR – Your analysis of what is wrong with the Republican Party hit one right note: voters expect solutions, not just rage (“What’s wrong with America’s right”, June 12th). President Barack Obama and his party in Congress came to power by riding the powerful tailwinds of discontent; Americans were rightfully angry that some on Wall Street had caused a financial crisis that left many families with a pink slip instead of a pay cheque.

The Democrats have taken advantage of this anger to force their agenda through Congress, while blocking Republican bipartisan solutions. Democrats have steamrollered through both chambers their policies of expanding government, increasing spending and swelling our debt. It is no surprise that American voters are once again angry, sick with bail-out fatigue, government overreach and runaway spending. Americans feel like Washington is no longer listening to them.

[My Comments: Is any majority vote a “forced agenda”? Did the Democrats “steamroller” their proposals through congress? I recall plenty of debate. But the Republicans lost. The majority rules in this country. That cannot be a novel concept for the senator. So what is his point? That he is a sore loser?

Did democrats “block” Republican solutions? I am not aware of any serious proposals from Republicans on Health Care Reform or Financial Reform. Republicans attempted to obstruct every single legislative proposal and not a single Republican voted for Health Care Reform. Republican proposals were invited but were not forthcoming. But let’s assume there were some proposals that I am not aware of. Were they bipartisan? Declaring that an idea is bipartisan does not make it so. If no Democrats accept a particular Republican proposal, in what sense is it bipartisan?

Do Democrats have “policies” of expanding government, increasing spending, and swelling our debt? These may be short term consequences of Democratic actions, but there is no policy that Democrats hold these as principles. The national debt tripled under George W. Bush. (Wars are expensive. Tax cuts are expensive.) Was it therefore a “Republican policy” to increase spending and swell the debt? I doubt the senator would agree. The senator conflates selected, short term consequences of legislation with general political policy.

Some Americans, perhaps including the Senator himself, may be “angry, sick with bail-out fatigue, government overreach and runaway spending.” However polls do not support that characterization of the majority’s views. I myself, for example, do not feel that way. I think the Democrats pulled the country back from the precipice of disaster with the bail-out, then used its majority power to extend health care to millions of Americans. There is no evidence that the spending was, or is, “runaway.”

It may be true, however that “Americans feel like Washington is no longer listening to them.” But that is always true. Politicians in Washington live in a bubble world, regardless of what party is in power. Hardly any information gets in or out. So this objection is not germane to the Senator’s complaints.]

[The senator continues...]
This new wave of anger offers the Republican Party an opportunity to promote its policies, which reflect the philosophy that America’s future depends far more on empowering individuals than empowering big government. These pro-growth solutions, such as Paul Ryan’s sound plan to deal with the deficit, include tax relief for individuals, families and small businesses, a comprehensive American energy bill and real health-care reform that lowers costs and improves care. Common sense solutions will not only sate voter anger and erase economic uncertainty, but bring sanity back to Washington policies.
Senator Kit Bond
Washington, DC

[My Comments: The first sentence of the senator’s final paragraph is a legitimate proposition and is well-stated. The Republican party should promote its policies. However, the next sentence begins by characterizing Republican policies as “pro-growth.” But growth for whom? History would suggest that Republicans favor growth of wealth and power for those who are wealthy and powerful. Democrats, on the other hand, are concerned more with economic prosperity for the lower and middle classes. “Pro-growth” is thus a vague generalization. In political speak, it is generally code for pro-business.

The senator endorses Paul Ryan’s “sound plan.” What is that? It is, roughly, a House bill (HR4529) that would cut medicare benefits for millions of Americans. Is that a “sound” idea? Yes, in the sense that it would significantly reduce the government’s entitlement burden, the main factor that must be addressed to “bend” the deficit curve. However, what about all the millions of people who have no other form of health care? Let them eat cake?

Ryan proposes that people be given vouchers with which to buy private insurance, which would take them off medicare. We must assume that these vouchers would be worth much less than the parallel value of medicare costs over a person’s lifetime, for otherwise there would be no savings to the government. So essentially, the plan is to undo the Democratic health care reform, not by repeal, but by replacing all those newly covered millions by millions of others kicked out from the full coverage umbrella of medicare. Is that sound policy? Depends on whether you think government is to serve all the people, or just the rich ones.

I also notice in the senator’s last paragraph that he speaks of “tax relief,” instead of “tax cuts.” Apparently Republicans have become aware that their favorite slogan is mindless and subject to ridicule. But who could object to tax relief? Everybody wants relief.Nevertheless , I would rather have “relief” from the two wars started under Republicans that have drained the treasury, rather than “relief” from mass transit, hospitals, green energy, financial regulation, education, and health coverage. “Tax relief” without a discussion of what taxes buy, is not a proposal, but a specious shibboleth.

Are common sense solutions the best as the senator asserts? It depends on whose notion of common sense you mean. I don’t trust Senator Bond’s. It’s up to him to persuade voters that his idea of common sense is in our own best interests. He, and other Republicans, may be able to do that, because most voters are not able to exercise critical thinking any more than the senator is. It’s all about emotion, personality, and innuendo.]

Who is Running Israel?

2010-06-02T17:48:00.001-07:00

Israel is receiving international condemnation of its raid on a ship bringing supplies to Gaza. The Wall Street Journal reports Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has argued that “the blockade of the Palestinian territory is necessary to prevent missile attacks against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.” (“Israel’s Isolation Deepens,” http://online.wsj.com/article, 6/2/2010). That may be true, but it is not at all relevant to the criticism that Israel used inappropriate force in stopping the ship and killing ten civilians.

How many ways are there to stop a blockade-busting attempt? You can warn the invaders; apparently that was done to no avail. You can physically block them with other ships, or rafts, or other barriers. You could allow your own boats to be damaged by the invader, demonstrating provocation. You can tow the other guys away. You could tear gas the crew. You could ram their boat. You could tangle their propellers with nets.

Is it necessary to board the ship and kill everyone? What kind of thinking is that?

This incident betrays a far deeper problem than a diplomatic “incident” from a mishandled operation. It may demonstrate that the Israeli military is not really under civilian control. The military seems to be blinded by bloodlust, (as demonstrated by inappropriate use of force this time, and in the past), so let’s hope it is not generous to assume that cooler heads exist in the civilian government.

From Netanyahu’s remarks, there is some doubt about that. Naturally, it is his job to defend the action. But if we take his irrelevant defense at face value, it shows that he hasn’t got a clue.

He refuses to apologize “for defending ourselves.” He blames the Obama administration for encouraging others to gang up on Israel. He blames Hamas for shooting rockets into Israel. He says Israel has a right to inspect cargo going into Gaza. He reiterates his claim that there is no shortage of food or medicine and no humanitarian crisis in Gaza (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israel-PM-Defends-Deadly-Raid-on-Aid-Convoy-95435204.html) . He asserts that this is not an issue of human rights and not even an issue of right vs. wrong.

Can he really be that stupid to not understand what the international outrage is about? I don’t know anything about him personally, but it is hard to believe that he is stupid. So the alternative interpretation is that he is boxed in by the military and can say nothing else. I would rather have a stupid person in charge than nobody in charge, or worse, have an autonomous military in charge there.

Nancy Pelosi, National Hero

2010-03-23T08:54:00.000-07:00

I say three cheers to House Speaker Pelosi for shepherding the Health Care reform bill through the house this weekend, to get it to senate reconciliation. Just a couple months ago the bill was all but moribund after the senate lost its Democratic majority.

Pelosi is a fierce partisan, much reviled by Republicans, but that’s exactly what was needed in this case. She is often criticized, even by Democrats, for not being more accommodating to the other side in her work. But I think that is naïve. Not a single Republican voted for the health care bill. Not one. They are apparently against health care for all Americans, satisfied that the affluent have care. Nor did Republicans propose any serious alternative, or engage in any serious debate of the substantive issues. They behaved merely as petulant obstructionists and continue to do so.

People who say Pelosi should have been more accommodating of Republicans to avoid the brinksmanship of this past weekend are not aware that we are in the era of “Fuck You politics.” There is no cooperation. There is no possibility of compromise. Conversation is not even possible. Pelosi knew that from the start and played her cards accordingly.

Some Democrats criticize her for being greedy. They say she wasted a lot of valuable time and political capital trying to get American health care grounded on a public option, rather than on private industry. Had the house supported a more moderate bill, the deal would have gone through earlier, more easily, and without the political fallout that some representatives will now suffer. But that is the fallacy of hindsight.

Pelosi had a large majority in the House and there was a narrow majority in the Senate, and Democrats were in the White House, so why NOT go for the brass ring? I would have done the same. It was not unreasonable to set the sights high. It was Republican propaganda that killed the public option, that, and Democrats’ characteristic inability to sell their ideas. Pelosi was not wrong going for the whole garbanzo. And she was smart enough to rein in her aspirations when the reality on the ground changed.

So I say, when it comes to the toughest, most junkyard-dog of a partisan legislator around, I am grateful she is on the right side.

Hail Mr. Moderate

2010-03-15T16:03:00.001-07:00

Senator Chris Dodd unveiled his financial reform proposal today – alone. No one else would stand with him at the podium to announce it.

The proposal is deeply unpopular with all Republicans, who favor laissez-faire economics, despite the historical evidence that such policy is absolutely devastating to the country. They're not much on history, Republicans. Dodd can probably expect zero support from them on his bill.

On the other side, the bill is not popular with Democrats either, at least the radical left wing. They favor iron-fisted, almost Stalinistic government control of every aspect of the economy, an approach that is not only impractical, but dangerously disruptive and historically destructive. For example, many Democrats would like to expand again the size of government bureaucracy to create a consumer financial protection agency. That is the Nanny Government at its worst. Caveat emptor is a better policy. How about we take all the money we would have spend on administering a new government agency, and instead spend that amount on financial education for high school students?

Dodd’s bill is well summarized at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/dodd-unveils-financial-overhaul/article1501089/

It is a down-the-middle approach that will curtail some of the most egregious financial offenses without trying to remodel the entire financial system. In that it is reasonable, moderate, and safe.

Whether he can get it passed is a whole different question. There is no middle ground any more in American politics.

Support Palin in 2012!

2010-02-07T09:26:00.001-08:00

Sarah Palin told FoxNews.com she "would be willing" to challenge Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/palin-willing-obama/.

This is tremendously good news. Anyone with any political sense should start contributing to her political campaign, now and continuously.

Likely Republican candidate Mitt Romney is also not a bad choice to support, since his religion probably makes him unelectable to the far right. Huckabee is also a good choice, although he could be a surprisingly dangerous populist. But Palin is so completely over the top that all Democrats should enthusiastically support her political ambition, to keep her ambition alive for two more years, and to block the path for any reasonable Republican candidate (if there is such a thing).

Google's High Horse

2010-01-19T09:22:00.001-08:00

Google is posturing and harrumphing these days. It says it may decide to pull out of China because of continued censorship of its search engine. According to The Economist (“Flowers for a funeral” Jan. 16, p. 41), a report by Google’s chief legal officer says the company is “reviewing the feasibility” of doing business in China because of ever-tightening limits on free speech there.

Memo to Google: There is no free speech in China. They are communists over there.

It simply cannot be the case that Google has not been aware of this fact, so what could they be thinking? Some writers (especially those from Baidu, the number one search engine in China) say that Google is just looking for a cover story to leave China without admitting economic defeat. Naturally, Google Denies this.

Google also cites recent hacker attacks on its Gmail service as a reason to leave. The hackers have been traced back to China and apparently targeted individuals critical of the government.

Memo to Google: One may not criticize the government in China. It is against the law.

And today, the New York Times reports that Google has postponed the release of its new smart phone in China (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20phone.html). The phone uses open source Android software but has been highly customized to work well with Google applications.

Why would postponement of the phone be germane at this time? Google says only that its current controversy with the Chinese government would put a pall of bad publicity over the phone’s release (NYT article). That argument, however, conveniently overlooks the fact that said controversy is censored from Chinese media, so there would be no bad publicity. One can speculate that the real issue involves the phone’s ability to easily record pictures, video, and sound, and upload such information to Google sites. Likewise, there are probably slick interfaces to social networking sites. All of that would be feared by the Chinese government, which wishes to control all the information its citizens receive. That’s my guess.

The Chinese government is on the wrong side of history on this argument, and sooner or later (probably sooner than they would like), it will become infeasible to maintain effective censorship in an age of global communications. I worked with a fellow once who had escaped from Bulgaria (pre-wallfall), and defected to the U.S. He told me that there was an armed guard at every copy machine in the country, the state’s effort to control even the most primitive methods of communication. We know how that turned out. It will be the same in China.

However, until that day, the Chinese government has every legal and moral right to censor anything they please. They are not a democracy. They do not have a Bill of Rights. There is no right to free speech. It is illegal to criticize the government there. They have a different system than we do. So Google should get off its high horse and either comply or get out.

Is The Republican Party Doomed?

2009-12-26T07:42:00.001-08:00

The Senate passed its version of a health insurance bill just before Christmas. Much of that victory belongs to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who somehow managed to get the 60 votes needed to stop Republican obstructionism. That must have been harder than herding kittens with a stick. There are reports that the senate legislation contains considerable pork benefitting individual senators in exchange for their votes. So be it. That’s how it must be done in a less-than-perfect world. Reid deserves a medal.

On the other hand, what is up with Republicans? Their obstructionist behavior proves that they are motivated to make the Democratic party fail, regardless of what is right or wrong. Not a single Republican vote was cast for health care reform in the Senate. Not one. How can ALL Republicans be in the pocket of insurers? How can every one of them be without compassion? How can 100% of them be contemptuous of the needs of the people they supposedly represent? It is unfathomable. It’s not that they wanted more debate; they wanted to shut down all debate. They are simply petulant obstructionists, like a child who threatens to hold his breath until he gets his way.

The Republican party has become morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt. I am sure that as soon as the legislation is reconciled and passed, they will begin campaigning for its repeal. If Dems have any sense of public relations (and they often don’t), they will start framing their victory message now to inoculate the public against the unconscionable Republican hypocrisy inevitably forthcoming.

At some point, even the most ignorant of American voters surely will realize that the Republican party is the party of small-minded greed, selfishness, and immaturity. It will become patently obvious through the party’s bizarre, unjustifiable antics. Won’t it? There must be a bottom to the well of ignorance. This health care reform episode might illuminate that bottom if the Democrats play their P.R. cards right.

I will not be too surprised if, within a decade, the Republican party is defunct, replaced by a new political party, The Conservatives, or something like that, made up of lawmakers who are responsible to the American voters, who do have conscience, ethics, and ideas, but who, unlike Republicans, would like to seriously and honestly engage American voters about important issues such as excessive government spending, and have the courage to stand for election based on their principles. They will become strong. The GOP will be no more.

Killer Joe?

2009-12-14T17:51:00.000-08:00

Fox News.com reports that Senator Joseph Lieberman is being called a "killer" because of digging in his heels on the health care debate. (www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580229,00.html).

He has vowed that he will not vote for the currently debated health care reform bill if it includes a current proposal to extend Medicare to persons under 65 years of age. Thousands of people without health care will die, and Lieberman is their killer if he doesn't extend healthcare to them, the argument goes.

It's stupid rhetoric. Lieberman is right. The cost of extending Medicare down the age ladder would be too expensive. Medicare is already enormously expensive and inadequately funded. Expanding it makes no sense, especially since the rest of the healthcare reform bill will provide for people under 65 in other ways anyway.

Lieberman is not my favorite senator, by a long shot. But I grudgingly admit he has called this one correctly. Spending is fine. We need to spend on our people. That's what government does. But Harry Reid and the other Democrats can easily go completely bananas with public money if nobody speaks up. There are limits to what is possible. Thanks, Joe.

Two Errors in Obama's Nobel Speech

2009-12-11T10:13:00.000-08:00

“…Perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars,” said President Obama, accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace on December 10. That fact was a stark incongruity that framed the speech and which made it an almost impossible situation for him. Yet it is that very incongruity that will make the speech endure. School children will read it for generations precisely because it eloquently addresses the inherent tension between peace and war.

He did far better than could have been expected under the circumstance, and delivered a very articulate speech on the topic of peace while commanding armies at war, still, I thought he said two wrong things.

One was his assertion of the universality of American values, which is a myopic, self-centered view. Obama listed “the” iconic American values as if they were automatically universal human truths: defense of human rights, the ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law, and so forth. In fact, not all people and not all governments embrace these values (obviously) which are very far from being universal human values. They just happen to be things that we believe are good. There are other ways to live. Obama does not try to force these values down the throats of others, as G.W. Bush often did, but to list them as universal virtues without qualification is an error that reveals a surprising blind spot.

The second wrong thing Obama said was that “…Evil does exist in the world.” It is true, as he explained, “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.” These “small men with outsize rage,” as he called them, cannot be spoken to. Unfortunately they must be killed, in self-defense. That is the sad reality. But that does not imply they are evil. It just means we are unable to talk with them because of utterly incompatible world views.

If a rabid dog attacks you, you may have to kill it, but that does not make the dog evil. It just means that, regrettably, you have no other method of communication. This is a distinction I thought Obama would be familiar with, and I was surprised to hear him invoke the Manichaeism that G.W. was so fond of. It is an erroneous and dangerous way to characterize your enemy.

Palestine by Fiat?

2009-11-17T08:59:00.001-08:00

Late last week, the head Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, announced that Palestinians would ask the U.N. Security council to recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. The chance of that happening is nil, since the U.S. would veto it.

Nevertheless, is it such a bad idea to ask? It would force the U.S. into an awkward position, drawing world attention to its one-sided, pro-Israeli policy. That might dislodge some diplomatic energy that is lacking at the moment.

What would happen if Palestinians were to unilaterally declare such a state? It would be interesting. Israel might acknowledge it, but would seal its borders and shut off the water. Trade and transportation would stop. There would be no effective communication between Gaza and the West Bank. Since Hamas controls Gaza and is against such a declaration, in effect, you would have a Palestine on the West Bank only.

(1967 Borders)

Israel would not give up its settlements without a fight, so the idea of 1967 borders would not be real on the ground. Still, there would be, in fact, a Palestinian state. The Arab world would recognize it and money, goods, and military support would flow in immediately. Palestine would no longer be dependent on Israel, but instead on Jordan, and other neighbors, until it could find its feet.

One can imagine that over time, the new Palestine would develop its own governance and economy and become a functioning state. It would solve the persistent “middle east crisis” by its defacto recognition of Israel. Israel would be hard pressed not to acknowledge the legitimacy of the new state (not necessarily with formal diplomatic recognition). Palestine declared independence once before, in 1988, and many countries recognized that declaration, but for practical reasons, nothing came of it. Is it worth trying again?

On the down side, there is the problem of the illegal settlements. Essentially, there would be an unresolved border issue there. But if the Palestinians were to simply accept the border of The Wall that Israel has built, and give up on land already annexed, they would have stopped that erosion and staked firm borders. They would have to get past wet-eyed talk about historic homelands and all that, and just go for the certainty of statehood.

Gaza would be left to itself. In the long run, it might declare itself the new state of Hamas, or be taken over by Egypt, or if Hamas were to fall, opt to be annexed to Palestine. None of those outcomes is so terrible.

(Original 1947 Borders)

The new Palestine could join the U.N., the Arab League, and whatever other organizations it could. Any hostility between Israel and Palestine would be a matter for U.N. negotiation. Israel would remain secure with U.S. backing. Such an outcome would take much of the ideological wind out of extremists who excuse their militancy on grounds of supporting the struggle of the Palestinian people. That struggle would be over.

The AFPAK Conundrum

2009-10-19T12:33:00.000-07:00

President Obama will soon announce whether or not he will agree to General McChrystal’s request to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Most pundits agree that 40K would be merely a downpayment; that at least 100,000 would be needed to suppress the Taliban there. So we are looking at a Vietnam-style gradual escalation that slowly bleeds the country (our country) white, whereupon we throw in the towel in defeat. It’s not even clear what these 40K troops would be used for. It’s not even clear what the present troops there are doing. The war in Afghanistan is not popular with Americans, but even allowing for the fact that the American public has a short attention span, sending more troops is a bad idea now and an even worse trend.

Should we pull out then? Let the Taliban take over? An argument could be made for that option, except for one small problem: Pakistan has the atomic bomb. The Taliban are not going to stay in Afghanistan. They have already migrated into Pakistan, which is now their headquarters. We do not need another bunch of nut-case Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons. The consequences are too severe to even consider.

So what is a good strategy? Not that Obama calls me any more, but if he did, I would say, don’t sent any more fighting troops to Afghanistan. It’s a never-ending battle there. No matter how many Taliban we kill, they can easily recruit more. Instead, send 40,000 troops into Pakistan to wipe out the Taliban in the Northwest region, drive them back into Afghanistan. Pakistan is what we need to protect, not Afghanistan.

Granted, the Pakis may not care to have 40,000 American troops barge in. But maybe there is a way around that. Maybe they are 40,000 trainers, advisors, logistics personnel, and whatnot; everything but trigger-pullers.

Once Pakistan is secure, we take these further actions in Afghanistan: We seal the borders of Afghanistan (as much as possible) from the inside with troops, and from the outside with economic and political sanctions. Especially the border with Pakistan. Then we eradicate the poppies, which is the Taliban’s source of income, and we pay farmers a subsidy to grow something more useful to the same profit level. Hey, it works in Wisconsin, it can work in Kandahar. I am sure that farm subsidies are less costly than a war without end. Finally, we spend money, money, money on training and infiltrating human intelligence into Afghanistan, psychological warfare, and on building schools, electric generators, and water systems in villages. We do NOT try to convert the country to democracy, capitalism, or Christianity. I would guess that all these efforts, costly though they might be, would still be less expensive than another eight years of warfare.

So Obama should send in, not 40,000 troops, but 40,000 civil engineers, spies, and micro-diplomats. Troops are not what we need.

Better Than a Poke In The Eye

2009-09-17T07:35:00.000-07:00

The recently released “Baucus” senate health care reform plan has the virtue of providing health insurance coverage for a good proportion of the currently uninsured. Everybody will be required to have health insurance, just as we must now have car insurance, but the cost of insurance will be subsidized for the poor and the lower middle class. Those costs will be recovered through “fees” (basically new taxes) on health insurers, pharmaceutical makers, health labs and medical device makers.

Providing health insurance for the poor is a good thing. It could even nominally reduce costs by reducing use of emergency rooms, (which we all pay for in increased costs), the method by which the poor get health care now. It also introduces some slight regulation of the insurance industry, eliminating the more egregious practices, such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and by setting some minimum coverage standards. Regulation like that is badly needed.

However, the plan does not propose to reduce overall health care spending. The high, “unsustainable” cost of health care has been Obama’s main argument for why reform is needed. This plan does not address that argument. There will be non-profit consumer cooperatives established for the purpose of providing health care insurance. These are supposed to provide much-needed price competition, but it is hard to see how they would, unless, over time, they became extremely large and essentially became the “public option” not included in this plan. A small insurance co-op just wouldn’t have enough actuarial muscle to spread the risk.

State-based exchanges, or central markets, would be set up where individuals could easily compare prices and coverage from health insurers. That will help with price transparency, but is not much different than spending a few hours on the internet. You still can only buy insurance from companies licensed in your state, which is a limited choice. And if the pricing information is provided by the industry, it will be about as transparent as mud. Have you ever tried to compare pricing for TV cable services, or wireless services online? There are so many vaguely defined variables, misdirections and subtle subterfuges that a straightforward comparison is impossible. I am not sanguine about the helpfulness of that idea.

We should assume that the taxes levied on the health care industry to pay for the Baucus plan will be passed along to consumers. The companies are not going to just take the hit. They will raise the cost of coverage, probably across the board but mostly on the high end. This will have the effect of employers choosing to offer lower grade coverage or higher prices, and the same for individuals buying their own coverage. There are simply no price controls in this plan. By assigning the new costs disproportionately to higher end consumers, the plan effects a wealth transfer, the rich subsidizing the newly insured poor. That’s not a bad thing in principle, but it does nothing to reduce overall costs, which was the problem to be solved.

So this plan is batting .500. It does address one of the two outstanding problems, health insurance coverage for the 50 million uninsured in this country. But it whiffs the second problem, lowering the overall cost of health care. One out of two is better than none out of two, but it is not the sweeping FDR-like vision many had hoped for. Perhaps it is not the final word.

It's the Insurance, Stupid

2009-09-06T11:15:00.001-07:00

President Obama will soon give a big speech to congress (mostly to the Democrats) about health care reform. He needs to right the ship of discussion quickly. It has been listing badly under the weight of irrational and malicious propaganda from the right and petty bickering on the left.

The plain fact is that the current health care system is financially unsustainable. Three quarters of Americans will simply have to go broke from health care costs if it continues on the present course. Or, more likely, premiums will rise sharply and benefits will be cut to keep it going, leaving more of us out in the cold. None of these is a desirable outcome. Ergo, we need to reform the health care system.

Obama has at least identified the problem correctly as an insurance problem. The problem is not that doctors are price gouging. The problem is not that hospital profits are too high. The problem is not that the quality of health care is low. The problem is not fraud (although there is some of that, to be sure). The problem is not frivolous use of medical services. The problem is cost, cost cost. Why are the costs so high? Because the insurance companies charge too much for the services they render. The problem is with the insurance companies.

I am very satisfied with my health insurance just the way it is. It is comprehensive and low cost. I fork over a $15 copay every time I visit the doctor, and that’s it. I don’t even know what the true cost is of the medical services I receive. As far as I know, anything I want costs $15.

What do I pay for this fabulous level of care? Thousands and thousands of dollars! I pay about $6,432 annually for basic health insurance (including wife). My employer pays at least that much, probably double that amount. I also pay $624 per year for dental insurance (employer pays the rest) and $3,214 a year to medicare, a service I do not use, so I am donating that amount to “the system” so others can benefit.

But just looking at basic health insurance, Aetna gets $6432 annually from me and let’s assume $12, 864 annually from my employer, for a total of $19, 296 per year in premiums. And this has been going on for the past 40 years, at ever increasing rates. I can guarantee that I do not consume $20K worth of medical services in a year and never have. So Aetna has literally, made a fortune on just me and my employer!

Now, granted, my employer can deduct some of their portion of the insurance payments from their taxes, which amounts to a government subsidy (a partial “single-payer” system). And granted, I paid less for insurance in the distant past. And granted, when I get really old, it is not inconceivable that I might blow through $20K in medical services in a year. But I have been paying in for a long time, and I am just one person! Millions upon millions of people have been paying these same premiums into Aetna and the other insurance companies for years. Who is getting rich?

Does the “free-market” system of insurance work? It works for me. I have no motivation to change anything. But in two years, my employer-subsidised medical insurance runs out. Then what will I do? Will I be able to come up with private insurance? Preliminary research shows that I will have to pay at least $1500 a month, or about $27,000 a year for private coverage that includes only the most catastrophic medical events, with a high copay and a high deductible. That is nasty. No more annual physicals. No more lab tests that detect potentially serious conditions before they occur. No more going to the doctor every time there is an infection, rash, or pain that is not life-threatening.

I simply cannot not afford the level of coverage I have now once I separate from my employer. It is no wonder that nearly 50 million Americans have no medical coverage at all. It's expensive! I will just chance it for a few more years until I qualify for medicare.

Obama has suggested that the government should offer public insurance to compete with the private companies, like Aetna. Presumably, it would be cheaper than Aetna’s and just as good. That would force Aetna to lower their prices (and take a lower profit, poor babies.)

Critics object that if there were a public option, many small to medium employers (and maybe the large employers too) would simply stop offering health benefits. Why should they, when the public option is available to anyone? So, the complaint goes, the public option would force out the private option.

That objection is nonsense, borne of either ignorance or malicious disinformation. Why would private employers continue to offer health coverage? For the same reason they offer salary: to compensate employees! Health insurance is part of the compensation package. If my employer stopped offering health care coverage, that would be equivalent to a $12,000 per year pay cut. Forget that. I would look to a more generous employer rather quickly.

Secondly, if the public option is cheaper and just as good, and let’s say employers do stop offering private coverage, and workers move in throngs to the public option, what is Aetna going to do? Will they say, “Oh well, it was good while it lasted, but now we’re out of business. Too bad?” Of course not. They are not going out of business. They will fight back, and that is the whole point. They will lower premiums and improve services and do whatever it takes to be competitive and stay in business. And that is exactly the desired outcome.

Who could be against lower costs for health care at the same high level? Only a few groups. The insurance companies are against it, of course. And the politicians they support are against it. And all the lawyers, accountants, adjustors, clerks and millions of others who feed off the insurance industry would be against it. But those are all greedy self-interests. It is perfectly clear that health insurance reform is in the best interest of the public.

I hope Obama addresses the health insurance issue head on and does not get drawn into peripheral or nonexistent issues such as “unnecessary lab tests” fraud, paperwork reduction, tort reform, health rationing, “death panels”, and so on. None of that is keeping his eye on the ball. Insurance is the ball.

Cheney Offended by Rule of Law

2009-08-30T10:45:00.000-07:00

Former vice-president Dick Cheney said on Fox News that the Attorney General’s probe into CIA torture under the Bush-Cheney administration “offends the Hell out of me.”

(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/30/cheney-slams-obamas-politicized-probe-cia-interrogations/ 8/30/09. )

(Fox News Graphic)

Cheney has “serious doubts,” he said, about whether President Obama “understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation."

But what “nation” is Cheney talking about? A democratic America that operates by the will of the people, under the rule of law, or some other nation, in which an autocratic ruler (or a pair of them) decide arbitrarily “what needs to be done” regardless of the law?

Torture of prisoners is illegal. It is illegal now, and it was illegal when Cheney was vice-president. Since credible evidence has emerged that the CIA engaged in systematic torture with at least tacit, and probably explicit approval of Cheney, then what is the attorney general supposed to do? Ignore it? He can’t. It would be illegal for him to ignore it.

The attorney general swore in his oath of office to protect and uphold the constitution, and unlike Cheney, who also took that oath, the attorney general apparently is a man of his word.

The new policy (of upholding the law), will be, according to Cheney, "very, very devastating, I think, … on morale inside the intelligence community." That is probably correct. No criminal likes to be caught and punished. It understandably deflates morale.

The trail of crumbs might lead straight back to Cheney’s office, whereupon he would be, we can guess, extremely, extremely offended all to Hell that his criminal behavior was exposed.

R2P: Is there a Right to Protect?

2009-08-03T18:26:00.001-07:00

R2P stands for “Responsibility to Protect,” a phrase and an idea tirelessly promoted by Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister. The United Nations has been debating the idea this week in the General Assembly.

What is it? Four years ago a meeting of more than 150 world leaders issued a declaration asserting that the “international community” (however that is defined) has a “right” and a duty to protect people from genocide and mass killings, especially when their own government will not or cannot protect them. The situation everyone probably had in mind was the mass murders in Rwanda and in Bosnia in the 1990’s. The world mostly stood by and watched, saying “What can we do? It is an internal affair of that country.”

The declaration says, no, mass atrocities and genocide are not internal political affairs, but moral issues that concern all civilized people. It is seen as a small extension to widely accepted international principles of human rights.

According to the R2P principle, if the government of a country could not or would not protect its own people from mass slaughter, then, if the security council of the United Nations agreed, the U.N. could intervene by providing advice and mediation. If that did not work, then in an extreme case, armed intervention would be justified to protect the afflicted population. The proposal has been endorsed by U.N. Secretary Ban Ki Moon.

Who could be against this? Surely we do not want to sit by and watch another slaughter like we saw in Rwanda?

The question is, who defines what counts as “atrocity” or “genocide”? Is the killing in Darfur a genocide? The leaders in Khartoum don’t say so. They are just fighting rebels, they say. The U.N. has no right to interfere.

According to Miguel D’Escoto, the U.N. General Assembly president, R2P is just a disguised form of neo-colonialism to be used by big Western powers to impose their will on the weak. It is a fig leaf for a big country to wear as it invades a smaller one.

Recently, Russia appealed to the R2P principle as a reason it “had to” invade Georgia. Is that wrong? Hitler used the R2P argument to invade Czechoslovakia before World War II. Japan claimed it “had to” invade Manchuria in 1931 to end the slaughter of its citizens there. So clearly the principle can be used for various ends.

Nevertheless, it seems that if the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China, the members of the U.N. security council who rarely agree on anything, all agreed that invocation of R2P was appropriate, that would seem to be an adequate judicial opinion. But some countries who are not members of that club disagree.

Not everyone in the U.S. is sold on the idea of R2P either. The GW Bush administration was worried that a vote could be taken against US actions around the world, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan, in the name of preventing inhuman slaughter of innocents. Obama’s government has supported the idea.

If we were not a permanent member of the security council, how would we feel about this principle, having no veto over its execution? Would we be fearless? Surely we know genocide when we see it, and we ourselves would never commit genocide! No? We have in the past. We wiped out the American Indians. We wiped out two Japanese cities with nuclear bombs. We killed an awful lot of Vietnamese for no obvious reason. There is just no reason to think that any particular country could be immune from a U.N. resolution to invade on grounds of R2P. Nobody wants to be in that position.

So despite what seems to be a no-brainer extension to the basic principles of human rights, the U.N. will not endorse the R2P idea this week. Fear for self-preservation is much stronger than any noble impulse to help nameless foreigners in some god-forsaken corner of the globe. It’s a pity. We have not really come so far from the big monkeys we started out as.

Peace, Inshallah

2009-06-06T07:42:00.000-07:00

President Obama’s speech in Cairo last week is generally regarded as a success. He did reach out to the Islamic world, hoping, as he said, for “a new beginning.” But very early in the speech, he started with an untrue premise. He stated that Christianity and Islam have much in common, shared values and interests. In the most abstract sense that is correct, as all religions have in common acknowledgment of a supreme God. But a very large difference between Christianity and Islam is captured in the single Arab word, “inshallah,” meaning “God willing.”

“Inshallah” peppers every conversation, almost every statement, in Arabic, and for good reason. Many Muslims take a passive attitude toward life that moves by the hand of God, not by their own hand. There is not the sense we have in the West of “doing” one’s life, building one’s career, striving for success, and so on. All those things are in God’s hands. What happens is not up to me. Inshallah.

In Christianity there is a similar theme of submission to God’s will in all things. Yet somehow that does not come at the expense of individual ego. Christians talk about God intervening in human affairs from time to time, making things turn out well or badly, but there is not a pervasive feeling that every minute of every day is controlled by the hand of God, individuals mere corks bobbing on the sea of divine events. It’s a fundamental difference in psychology that must underly any attempts at reconciliation of the cultures, and any political dialog. By suggesting otherwise, Obama started on shaky ground.

Christians do not prostrate themselves five times a day and pray in public. Our relationship with God is very private, very inner. Yet in one sense, Muslims practice inner mindfulness far more intensely than Christians, for that. Praying ostensibly five times a day would necessarily make you more mindful of God’s presence. That is the whole point of the practice. They are not praying to ask god to intervene so that their favorite sports team will win the playoffs. No. Each Muslim is reminding himself, “My life is not my life. My life is God’s life. Inshallah.

(Image: Reuters)

Vive La France

2009-05-26T09:51:00.000-07:00

The big news today is not the appointment of a new Supreme Court judge, and not North Korea’s underground nuclear test. The real news is that France opened its first foreign military base in 50 years, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/26/france-military-base-uae ).

Why would France do that? Oil is one obvious answer. France needs to protect a future supply of oil just as the US has military bases in the Middle East for the same reason.

Secondly, the new base is a mere 137 miles from Iran, and that is surely no accident. That delightfully tweaks the Iranian nose, but also stands as a serious warning, by the UAE, and by implication, from other Arab states, that they are prepared to confront an aggressive Iran, even a nuclear Iran. France is a nuclear power, of course.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy highlighted the new base’s ability to fight pirates in the shipping lanes, but that is more misdirection than motivation.

The longer term strategic interest is that France wants to project its foreign policy into the Middle East to compete for military, economic, and cultural influence in the Arab world. That is a competition the U.S. would love to lose. We want out, not in. Let France strut its stuff for a while. We would pay them to open that base! (Maybe we did, who knows?).

The history of the Middle East is the history of Western meddling, especially by Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. There is almost no other history to tell since before World War I. The uncertainty and latent instability in the region today is legacy of that sordid modern history. If we did not need the oil, we could let the devil take the hindmost. As it is, we should be grateful to France for providing some backbone while we are otherwise occupied. We have indeed come a long way from "Freedom Fries."

Pakistan Vs. Taliban

2009-05-17T18:27:00.000-07:00

A million people are displaced from the fighting in the Swat valley in northwest Pakistan as the Pakistani army attempts to rout the Taliban. According to sketchy press reports “hundreds” of Taliban fighters have been killed and the army controls the valley again.

It is a worthy show of force that convinces the West that Pakistan is serious about fighting the Taliban. But is the army going to stay? Surely there are thousands, not merely hundreds of Taliban fighters. They are not going to retire. They will lie low until the Pakistan army retreats.
(Image: Huffington Post.com)

Blowing up villages is dramatic and accomplishes several objectives. It drives the enemy out, asserts the government’s authority, and assures continuing aid from the west. However it also creates millions of refugees and does nothing to solve the long term problem of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan. In the absence of a strategy, this may be the best that can be attained right now.

Whither Pakistan?

2009-04-28T08:13:00.000-07:00

The Taliban have advanced from the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan to within 60 miles of the capitol, Islamabad. What we do not need is for the Taliban to have a nuclear weapon. These puritanical extremists are utterly irrational by Western standards and cannot be reasoned with. Amazingly, this story has not received much attention in mainstream western media.

Today the New York Times reports that the Pakistani government is finally sending in troops and aircraft against the advancing Taliban, albeit only “paramilitary” forces, not regular army. Is it yet another half-hearted effort or do they mean it this time? There is evidence and rumors that the Pakistani government is actually sympathetic to the Taliban and that the Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) has aided and abetted the Taliban in the past. Surveys show that most Pakistanis are ambivalent about the Taliban. Most of the Muslim terrorist training camps are in Pakistan. So it is difficult to be sanguine about the earnestness or effectiveness of the government’s effort.

According to the Wall Street Journal, House Democrats are now considering whether to speed up financial aid to Pakistan to help them fight. Nearly two billion dollars are destined for Pakistan by later this summer. The question being considered is whether some of that money can be released early, like right now.

This is a story we have heard before. We funded and armed the Taliban in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded it. Look how well that turned out. We funded and armed Saddam Hussein against the Iranians in the 1980’s. We have done the same thing many times before in many parts of the globe. Geopolitical expedience comes back to haunt us. Very often the weapons end up being turned against us, but even when they do not, the culture certainly does. We have done it in Iran, Nicaragua, Panama, … the list goes on.

So far, we have gotten away with arming and propping up Israel; an exception to the rule. But Pakistan? They are halfway over to the Taliban side already. It is only a matter of time. Why don’t we put the $2billion into Afghan border security and let Pakistan fend for itself. If regional players do not care if the Taliban takes over Pakistan, and Pakistan itself doesn’t seem to care much, then why should we? We don’t want a nuclear Taliban (or a nuclear Iran either, or North Korea), but we cannot single handedly hold back the tide. Maybe we should be supporting India more, defending the Afghan borders, and getting ready to respond to a limited nuclear war in the middle east.

Do Republicans Care About Children?

2009-04-03T07:47:00.000-07:00

The Obama budget passed both the house and senate with NO Republican votes. Why? Too much spending, increases the deficit says the GOP.

“Let’s not do this to our kids,” said Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No.3 Republican in the House. “Let’s not borrow from the next generation of Americans.”
(Hulse, NYTimes.com, 4/2/09).

Representative Pence voted FOR the monster Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000587/key-votes/), which doubled the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ ).

Maybe Pence did not care so much about children back then.

It is worth noting that the Reagan tax cuts more than tripled the deficit, from $908 billion in 1980 to $3.2 trillion in 1990. If Pence had been in congress then, no doubt he would have voted for those tax cuts too (since he votes with his party 97% of the time).

Fom what I can discern, Republicans care not one whit for the financial well-being of future generations. Current protestations to the contrary are simply “not consistent with the facts.”

Hair of the Hound?

2009-04-02T11:06:00.001-07:00

FASB announced today a “relaxation” of accounting rules for banks. “Relaxation” is a lovely euphemism. Everybody is in favor of relaxation. Who could be against it? What it actually means is a reduction in risk management. We could all be really, really relaxed if there were no laws at all, by that way of thinking.

FASB is the Financial Accounting Standards Board (often pronounced “Faz-bee”), a non-profit, non-governmental accounting industry organization (www.fasb.org). Member organizations include the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the American Accounting Association, and 28 others.

FASB attempts to maintain generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the US, which is what makes it possible to understand the financial statement of just about any audited company. If you’re a company and you do not conform to GAAP, your auditors will not sign your financial statements.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is responsible for setting and maintaining the accounting standards that publicly traded companies in the US must follow, but the SEC handed off that job to FASB in 1973. I don’t know how a government agency can privatize its legal responsibilities like that, but it happened, and it has been working okay ever since.

To the point, today FASB changed the acceptable accounting rules for banks that are holding piles of those “toxic assets” we have heard so much about. Banks are supposed to show those assets on their financial statements according to what they are worth. But what ARE they worth? In reality, they are worth almost nothing because if they put them up for sale today, they would find few, if any buyers.

Let’s say they are worth only 20 cents of their face value. Why not sell them at 20 cents each then and be done with it? The main reason is that you don’t really know if they are worth 20 cents. You might not get any buyers at 20 cents, or even at 10 cents because there just isn’t a market out there. Nobody’s buying anything. So in effect, if you put the toxic assets on the non-market right now, you could find they are worth zero dollars.

The banks have so many of these assets, they are not willing to put them up for sale and find out they are worth nothing. That would mean a large part of the bank was worth nothing, and that would mean the bank was insolvent. So to put the assets up for sale would be suicide. So they won’t do it. But they have to do it if they want to get the assets off their books because that is the “mark to market” GAAP rule.

But here is the wrinkle: Bankers claim that some of these assets are actually quite valuable. They are probably worth 60 or even 80 cents of face value, they say, because they are debt instruments from solid borrowers with good credentials who are making their payments and there is no problem with these assets other than the fact that everybody is afraid of them. In a normal market, these would be good assets. It just happens that there is no market right now.

FASB has bought that argument and said, okay, you can assign whatever price you think is reasonable to these assets and show that on your books. You don’t have to really mark them to market because there is no market. FASB will allow banks and their auditors to use "significant judgment" to value their “impaired assets” (no longer toxic, just impaired, and who hasn’t been impaired from time to time? ).

Conveniently, the first quarter just ended two days ago and banks are now feverishly preparing 1Q reports. What a godsend to be able to show that the bank is actually healthy, not rotten to the core! How do you think they will value the troubled assets? Zero? Not likely. Twenty percent of face? Well, why not use some “significant judgment” and value them at 80% of face, because then, hallelujah, the report will show that the bank is healthy!

You might think the bankers would be showering FASB with tearful thanks for letting them off the hook and for nullifying the consequences of their greed and irresponsibility. But no. The response of the American Bankers’ Association was to ask FASB, “Could you make that retroactive? This is great for 1Q09, but you know, we took a major hit in 4Q08, so if you would make the rule retroactive, we could revise the ’08 statement and we would really come out smelling like a rose!”

This request would make us laugh with despair, except that House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), said he will consider it! I hope he meant, “I will give it all the consideration it deserves.” Which is NONE! Frank is a smart guy, and so far he has done the right thing. We must wait to see if he is who he appears to be.

One interesting consequence of the FASB “relaxation” is that Paul Krugman is thwarted. He has been saying for weeks that the banks are rotten and the only cure is to cut out the cancer by nationalizing them. But this FASB move finesses him. Now the toxic assets will have a fantasy value based on their owners’ opinions, but if that fools enough people, investors might show up at Geithner’s yard sale and buy some. Then a market will in fact exist, and the price will be a real-market price, and the financial reports will suddenly be true, and the banks will be recovered. It’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes. If nobody calls “naked!” the scheme might work.

If that is the outcome, I will be the first to praise its brilliance. Markets are 99% psychology anyway, so it could work, and that would be wonderful.

There are loose ends though. One is the moral issue of letting all those greedy banks off the hook so easily. We are supposed to hold our noses and let that go for the sake of the recovery, but that is not easy to do.

Another is that this sleight of hand by the green eyeshade crowd is exactly the kind of non-transparent shenanigans that brought the whole system down in the first place. It is a hair of the hound that bit us. Does that theory work?

In Defense of Bonuses!

2009-03-24T11:40:00.000-07:00

I suspect the people who are enraged about the AIG bonus scandal are people who don’t leave tips for wait staff in restaurants. Hey, they already get paid a salary, right, so why leave a tip? This is such a non-issue, I can hardly believe it is still in the news.

The common sense meaning of a “bonus” is something that is over and above what is normally expected in a situation. So it sounds like these AIG employees were showered with gratuitous money on the basis of greed alone.

But that is not what a “bonus” means in many industries, including the financial industry. Your bonus is a normal, expected part of your compensation. In the case of AIG it was written into the employment contract over a year ago. There was nothing unexpected, unusual, or gratuitous about it. Some employees could have a salary of $1 per year and a large “bonus” at the end of the year. Remove the bonus and they have worked a year for one dollar. That’s not fair.

Another reason people get tied in a knot over this incident is that the bonuses are very large, compared to what most people earn in a year. Many bonuses were a million dollars or more. But so what? That’s what people make in that industry. If you don’t make that much, maybe you went into the wrong business. Get over it. Resentment over the size of somebody else’s pay package is just unconscionable envy.

The argument has been made that the people who got these bonuses were undeserving. They were the very people who got AIG into so much financial trouble that it required taxpayer bailout. Since a bonus is contingent on performance, it seems inconceivable to many, including those in congress, that these employees could have earned any bonus.

But congresspersons are in no position to judge what is satisfactory performance at a firm like AIG. If the job is to bring in revenues by writing contracts of a certain kind, and you do that well, you get paid. That’s what the employment contract said and that’s what they did, so they got paid. Fair’s fair. It is an incorrect presumption to think that somebody in congress is a better judge of of the employees' performance.

Admittedly, the criterion performance to be rewarded should have been quality, not quantity. That is a common difficulty in any behavior management scheme – specifying the desired behavior with precision. But the employees did not specify the behavior to be rewarded, the bosses did. It is called a labor contract because you exchange your labor for cash payment. So the government would do better to replace the worthless executives in charge and retain the employees who proved so capable of performing the work required!

I did not even bother to write to my congresspersons about the idiotic house proposal to tax the bonuses at 90%. It was so stupid on the face of it that I did not think it had a chance of passing. Was I wrong about that! The legislation was not only a knee-jerk reflex, based on irrational emotion rather than reason, but it is almost certainly unconstitutional. (It is illegal to use tax law to punish individuals or selected groups). I now believe that rationality will prevail in the senate, but I am writing to my senators just in case. You just never know with politicians.

Reincarnation at Treasury?

2009-03-17T10:33:00.000-07:00

Reincarnated? These two fellows must be karmically related.

Although Ludwig was never much for economics, Tim isn't strong on language games, either.

Still, you have to wonder.

(Ludwig Wittgenstein) ..................................................... (Timothy Geithner)

Propping Up Versus Fixing

2009-03-03T09:34:00.001-08:00

“We had no choice” but to prop up AIG, said Fed Chairman Bernanke (foxnews.com/politics, 3/3/09), as the government dumped another $30 billion into the insurance giant, bringing the taxpayer onus to over $200 billion so far on just that one black hole.

He is right, sickening though it is. And more billions will be probably be needed. The trouble is that AIG insures against default of credit-backed securities for dozens of banks worldwide. If AIG defaulted on its insurance contracts, all those banks would collapse and we would indeed be back to The Great Depression.

So why not fix the problem rather than continual “propping up”? What we do NOT need is a Potemkin banking system.

Whatever happened to the plan for the government to buy the toxic assets? Whatever happened to the “bad bank” strategy? Where the hell is Geithner? I’m starting to get the sinking feeling that nobody is in charge.

The New Hillary

2009-02-22T16:00:00.000-08:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Asia this week on her first outing as a member of the Obama Administration. She talked with leaders in Myanmar (Burma), Japan, South Korea, China, and Malaysia, and according to news reports, some of her comments were unusually candid. She emphasized economics and climate change, not human rights with China. She talked about North Korean regime change in Seoul, and wondered aloud if sanctions against Burma were useful. There’s nothing wrong with saying what’s obvious, she told reporters (Kessler, G.: Washington Post.com, 22 Feb 09).
(Clinton in China Feb 09 LA Times Photo)

But that is exactly what is not obvious. As she herself has said, diplomacy is a head game. Stating the obvious may not be to one’s advantage. Human rights organizations are furious with her for not emphasizing human rights issues in China. Others wonder if she is just trying to be well-liked or if she has any policy in mind, and if it is a policy, since when did the US no longer care about human rights?

But I think she is doing the right thing, and I confess I did not realize she had the flexibility to think in a different way, whether directed by Obama or not. Her comments show a subtlety of mind I did not know lurked there.

Her comments mark a sharp break with the Bush foreign policy. She is saying, we are no longer going to throw our weight around like the bullies we have been. We are now willing to talk plainly and listen with an open mind. That is a fundamental change in direction for US diplomacy and it is important to indicate to all, that is what is happening.

She is also saying, especially by choosing Asia for her maiden voyage, that our important future allies are not necessarily going to be in Europe but in Asia. That’s the truth, and it is smart to signal that, to both Asia and Europe. So there is a policy behind her remarks and it is much larger and more important than whether Tibetans should be allowed more autonomy.

The Chinese can be harsh in dealing with their own citizens, but so can we. They have a billion people to keep in check, three times what we have, with much more diversity in culture and language, and with with a fraction of the wealth and education we enjoy. “Human Rights” should be re-thought in less absolute terms. What do we know about how China works? We barely know how the US works.

The US has been the world leader in promoting human rights since the Carter presidency, and that should continue, but perhaps, in view of our abominable performance in the last eight years, with a bit more humility.

I am impressed with Clinton’s comments. If she continues in such a candid and yet subtly strategic way, she might well be the best secretary of state we have had in living memory. I never saw that coming.

Do Republicans Have Any Ideas?

2009-01-28T17:45:00.000-08:00

President Obama’s economic stimulus package passed the House today, 244 to 188, without a single Republican vote. Not one.

I find that remarkable. The president has openly talked up his desire for more bipartisan government, and he made a big display of going up to the Hill to jawbone the Republicans.

Yet the Republicans all, to a person, essentially said, “Go soak your head.” They appear as juvenile, spiteful, self-destructive poseurs obsessed with game-playing, all while the American economy goes down the tubes. How can the whole batch of them be so consistently small, mean-spirited, selfish, and immature? Isn’t there a single statesman among them?

I try to stick to rational analysis of the facts, but these people make it very difficult to remain unemotional.

“Principles!” the Republicans cry. "Of course we want to do what’s best for America, but this stimulus package is so worthless, if not downright harmful or evil, that no conscionable person could vote for it."

That is an implausible argument under the circumstances, but at least conceivable. Is there any truth behind it? I can’t find it.

Republicans have only a single concept of governance: elimination of taxes. It does not seem to bother them, or occur to them, that if we were to eliminate taxes, there would be no government and no Republicans either. But they apparently get a “tax-cut” chip implanted in their brain as a condition of joining the party. Anything other than massive tax cuts, especially those that benefit the wealthy, is considered utterly unacceptable to them.

This is notwithstanding actual facts, such as,

1. The economic stimulus package is made up of about 1/3 tax cuts and 2/3 new spending. So it is simply not the case that the legislation does not accommodate the Republican desire for tax cuts. One third of 800 billion dollars is $260 billion in tax cuts, not a trivial amount. The Republicans’ “principled” objection to the legislation rings hollow.

2. Tax cuts don’t do much good for individuals or business that aren’t paying much in taxes. Especially for small businesses (under 100 employees), projected near-term profits are expected to be small to zero, so tax cuts on nonexistent profits wouldn't be much of an economic stimulus.

3. The Republicans had eight years to play around with tax cuts, which they did, and the result has not turned out well. The “trickle-down” mythology has been thoroughly repudiated in fact and theory. What legitimate justification could there be for clinging to the tax-cut mantra in the face of evidence? One is tempted to suspect that the motivations are less than noble.

Try this simple test. Watch any television news show that interviews a Republican about the stimulus package. Clock how much time passes before the Republican says the phrase “tax cuts.” I have done this and the mean elapsed time is 15 seconds. These people must be possessed by an evil spirit. Or have a brain implant. I am not aware of any alternative economic stimulus proposal from the Republicans that involves anything other than “Tax cuts!”

Another Republican criticism of the stimulus package is that it spends too much on non-economic items, such as health, education, and safety. In what alternate universe is education NOT the basic engine of economic growth? For a Republican, economic growth apparently only means more cash, today! No doubt there are some stupid or irrelevant line items buried in the package and I'm sure we will hear all about them soon. That kind of idiocy is not a particularly Democratic problem. If we look at the largest 80% of the stimulus package, not the 20% chaff, it looks eminently reasonable.

Yet another Republican criticism is that they did not have sufficient “input” to the drafting of the legislation. From what I can gather, that is because they declined to participate when invited. Their complaint is at best disingenuous, more likely, misdirection and petulant whining.

Finally, consider that even if the economic stimulus package was a bitter pill for any Republican to swallow, on principle, why not support it anyway, for Heaven’s sake? The country is going down! What kind of high and mighty “principles of governance” are so sacred that you would choose ashes in everyone’s mouth instead of compromise? I think “principles” are not the issue here at all. Republican behavior points to psychological immaturity and a paucity of ideas badly papered over by tawdry egos.

Maybe I was wrong in my criticism of Krugman’s book, “The Conscience of a Liberal.” (Halfway down the page at www.waadams.net/2194.html).

I said Krugman was unjustifiably hostile toward conservatives and had devolved to mere name-calling. But maybe he was more perceptive than I realized. Unless the Republicans come up with some reasoned, evidence-based explanations for their behavior, I think the Democrats should just ignore them because they can’t be spoken to.

The Inaugural Address

2009-01-20T11:30:00.000-08:00

The Inaugural Address

It almost didn’t matter what he said. The very fact of him, a young African-American, standing there, said it all. The speech was a success before he opened his mouth.

Nevertheless, I was disappointed. I wanted the soaring rhetoric he is famous for, something that acknowledged the significance of the moment. Instead, we got a fairly pedestrian speech, albeit finely crafted.

Mr. Obama opened with thinly veiled words of criticism for G.W. Bush’s administration, as if he, Obama had been holding back a steaming kettle of Pelosi-esque disgust and derision until the very first moment when he could let the whistle sound without being inappropriate. He emphasized that his administration, only minutes old, was an about face. “From this moment on,” he would reject the idea that our ideals (e.g., constitutional rights) must be sacrificed for safety. He would replace the politics of fear-mongering with the politics of hope. He pointed a blaming finger at the "greed and irresponsibility of some" and said that a free market economy must be well-regulated if there is to be prosperity for more than the prosperous few. He will "restore science to its rightful place." And so on. It was a scathing indictment delivered with feeling.

Abruptly, Mr. Obama changed direction and spoke about his awareness of the many sacrifices that have gone before us. He spoke of George Washington, our forefathers, the defenders of American freedom through history, and so on. It was standard history book stuff, although he alluded to the fact that our history has a dark side too. Slavery and the civil war were mentioned. He asked us to choose “our better history,” a strange request. Wouldn't that be intentional biasing of the facts?

He paused to issue a statement to worldwide Islamist extremists: “You can’t outlast us and we will get you,” he averred. I am young but no milquetoast.

Then he segued into the need for personal responsibility among all Americans. But this was an unclear admonition. We should all work at a soup kitchen once in a while? Ok, fine, but what is the political point? People should be nicer? Of course they should. It was a nonspecific argument he was trying to sell. We should drive smaller cars? Maybe, but also, he said “Americans do not apologize for our way of life.” So I guess SUVs are ok after all. I thought the implication might have been, if you want to partake of the forthcoming government largesse, you must sacrifice something, in some unspecified way. But what? How? That part of the speech went past me.

Just as vaguely, Mr. Obama emphasized that we are now in the era of post-partisan politics. It does not matter whether you think government is too big or too small, he said, only what actually works. Well, sure. But “what works” is as much a matter of ideology as of empiricism. Do massive government bureaucracies, such as government-sponsored health care, “work,” or do they only lead to involuted “big gummint”? Do large, permanent tax cuts “work” or are they only subsidies for the rich? Obama cannot be described as naïve, so his rhetoric of post-partisan politics must be seen as partisan populist positioning ahead of what he knows are going to be tough ideological battles.

Taken as a whole, the speech seemed flat to me, full of platitudes, and maybe even a little dishonest in the sense that it was ostensibly addressed to the 2 million people standing in front of him, but actually addressed to the politicians sitting near him, and listening to him around the world.

On the other hand, the speech had the artistic quality of deicticism, meaning it demonstrated in fact what it was about in content. The speech began with burning criticism of the past administration and arced forward to glowing terms of hope and bipartisanship. That verbal change of scenery echoed the transition between the two administrations in front of our eyes, and the facticity of Obama standing there, confidently addressing millions of screaming followers, while G.W. Bush sat beside him with a blank expression. So the speech expressed its own gesture.

Nevertheless, I thought I could read the thoughts on Bush’s forehead: “He has no idea. A rude shock awaits.”

The End of Israel?

2009-01-09T10:00:00.000-08:00

Israel’s current attack on Gaza has several objectives, according to news reports:
1. Stop Hamas rockets being fired into Israel.
2. Destroy Hamas as a governing body
3. Get the Kadima party re-elected in Israel.

Of these, only the third is achievable.

The rocket materials and other weapons are coming in from Iran, Syria, and elsewhere via Egypt. It is unclear to me why it is impossible for Israel to seal the borders of Gaza. All they would need is a strip a few kilometers wide on the Gaza side of Egypt. Tunnels could be closed. The rest of the borders are easy. No more rockets.

Border monitoring must be more difficult than I realize. I never could understand why the U.S. did not seal the Iraqi borders early on, either. Sure, it’s expensive; sure it takes a lot of manpower. But it has got to be cheaper than war. Whatever the reasons, it apparently cannot be done so the rockets will continue to come in and be fired into Israel.

It may be possible to disable Hamas in Gaza for a while by disrupting their operations. But already Hamas leaders are pronouncing eternal revenge from Syria and elsewhere. Hamas will be around for a long time.

Israel does have the moral and legal right to defend itself against rocket attacks, of course. If Mexico started lobbing rockets into Texas, there is no question that a vigorous response would follow. It is no different for Israel.

However, bombing Gaza is a knee-jerk reaction. Since Hamas locates its weapons and military centers inside schools, hospitals, and universities (with callous indifference to its own people!), then attacks on Hamas have high collateral civilian damage. Then, since the news media are born to sell news, the desperate plight of the civilians is highlighted without consideration of the underlying causes.

Israel cannot hope to overcome the negative public opinion that results from biased news reporting. They have barred reporters from Gaza for that reason, but it is futile to attempt a news blackout. So they are losing, and will continue to lose international goodwill. Even in the U.S. it is not inconceivable that the “Special Relationship” between the U.S. and Israel could disintegrate rather quickly, due to changing public sentiment, however unjustified it might be in military terms.
(Photo Welt Online)

But let’s just suppose that some kind of ceasefire is called, say around January 20, 2009. Some clever diplomatic language will be found to allow Israel to monitor smuggling into Gaza while declaring that the borders are “open.” Hospitals are rebuilt, bandages changed, food supplies restored.

How long is it going to take for the Palestinians to forget about the attack? How long will it take Gazans and their compatriots in the West Bank to forgive? A couple hundred years might not be enough. Israel should not imagine it could ever achieve peace with the Palestinians after something like this attack. It is self-destructive behavior, no matter how righteous it feels at the moment.

(Photo Welt Online)

Then there is the problem of demographics in Israel. Palestinians out-breed the Israelis, and soon will be a majority of the population, certainly in the West Bank, and probably in most other parts of Israel as well. This could happen within 50 years. What will Israel do? Will it maintain a minority – rule, apartheid government? As we know, that solution has little long term viability. But a fully open democracy would lead to the obvious outcome of Palestinian rule, and it would not take long after that to replace the flag.

The Israelis could establish an iron-fisted dictatorship. That could work for a while, but in the long run, would surely cost the economic support of the U.S. There would be no Israel today without U.S. foreign aid, and that would be withdrawn from a dictatorship. Maybe some other country would be willing to pick up the slack. But it would be the end of Israel, the idea, leaving only Israel, the junta.

There is no apparent scenario under which Israel survives and prospers for another century as a democracy, and perhaps not at all. So maybe we should start adjusting our thinking now.

Maybe it was not such a good idea for the Western powers to arbitrarily carve an artificial country out of Palestine in 1948. It was an experiment; it didn’t work. Maybe the U.S. should start tilting its foreign policy to the Arab/Muslim world, which is the Next Big Thing.

With the demise of Israel as a state, what would become of the 7 million Israelis? Some might choose to live under a benign Palestinian government. It is sort of working like that in South Africa. Some could emigrate to America. Look how enormously we benefitted from the last great Jewish immigration. We could do it again. Some probably would want to set up another theocracy somewhere, like Somalia maybe? They need a government.

This Gaza war is more than a symptom. It is a signal that we may need to start imagining a world without Israel.

Cheney’s Double Fallacy

2008-12-24T07:26:00.000-08:00

Vice President (for another 25 days) Dick Cheney seems suddenly interested in establishing his “legacy.” Normally media-averse, he has unexpectedly appeared on several talk shows to explain how he has been a terrific vice-president and GW Bush just as terrific.

His argument employs two rhetorical fallacies. The first is the fallacy of future history (also called the “knowing the unknowable” fallacy). This is where a person claims to know what future historians will write about the present. Of course nobody knows that. Political predictions are notoriously inaccurate, and of all speculations one might make, what future historians will write is patently unknowable.

The future history fallacy encourages the listener or reader to recontextualize current events into a larger time scale extending into the future. From that imaginary God’s-eye view, it is suggested, the current events will seem more important than they do now. Since it is merely an exercise of fantasy, this argument is invalid.

Political historians do tend to obsess over presidential administrations, so we can be fairly sure that future histories of this one will be written (of which Cheney and Bush memoirs will probably be among the first out of the chute). However my guess is thatmost non-participant observers will evaluate the Bush-Cheney administration as one of the most incompetent and disastrous of its age. And my guess has as much value as Cheney's since the future is unknowable.

The second rhetorical fallacy deployed by Cheney in his recent interviews is a politicians’ favorite, the straw man. With this pseudo-argument one objects to a statement the other side never made or to a position that the other side does not actually hold. The effect of the fallacy is to deceive the uninformed listener or reader into thinking that the other side does hold the incorrect view. Since deception violates the foundation of legitimate discourse, this argument is invalid.

Cheney’s use of the straw man fallacy is reported in the New York Times of 12/22/08 (“Cheney Defends Bush on President’s Role”). Cheney criticized Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who had remarked that Cheney had been “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had in American history.”

Cheney’s dismissive reply was, “If he wants to diminish the office of vice president, that’s obviously his call.” But did Biden attempt to diminish the office of vice president? Not at all. His remark was directed squarely at Dick Cheney, occupant of that office. Cheney’s strategy was to deflect the criticism by pretending it was a different criticism, one that Biden never made. It is a classic maneuver.

Cheney went on to offer many unsound arguments, such as asserting that “the president “doesn’t have to check with anybody” — not Congress, not the courts — before launching a nuclear attack to defend the nation “because of the nature of the world we live in” since the terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001” (NYT). This assertion contradicts the United States Constitution that Cheney and Bush swore to uphold. That contradiction makes it an unsound argument.

But that is not a fallacy, which is an error in reasoning. It is just a weak, unjustified, unconvincing argument based on inadequate evidence.

It is difficult to decide if Cheney simply cannot reason correctly, or if he uses fallacious arguments deliberately to deceive his audience.

Is Deflation Really So Bad?

2008-12-10T16:41:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Economic recession is deepening and there is fear now of deflation, a situation where prices fall and so does demand. Normally, if prices fall, people rush in to buy, like the crazy stampedes of shoppers on the day after Thanksgiving.

But now, nobody has enough money, so demand is down. Prices drop, to lure customers and match the lower demand. But that cuts profits so companies slim down, cutting inventory and jobs. Consequently there is less to sell and more people without money. So prices fall further, more jobs are lost, inventory shrinks more. Salaries stagnate because a thousand workers apply for every job, so there is no inflation.

This vicious downward spiral ripples backward through the supply chain to manufacturers and importers, who also slow down, slim down, and lay off workers, further depressing the economy. Deflation ripples out to the housing and credit markets where sellers are under water and buyers can’t get loans. The whole economy comes to a halt and we all die (financially, anyway). That’s the doomsday scenario.

Nouriel Roubini (aka “Doctor Doom”) wrote a column in the Financial Times entitled, “How to Avoid the Horrors of Stagflation.” (FT 12/3/08, p. 13). Stagflation is a paradoxical combination of deflation and inflation. But Roubini does not talk about that, so the headline was probably added by someone who did not get the author’s drift. What he was warning against was spiraling deflation, as described above. He fears that the government’s attempts to inject money into the economy will not be enough, and not soon enough, to avert the horrors of deflation.

But I was thinking (always dangerous). Is deflation really so bad? Okay a lot of jobs would be lost, perhaps millions of them, and that is definitely bad. But let’s put that aside and come back to it in a moment.

People need to buy essentials: Food, medicine, clothing, housing, education. When the price is right, they will buy. When the price is too high they will avoid buying as long as they can and then buy only on the low end. But they will buy. So there will be an economy, even if only at a very low level. Everything cannot stop dead.

What people do not need are jet skis and wide-screen TVs and expensive designer clothes. They do not need expensive food, either restaurant or frozen. People can live without an iPod and they don’t need a vacation in Italy. A family of three does not need a 10,000 square foot home. So people won’t buy those things in a deflationary situation.

Is that so bad? Companies that sell iPods, trips to Italy, fast food and palatial mansions will wither to a fraction of their former size, if they survive at all, to serve a greatly diminished demand.

On the other side, the back of the irrational consumer society would finally be broken. Imagine people spending their time cooking beans in a crock pot, studying for school and dancing at the community center. They do not cruise the malls, which no longer exist anyway. You haven’t had a raise in three years, but on the other hand, your taxes, utilities and rent haven’t increased either, and the price of eggs has dropped by a third. There is less to buy, but there is less you need to buy. Your 401(k) is cut in half, but so is the cost of your retirement, so you are relatively as well-off as you were before the economic collapse.

The whole economy is reset to a slower, lower, more sane level without the frenzy of obsessive consumerism. Prices are stable, wages are stable. Companies grow organically, by innovation and reaching a growing demographic, not by taking on insane amounts of debt to produce products that have to be massively marketed to create artificial demand. We are all rich again, just at a lower absolute number.

What about all those millions who lost jobs back in the grip of the initial deflation (which is now)? The government keeps them afloat until they find their feet. They get other jobs, at a fraction of what they were making before, but they also cut their spending to a fraction, and as prices and demand equilibrate, they become as comfortable as they ever were, without all the “stuff.”

What’s wrong with this vision of economic post-apocalyptic utopia? Only human nature. People want snowmobiles and expensive handbags. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but that’s how it is. If you try to prevent these aspirations, as the communists did, it only postpones the inevitable and makes everyone miserable in the meantime. Human nature is part of Mother Nature, with whom one should not fool.

So frenzied consumerism, entrepreneurial excess, and wallet-busting inflation will be back. There is no chance society will question whether that is what we really want. I look forward to it.

Time to End The Bully Doctrine

2008-11-18T12:35:00.000-08:00

The Status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the U.S. and Iraq passed the Iraqi cabinet recently. Passage by the full Iraqi parliament is predicted by the end of November 2008.

An important feature of the SOFA is the promise that the U.S. will no longer attack other countries from Iraq, as it has been doing. That provision goes a long way towards calming Iran, which is worried about a U.S. invasion from Iraq.

The U.S. has been attacking countries all over the world with impunity since at least 2004, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld authorized them. We have dropped bombs on Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Kenya, and many other countries since then (New York Times: “Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda,” 9 Nov 08).

(Graphic from Mother Jones)

What is the legal or moral justification for such attacks? The same as for the invasion of Iraq in the first place: the Bush Doctrine, which essentially is, “The U.S. has the self-appointed ‘right’ to attack any country in the world, any time we feel like it, for whatever reason we decide.”

How would we feel if Iran declared the “right” to attack Detroit because it perceived a threat there to its national security? I don’t think we would find that acceptable.

What if Russia decided it needed to bomb Anchorage because it believed some oligarch fugitives were hiding out there? Would we be OK with that? I don’t think so.

The Bush Doctrine is nothing more than the bully’s credo that “might makes right.” It is immoral, illegal, foolish, counterproductive, and extremely dangerous for the whole world.

I think the Bush administration has stepped up its attacks on sovereign nations lately in a desperate hope of landing a bomb on Bin Laden, so GW can claim symbolic revenge for 9-11. Otherwise he must slink out of office a disgraced dog. I really think he would risk the lives of millions for personal aggrandizement.

Will the SOFA put an end to these attacks? I don’t even think the ones originating from Iraq will cease. They will just be smaller scale, under the international radar, maybe run by the CIA using foreign mercenaries. No more ostentatious big bird drones.

But Predators can be launched from almost anywhere, including Turkey, Israel, India – any number of places. So my bet is that attacks will continue, at least until January 20, 2009. After that, I hope Obama does a thorough review of U.S. military policy, and renounces Bush’s Bully Doctrine.

There are at least two good alternatives to the Bully doctrine. One is to revert to self defense and judicial proceedings, as was generally the policy during the Clinton administration (with exceptions), but unlike the Clinton administration, put the proper resources into self-defense and international law enforcement. We can be proactive and internationally aggressive toward anti-American terrorists without arbitrarily blowing up civilians in other countries. It requires good intelligence and police work and a hardened defense perimeter.

Another alternative would be to continue military operations in foreign countries, but with their permission! How do you get permission? You ask. Diplomacy! You might even have to work with a country over the long term, and spend some money on them to garner their cooperation. You convince them that it is in their own best interests to pursue the bad guys in their territory. Maybe you let them execute the operations under your guidance. You make it worth their while. There are many options.

What if the other country won’t agree to allow military operations on their turf? Then we don’t go in!

If they really are harboring terrorists and they don’t care, or do so willfully, then that country is no friend of ours. Cut them off. This is a whole new approach to international diplomacy and alliances that does not require us to be friends with countries that work against our interests just because it is geopolitically “convenient.” Those days should be over. Realpolitik should be Real.

Certainly we can tolerate and work with countries who do not please us in every way. No doubt they feel the same way about us. But if our highest international priorities are such things as terrorism and nonproliferation, then those principles cannot be subordinated to economics or geopolitical chess games. It’s a kind of international toughness to walk your own talk.

I thought Robert Gates would be a good Defense Secretary for Obama, but I am not so sure any more since he re-affirmed Rumsfeld’s bully authorization. Obama needs to have a DoD chief who is on the same page.

Lucky 44

2008-11-05T08:14:00.000-08:00

The 44th president is talented and blessed with a silver tongue, but he is also very lucky. He will need that luck to stay with him.

The financial bubble could have burst any time in the last 5 years, or it could have lasted another year or two. The timing was lucky for Obama, who was perceived by voters as more trustworthy on the economy (mainly because the Republicans have been so untrustworthy). The recession is already painful, but we will come out of it in a year.

Corollary luck is for Obama to have a pot of 700 billion dollars already appropriated to work with. I doubt that all of it will be spent. It’s main purpose is already achieved, to provide a backstop of confidence for the financial system. Some will be spent to stanch the home loan foreclosure rate. There will be plenty left over. Opportunity for Lucky 44.

Obama was also lucky to be running at a time when the Republicans were so self-destructive. Right wing extremists had (and have) such a grip on the party that it could not field a strong candidate. McCain was probably the best brand, but his campaign was apparently run by those same extremists and he never had much chance to be himself. Palin is merely a continuation of that same narrow minded extremism (that’s why she was selected, after all). Obama couldn’t have beat a Reagan or a Nixon, or probably even McCain if McCain had actually run as a moderate.

Corollary luck was that McCain’s pandering to the extremists all but broke the bank on his campaign early on, so he had no choice but to accept public financing. Obama promised to do the same, but soon realized that he would not have to, as the money started pouring in. It would have been a very different race if both candidates were limited to public financing. If the money had not started flowing until a few months later, Obama might have actually signed up for public financing. Although he opened up the donation money faucet himself, the timing of its flow was lucky.

Obama was also lucky that the war in Iraq took a positive turn when it did. Had it not, he would have been facing McCain the soldier in every speech, and been on the defensive. The situation is far from stable in Iraq and fast approaching disaster in Afghanistan, but Lucky 44 found a calm in the storm at just the right moment.

Corollary luck was that there was no spectacular terrorist incident in the past two years. Some of that can be credited to the hard work of the intelligence agencies, the military, and Homeland Security. Still, we all know that cloak of protection is full of holes and Obama was lucky.

There is a lot of trouble ahead. Let’s hope Lucky 44 continues to have the magic.

Three Reasons Why I Support Obama

2008-10-08T13:24:00.000-07:00

1. I support Obama because I believe in the centrality of the common good. Nobody succeeds until we all succeed. We are all just people; no one is better than anyone else; we all want the same things. Democrats have that point of view. I don't think it is a Republican’s highest value. Therefore I support Obama because he represents the values of the Democratic party.

Believing in the common good leads to compassion, and that makes me adamant about equal justice under the law, economic fairness and cultural diversity. It also means I expect the government to have a major role in such things as universal health care, affordable education, industry regulation, environmental stewardship, and so on. A compassionate government smoothes the spikes and troughs of wild and woolly free market capitalism.

The Republican idea that we need to radically shrink government is out of step with reality. Every American depends on the federal government, including John McCain, whose campaign uses public financing, and whose salary, health care, pension and entire career have all come from the federal government.

2. The second reason I support Obama is for character and personality. He believes in rationality and has the ability to think on his feet. He is creative and strategic in problem-solving and shrewd in assessment of others. I admire those qualities. It is possible to over-think things, and that could be an Obama weakness. Sometimes you have to go with your gut. But intellectual overdrive is a way smaller risk than the shoot-from the hip mentality of Bush and McCain.

In the debate last night, I wished Obama had used the questioners' first name more often to signal that he was making the personal connection. He didn't (nor did McCain). Bill Clinton would have. Obama would have changed more minds if he had put the ideas aside long enough to at least smile at the person. It's his weakness, but less dangerous than the undisciplined emotional reactivity of the other side. Obama’s thoughtfulness is far more likely to lead to domestic and international solutions that work for most people.

3. Finally, I support Obama because of his global, international vision. I studied his "manifesto" (and McCain's too) in Foreign Affairs magazine. (You can see my reviews at http://political-innocence.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-in-foreign-affairs.html and http://political-innocence.blogspot.com/2007/11/mccain-on-foreign-affairs.html ).

Obama understands the value of international diplomacy while McCain is dangerously bellicose. McCain must talk tough to keep the support of his party, but the same pressures would be on him in the White House, and I think he would reach for the trigger too quickly. His military mind frightens me. I've had enough war.

Obama's Foreign Affairs article was long on strategic "vision" and short on specifics, but at least he understands that we have allies. Nobody succeeds unless we all succeed.

On the down side, the Democrats will probably control both houses of congress and if Obama is in the White House, it would be easy for Democrats to act without adequate pushback, leading to changes that might not be for the best. On the other hand, the government will be so totally broke because of the wars and the financial bailouts that there simply won't be any money to do anything significant for a very long time.

The Slippery Slope to Socialism

2008-09-26T11:02:00.000-07:00

Capital must be made to flow, rather soon, or the whole economy will seize up like an engine running without oil. Farmers need credit to buy seed, small business needs credit to buy materials, and homebuyers need credit to buy homes. If everything stops, how will we ever get it started again?

The Paulsen proposal started out by saying, Hey, we’ll just inject some billions into the financial system. Democrats cried moral hazard. The compromise was strong oversight. (As Wanda Sykes says, “Oversight? I want receipts!”). But that was not enough for some apparently and the idea of government equity (ownership) was proposed as a condition of the financial aid. But that amounts to nationalization of the company.

Republicans have scuttled the Paulsen bailout plan, at least for now, because it goes against their genetically fixed instincts for wild and woolly, free-market enterprise, and their equally inborn revulsion of government regulation and intervention. The bailout plan is nothing less than a “slippery slope to socialism,” I heard a Republican lawmaker say on television recently.

That is a rhetorical fallacy of course called, aptly, the “slippery slope fallacy,” also known as the “continuum fallacy.” You can Wikipedia it.

A Republican may say that the bailout plan is just one step along the path to full socialist government, but maybe it is just a particular course of action designed to address a particular problem.

Socialism is not a bad thing. Insurance is socialism: it transfers wealth from the healthy to the sick. We need insurance, just as we need Medicare, Social Security, and progressive taxation. The U.S. military is about as pure a model of a socialist government as you could hope to find. The government takes care of the soldier’s every need, in exchange for service, while the rest of us pay. There is nothing wrong with some socialism in a market economy. Some transfer of wealth from richer to poorer is necessary to offset unrelenting transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the free market economy. No reasonable person could be opposed to a little bit of balance like that.

Still, I balk at nationalizing the financial industry, or major parts of it, and here I am in sympathy with the Republicans. Strong regulation is one thing, which I favor, but when the government starts owning the means of production, we have indeed taken radical action.

Why would the government want to be in a position of owning major stakes in financial companies? Do we seriously believe that the government, as a major shareholder, would be utterly passive, never exercising its owner’s right to meddle? That is inconceivable. Is the government even competent to direct that much money? The evidence of recent history would argue against it.

Financial institutions do not have enough operating capital, because it is all sunk into worthless mortgage-backed bonds. Instead of buying the worthless bonds at inflated prices, which is effectively a giveaway, why doesn’t the government simply loan the money to the companies? They can keep their stinking bonds and if they turn out to have some value in the future, they can count their lucky stars. If not, they can at least use the loan to right the ship, and pay it back with interest as time permits. The alternative is to cease to exist.

Republican representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, has suggested government-backed insurance for the troubled firms as an alternative. He apparently does not realize that insurance is a type of socialism. It’s a bad idea anyway. It didn’t work for Fannie and Freddie, and it doesn’t correct the fundamental lack of capital in the system.

One could argue that cash for an equity stake is really just a loan with equity collateral. The trouble is that the equity owners have a tendency to want to run the show, and that’s the flaw of any nationally owned company. Government does not have the requisite skill to run the show, but will surely try to do it anyway.

It needs to be a clean loan, collateralized by a creditor’s right to be paid by a bankruptcy court.

Alas, nobody in government listens to me as they should!

Medvedev: Why I Did It

2008-08-28T14:28:00.000-07:00

In the Financial Times of 27 Aug 08, Russian President Medvedev explains why “he” (actually Putin, the power behind the throne, as we know), invaded Georgia, pried loose the two territories of South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, then, alone among leaders in the world, recognized them as independent states.

He says that the people of those two regions freely expressed their desire for independence from Georgia in the past, although that hardly justifies an invasion.

The Russian Federation, he explains, "is a harmonious coexistence of many dozens of nations and nationalities, not all of which have their own statehood." “After the collapse of communism, Russia reconciled itself to the loss of 14 former Soviet republics, which became states in their own right, even though some 25 million Russians were left stranded in countries no longer their own.”

But were they ever “their own” if they were republics in the Soviet Union? It is a little slippery to speak in one breath of “republics” (constitutional governments) and of “countries” (not defined), and of “nations” (not defined), and to suggest that their "federation" with the Soviets was ever voluntary.

“Georgia “stripped” the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia of their autonomy,” he says. But isn’t that just another way of saying they were no longer part of the Soviet Union? Medvedev implies that these were formerly autonomous countries under the Soviets, although the extent of their autonomy during those times is suspect. Was Hungary "autonomous" in 1956?

However, it is true that in repossessing these regions from Soviets after 1989, the Georgians have acted with a heavy hand, treating the ethnic Russians as second class citizens, outlawing their language, cultural traditions, schools, etc. (exactly as the Soviets had treated the Georgians for 70 years).

Finally, says Medvedev, the newly independent Georgia “inflicted a vicious war on its minority nations.” Russian peacekeepers tried to keep things calm, he says, but Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili “made no secret of his intention to squash the Ossetians and Abkhazians.” ("Squash"?) Finally on August 7, Saakashvili invaded south Ossetia. “Only a madman could have taken such a gamble,” says Medvedev.

“Russia had no option but to crush the attack to save lives. This was not a war of our choice,” he says. “We have no designs on Georgian territory.”

(Click to enlarge this ethnic map).

Then he claims that “The presidents of the two republics appealed to Russia to recognize their independence.” There is no evidence of that beyond his word. And how is it that these territories are once again “republics” in his mind, since he said earlier that they had been “stripped” of their autonomy by the Georgians? And anyway, what sort of political standing does the leader of a province of Georgia have to request a foreign country to recognize its independence?

If the governor of Louisiana, for example, appealed to France to “recognize” its independence from the U.S., would that have any force in international law?

But “based on [unspecified] documents of international law,” he says, Medvedev reluctantly (he would have us believe) agreed to recognize the two regions’ independence from Georgia.

In justification, he notes that just a few years ago, “ignoring Russia’s warnings, western countries rushed to recognize Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence from Serbia.” Is it tit for tat then? Medvedev conveniently overlooks the fact that the Kosovar Albanians were being slaughtered by the Serbs.

Today, the Christian Science Monitor (www.csmonitor.com/2008/0829/p08s01-comv.html) reports that according to Medvedev, the Georgians were slaughtering ethnic Russians in an equivalent genocide. But there is simply no evidence of that.

It seems pretty obvious that the real reasons for the invasion and re-annexation of these two regions to Russia were 1. Longtime personal enmity between Putin and Shaakashvili (if you don’t think that’s a good enough reason to invade, look at the US in Iraq), 2. Russia’s desire to control the oil and gas resources in the breakaway regions, especially the pipelines to Europe, and 3. Petulant retaliation for the expansion of NATO and the installation of anti-missile sites in Poland.

What perplexes me is why Medvedev felt he must weave an elaborate story that pretends to some high moral ground, when the motivation for the Russian action was plain thuggery. Why couldn’t Medvedev just say, “We wanted those regions; we had the power to take them, so we did.” And he could add, “Neener, neener!” if he wanted to.

Who is fooled by his transparent self-justification?

Was Hillary Right?

2008-08-21T10:56:00.000-07:00

I am surprised to see recent polls showing McCain and Obama going into their conventions virtually tied among the voting public (NY Times.com 8/20, Fox News.com 8/21). How can that be possible? When I see the candidates on the evening news, I see one man as the picture of Enlightenment clear thinking, rationality, sincerity, and compassion; the other a grotesque self-caricature sputtering empty slogans.

McCain yesterday vowed that he would bring the troops home from Iraq “with honor and victory,” while, he said, Obama prefers forfeiture. Does McCain think the war is an Olympic event? What is “victory?” Didn’t we achieve victory 24 hours after invading the country in 2003? What is forfeiture? Returning a sovereign country to its rightful owners? I cannot fathom how his mind works when he talks like that.

Voters polled said McCain was more prepared to be commander in chief. But why? Haven’t they read his Foreign Affairs article? (http://political-innocence.blogspot.com/2007/11/mccain-on-foreign-affairs.html). It is frightening. Wouldn’t we rather have a pro-peace president?

Of course voters have not read McCain’s Foreign Affairs article, or much of anything else either, and that’s the problem. Obama may be too far out in front of the crowd to be a natural leader. You can’t lead from a mountaintop; only from five paces ahead. And maybe Hillary was that leader. Maybe I was wrong about her. I have a long history of being a contrary indicator.

The Demo convention will be a tragedy if the pro-Clinton forces and the roll call vote turn into an anti-Obama self-indulgence. I think “Barry” (as Maureen Dowd calls him) could overcome such a fiasco and go on to win in November because the choice is so stark that I do not believe many voters will change sides. This is rural vs urban, educated vs uneducated, and that’s not going to change. But it could hurt turnout, which Obama must have oceans of.

It may be that Hillary was right insisting that she was the “electable” candidate. Looking back at the primaries now, where she won big, she may have been right.

I still believe Obama would be a president of a higher order, like this country has not seen in two or three generations; while another self-obsessed Clinton White House would be excruciating and dangerous for America. But the first step in the recipe for making rabbit stew is 1: Catch a rabbit.

Obama Gets Oily

2008-08-04T18:45:00.000-07:00

According to the Los Angeles Times, (http://www.latimes.com/news/ politics/la-na-campaign5-2008aug05, 0,4069072.story), Barack Obama said today that the nation should draw down its strategic oil reserves to lower the price of gasoline, and that he has also recently agreed that some offshore drilling might be acceptable.

He will surely get the flip-flop badge of the week.

Historically, every time the strategic oil reserves have been tapped, gasoline prices have dropped soon thereafter. Voters want lower gasoline prices, so it would seem to be an easy, cheap palliative gesture, with the added virtues that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been calling for such a move, and President Bush is against it. Points are scored all around.

But releasing strategic oil is not an energy strategy, only a symbolic gesture. Gasoline prices are falling anyway. A little more relief would be welcome, but the oil-reserves effect would be a blip, and do nothing for the strategic problem. The same can be said for “drilling on the beaches.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/ 2008/07/22/MN6M11SN60.DTL) there might be 11 years worth of oil on the US continental shelf, based on federal government estimates, 12% of it off the coast of California, the rest in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. But since offshore drilling has been banned since 1982, in memory of the horrible oil spill at Santa Barbara in 1969, the estimates are not solid.

The compromise energy proposal released by the "Gang of 10" senators just before the summer recess would allow drilling off Virginia and other areas of the southeast (with states' permission), and provide substantial funding for alternative energy and conservation. Obama favors this proposal.

It is widely acknowledged by everyone, even drill nuts and oil companies, that opening the shorelines to drilling could not possibly have any effect on gasoline prices before 2030. To call for offshore drilling “to lower prices at the pump,” during an election campaign, is nothing but poll-driven pandering. So what is Obama up to?

I think he is up to poll-driven pandering. I hate to see him do it. If he really was determined that America “break its addiction to oil,” as he says on his web site, he would be content to leave the price of gasoline high and instead, emphasize a rehabilitation plan. But American voters are not strategic. They are “all me, right now.”

The good news is that Obama is getting some political experience. My greatest doubt about him is whether he actually realizes that not everyone is rational. In fact, most people are not. It is futile, actually counterproductive, possibly dangerous, to confront irrationality with reason. Most people react on the basis of emotion, habit, tradition, and superstition. Obama’s recent policy shift is a sign that if he did not know that before, he is learning it now.

I have the same doubts about him in the foreign policy arena, when he sometimes talks as if he thinks he can sit down and work out international differences over a cup of coffee. Does he really not understand that there are people who cannot be spoken to? I worry that he suffers from the delusion that most people will respect evidence and reason. That would make for a disastrous presidency.

Obama’s campaign may be stalled. He still trails the Democratic Party in the polls by double digits, which means he is not really seen as the leader of the Democratic party. And the reason, I think, is that voters keep him at emotional arm’s length. Sure, he is likeable and smart, that is obvious. But only when he responds to popular concerns with political gestures that directly acknowledge and meet those concerns, voters can believe, “he gets it.”

Obama's new policy tack is not even about oil. It has nothing to do with gasoline prices. It’s about demonstrating, showing, not just saying, “I feel your pain.”

Obama needs to do more of that. He needs to show that he is not a Promethean god who would bestow wisdom, but a normal man who sometimes acts from fear, pride, pain, anxiety, and other irrational motives, “like me.”

Look how far irrational reactivity got George W. Bush. Irrationality often leads to heartbreak, of course, but Obama needs to let just a little of it leak out in a controlled way. His recent shifts in energy policy, superficial though they are, may be just the prescription.

Is John McCain the New Bob Dole?

2008-07-18T14:53:00.000-07:00

I remember watching the 1996 Republican primaries with intense interest. Bob Dole was the leading contender for the nomination, but then the fundamentalist preacher Pat Buchanan won unexpected early victories in New Hampshire, Louisiana, and Alaska. Even though he was an extremist, transparent demagogue, one should never underestimate the gullibility of the American voter, so I was worried. I thought he was dangerous. It seemed possible that he could withstand the charm and charisma of Bill Clinton.

I was enormously relieved when Dole locked the nomination by winning every primary after North Dakota. I knew Clinton would easily beat Dole. Why? Three impressions brought me to that conclusion. First, Dole (and his party) were fixated on the past. They wanted to rediscover the Reagan era and they talked endlessly about supply-side economics and reactionary social values. But the country was looking for a change. That was obvious.

Second was the personal factor. Dole was much older than Clinton, and pale and frail-looking. He had zero charisma and was not a compelling speaker. He was slow moving and slow talking, with stiff gestures and awkward head movements. He looked like he would never live to serve out a full term. Despite his admirable record of government service, he did not seem convincingly “presidential.”

Finally, Dole seemed to be a default choice, the one guy the power brokers could agree on. There were more interesting candidates the Republicans could have promoted, including Colin Powell, Lamar Alexander, and others, but none of them could support a consensus, so Dole was the last man standing. Like any choice made to please a committee, he did not have many particularly strong features.

I saw McCain giving a speech on TV recently and he looked tired, old, frail, jerky, and distracted. He seemed to have trouble stringing his sentences together. He was talking about the banking crisis but didn't seem to understand the words he was saying. The gist of most of his political statements is about conserving the present and avoiding anything new. How did McCain get the nomination? Basically by being the anodyne choice of a fractionated party. My immediate thought was, “McCain is the next Bob Dole.”

If true, we should expect Obama to trounce McCain in November. Clinton beat Dole by over 8 million votes, or 8.5%, the record so far in presidential elections for a margin of victory. Obama has the race issue, but that works both ways and may net out neutral. So notwithstanding that Democrats are exceptionally creative at clutching defeat from the jaws of victory, I don’t think this one is going to be close.

Is the Fed Political?

2008-06-26T10:32:00.000-07:00

The Fed is supposed to be independent of the political process, but in reality that is probably not possible, given that its head is a political appointee. The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, was appointed by George W. Bush in 2006. You don’t appoint someone who is not on your team.

At this week’s FOMC meeting, the fed had to decide whether inflation was getting strong enough to justify an interest rate hike, or whether such a hike would depress the domestic economy too much. They decided to talk tough but actually do nothing.

By failing to raise rates, Bernanke allows inflation to creep up, saying (in deed, not in words), “we are not worried about it.” That means he doesn’t care if the weak dollar gets even weaker, eaten away by inflation. But since oil is priced internationally in dollars, failure to make a rate hike, even a small one, raises the price of oil. And that’s exactly what happened. It is up as much as $4 a barrel today to around $138.

The justification I have read for the Fed’s decision is that “core” inflation (exclusive of energy and food) is relatively manageable. Of course that begs the question of what planet FOMC members live on where energy and food “don’t count.”

But I think there was a more sinister motive at work, related to the fact that Bernanke is on the Bush team. To raise rates, even a quarter percent, would likely have prolonged the housing crisis. It would have raised mortgage rates and reduced the number of buyers, stifling any nascent recovery in the housing market.

The housing market is a huge domestic political issue. If housing does not recover by November, the Republicans are toast for sure. Inability to sell a house is not an abstract economic issue. It could mean that you are paying two mortgages, or it could mean you have to turn down a job that involves a relocation. If your mortgage is higher than what your house is worth, you can only pray for recovery of the housing market before you are forced into foreclosure. Big corporations like the new home builders are also feeling the pain. Lennar today posted large quarterly losses.

High gas prices hurt voters too, especially the less well-off who pay a higher percentage of their income on fuel. One of my students says she pays $130 to fill up her SUV and does that three times a week. That is a serious dent in anybody's budget. (Naturally I want to yell at her: “What are you doing with a stupid SUV?” But that’s like saying to a child who is in a fix, “You should have thought of that earlier!” Not helpful.).

But who is to blame for high gas prices? Why, it’s those pesky Arabs! And slithering speculators. And don’t forget those greasy oil companies!

Obviously then, for Bernanke, if he lets the dollar decline further, oil prices go up further, but it’s not his fault! It’s not the government’s fault. It’s not the Republicans’ fault. It’s somebody else’s fault. Easy choice to make.

But if he had raised rates, even a tiny bit, there would have been an effect on the housing market, probably negligible and short term, but the housing crisis then could clearly be pinned on him. Unacceptable choice. Because that means the housing crisis is the fault of the government and that would have repercussions at the ballot box in November. So Bernanke chose the course that least harms his political party.

Paradoxically, even if his choice was politically motivated, it will have a counterproductive effect. At some point of pain, which we are fast approaching, voters will realize that Republicans have no energy policy (other than to drill for oil on beaches and in national parks). That will kill them in November.

Oil and Tax

2008-06-11T08:05:00.000-07:00

The high price of gas has politicians in a tizzy, perhaps more so than ordinary consumers. Sure, the recent price increases are unpleasant, but I haven’t seen riots in the street because of it. Instead, we hear about the demise of the Hummer, not a bad thing. High oil prices also hurt in indirect ways, such as higher fertilizer and freight costs and pricier airline tickets, but again, it seems like the economy is absorbing the shock so far. We should consider that the price of gas is double, over $8 a gallon in Europe. That seems to be the point at which people, or at least truckers, riot in the streets.

Although it hurts my wallet, I am hopeful that the high price of fuel will continue and eventually strain the economy severely enough that the government is forced to develop a rational energy policy.

The recent Democratically sponsored bill to increase taxes on US oil companies failed to reach the senate floor when it was blocked by Republicans. The bill would have eliminated $17 billion in tax breaks for oil companies who are reporting historically high profits in the trillions of dollars. It seems reasonable on the face of it that they could afford to pay the true costs of production.

The bill also threatened further tax punishment if the oil companies did not invest in new energy sources soon. That provision seems less obvious, as we know that honey works better than vinegar, but again, given that companies are awash in money right now, it could possibly work.

However, if I were a senator, even a Democratic senator, I think I would have voted with the Republicans on this one. The bill was a simple-minded, short term, knee-jerk response to perceived voter unhappiness over gasoline costs, even though it is psychologically satisfying to vilify those fat-cat oil companies. It also wouldn’t hurt in the fall elections to say “we did something for you,” (or tried to, at least).

The proposed senate legislation did nothing to address fundamental issues, such as inadequate refining capacity, unwillingness to pressure the auto industry to raise fuel economy standards, fund alternative energy sources, develop a nationwide plan for oil conservation, and so on. How about a tax on plastic and synthetic fibers?

Closing tax loopholes for the oil companies is a good idea in principle, but it needs to be part of a comprehensive energy policy. For example, would the revenue from the oil company tax go to fund clean coal technology or public transportation? No such ideas were mooted. And on the down side, taxing oil companies right now might inhibit construction of new refining capacity and at the margins, diminish exploration and production among the smaller, hi-tech companies, leading to higher gasoline prices.

Of course oil companies are among the largest political donors in the country, especially on the Republican side, so corruption no doubt played a role in the vote’s outcome. Still, I think the Republicans were on the right side of this vote in terms of long term strategy. The senate bill seemed more of a political stunt than a well though-out solution to basic problems. The price at the gas pump is only a symptom of a much larger energy problem.

I wonder, though, if I could have voted with the Republicans on this one, if I were a Democratic senator. Would it be career-limiting? Would Harry Reid send over someone to break my legs? I wonder how it works when your own party promotes a hare-brained scheme.

Surrender?

2008-06-02T11:31:00.000-07:00

Recently I saw on television John McCain give a campaign speech referring to the Democratic candidates’ plan to pull US troops out of Iraq as quickly as feasible.

To this, McCain vowed, “I will never surrender in Iraq!” As the crowd cheered and applauded, he yelled full-throat, “I will never surrender!”

But what does he mean? We invade and occupy someone else’s country then vow to never surrender it? Does that mean McCain intends to keep Iraq as a permanent U.S. possession?

To surrender is to give up possession of some thing or some power to someone else who asserts a claim to it; to relinquish control. McCain vows he will never do that.

Does McCain propose to occupy Iraq forever? He has already stated that he is prepared for the U.S. to stay there 100 years. Maybe he has now extended his thinking to forever.

What’s even more frightening and bizarre than McCain himself is the roaring crowd apparently agreeing with him. What could they possibly be thinking?

Arugula-Eater?

2008-05-15T18:50:00.000-07:00

New York Times columnist Frank Rich humorously reported Senator Clinton’s characterization of Barack Obama as an “elite and condescending arugula eater.”

Relatively uneducated white voters in the lower economic classes do not see their values reflected in Obama. Somehow, they see themselves to a greater degree in Clinton. Why?

Senator Clinton is well-educated, and no voter paying attention to the primaries thinks otherwise. She is obviously not a member of the blue collar, working class. The policy differences between the two candidates is negligible. If gender were the issue, it would work against Clinton. So why is she a better mirror than Obama? Hmmm…

In West Virginia, 20 percent of respondents said that race was a factor in their decision and those voters, by overwhelming number, backed Mrs. Clinton.

“Downscale” white voters (as the pundits call those with little formal education and few financial assets) are afraid, or at least suspicious of Obama, because of what his color suggests about non-mainstream ethnic, religious, political and cultural values. His “funny” name reinforces the idea that he is “not one of us.” Some of these voters have said as much to pollsters.

Obama’s color is taken by these voters as a pointer to alien social and cultural values. The Reverend Wright episode reinforces that view for them. We can’t elect somebody we don’t even know! What if he sold the Louisiana Purchase back to France?

Consider also that 80% of black voters now support Obama. You might expect black voters to divide between the candidates much as white voters do. Even allowing that median incomes and educational levels may be lower for black voters, you would have a hard time explaining 80% favoritism on the basis of demographics.

It’s racism, just as it is for the downscale whites, but for black voters brown skin is a symbol for brotherhood and shared values. Both groups make the error of taking skin color as an index to who the person is. Blacks especially, should know better.

When downscale whites tell pollsters they are “uncomfortable” with Obama, they are expressing their true feelings based on their limited experience. I don’t think they are hate-mongers, just uninformed people with narrow life experience and limited conceptual skill. You wouldn’t blame an elephant for being an elephant and it’s hard to blame these people for their racism. (I know that sounds like I eat arugula).

Can Obama do anything to persuade these voters, who have so far preferred Clinton? I don’t think it is effective to dramatize the “plain folks” stereotype as Clinton so insincerely has. She probably believes that worked for her, but it is her white skin that worked.

The Bubba voter does not want to see Obama bowl again or watch him throw back a shot of Jim Beam. They might take notice if Obama revealed his values and the reasons for them. Voters want him to say, in plain terms, not vapid abstractions, what he really believes and why he believes it, about educational priorities, farm subsidies, military readiness, industry regulation, gun control, social security, taxation, carbon capture, the electricity infrastructure, government corruption by big money, oil dependency, the “war” on drugs, immigration, and so on. They do not want platitudes and policy statements, but the personal thought processes that brought the man to those beliefs. Actually, I would like that too.

Is Obama Like Me?

2008-04-21T09:30:00.000-07:00

On Friday, major pundit and New York Times columnist David Brooks assessed the impact of Obama’s “bitterness” remark, on PBS’s The News Hour. Brooks said that the tin-eared remark was damaging because it made people step back from the candidate and wonder if he really is like the “plain folks” he is trying to appeal to in Pennsylvania, or if he is condescending to them. And, Brooks concludes, throwing in the Reverend Wright episode for good measure, when that assessment is made, the plain folks will conclude, “he is not like me.”

This is treacherous ground for Brooks, or any commentator to tread, for “not like me” is the heart of xenophobia, which is the core of racism. Racism today is no longer about hooded sheets and a noose. It is about the intellectual and emotional capacity, or lack of it, to get past one’s discomfort with the unfamiliar to understand that the other person is, in fact, “like me.”

People do differ in their socialization history and demographic status, and that does produce variations in point of view. I have no doubt that Obama is more educated, more self-aware, and more articulate than most of the Pennsylvania voters he courts. He is indeed, “different” from them in those ways and that makes his campaign a tricky business.

Obama’s political mistake was in the word “cling,” which implies a desperate helplessness and lack of dignity. That implication is indeed demeaning (even if true) and he should have retracted it. Instead, he blindly spun his use of “bitterness,” which is defensible and even could be construed as a compassionate attribution. Nobody in his camp seems to have gotten the social phenomenology of his remark right.

But why should a minor discourse error be elevated to the existential question, “Is he like me?” What is the logic that gets you from “I am offended by your remark,” to “You are alien to all people like me”? It is the logic of class difference, xenophobia, and the logic of racism.

Hilary Clinton is not at all like me in social class, education or even gender. I do not want to have a beer with her. In fact I am offended by her shameless, inauthentic pandering. But I would still vote for her on the basis of her social values and perceived competence to govern. That’s all Obama asks for himself, but the racial issue lurks just beneath the surface ready to trip him up. A smart guy like Brooks should be more aware of that particular tiger pit.

We should generously assume Brooks was speaking for the Pennsylvania rural voter, not for himself, when he concludes that Obama is "not like me." And in that assessment, Brooks might be correct. But he did not qualify his comments carefully, so missed an opportunity to raise the quality of political discourse in this country. Pity that.

Candidates Speak on the Housing Crisis

2008-04-01T14:00:00.000-07:00

The three major presidential contenders gave speeches on the economy between March 25-27, 2008. Transcripts are at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/ and on the candidates’ web sites.

Comparison of the three speeches illuminates the candidates, their similarities and differences.

Clinton’s View:

Clinton’s speech was all about helping families that face foreclosure on their homes because they can’t make the payments. She endorses Barney Frank’s and Chris Dodd’s proposed legislation that would have the federal government guarantee those loans. That would make the financial markets that deal in mortgage-backed securities liquid once again, putting an end to the housing-based credit crunch.

Clinton asserts (as does Frank) that the plan is self-financing, which means it would cost no taxpayer money. That’s probably a pipe dream. It assumes that most, or at least some of the homeowners would not default, so the government would not have to cover those mortgages. Of those that did default, the government would own those mortgages, but the thought is that over time the housing market would recover and the government could sell them at par, if not a profit (ignoring the time value of money).

It is a lovely fairy tale. It could happen. More likely though, most of the homeowners would default because the bottom line is, they simply cannot make the payments. That is the fundamental problem. Why would that change? Where are these families going to get the money to meet their balloons? So the government guarantee amounts essentially to a bail-out of the banks who made the loans and have to make good on the packages of them that they sold on to the financial markets.

Does it help families keep their homes? Sure it does. The government just bought their homes for them. What a deal. Lesson learned: home ownership is sacred in America. Buy a home even if you can’t afford it because the government will make the payments for you!

The Frank legislation is ultimately a giant bluff. If the financial markets believe the mortgage-backed securities are “good” again (because of the government guarantee), then the derivatives based on them are also good, so they can be valued at face and traded normally again and the credit markets can recover. Nobody loses money if everybody pretends there is no money lost!

I don’t think it will work like that and besides, it is probably too late. UBS Bank, for example, one of the firms most-exposed to these securities, has taken $40 billion in writedowns, so those mortgage backed securities, most of them derivatives, are now worthless. It would be impossible to re-value them at anything other than zero just because the government guarantees the original mortgages, because there is no audit trail from the derivatives back to the primary mortgage. So this plan will bail out the local mortgage originators but will probably not alleviate the system-wide credit crunch.

Clinton also proposes an “Emergency Working Group” to determine if this plan would even work or if some other, additional steps would be needed. It could be headed, she suggests, by Alan Greenspan, for example. Excuse me? The Alan Greenspan who as Fed Chairman presided over two massive financial bubbles and their catastrophic collapses? There must be something funny in Clinton’s Kool-Aid.

Clinton also suggests (but has not yet proposed) legislation to protect the mortgage-originating banks from lawsuits if they renegotiate the terms of mortgages they have already made. Who might sue them? The financial markets that hold the old (now worthless) versions of the mortgages. They want their money. But Clinton would allow the local banks to redo the mortgages to cut their losses. Let the Wall Street traders in mortgage backed securities suffer! (Anyway, nearly 2/3 of the subprime mortgages were not made by banks.)

Finally, for good measure, Clinton would just donate $30 billion of taxpayer money to cities and towns to do with whatever they like, from buying foreclosed housing, to building new roads, to hiring more police. That nonsequitur just looks like cynical election year vote-buying, to me.

Obama’s View:

Obama gave his speech in New York City to a room full of financial types, and was introduced by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Contrast that to Clinton, who gave her speech to an audience at the University of Pennsylvania (the state where the next important primary elections are to be held). Clinton is politicking for votes. Obama is trying to address the fundamental issues. I think that difference in choice of venue alone tells us a lot about these two candidates.

No one takes the high ground like Obama. Whereas Clinton starts out with effusive praise for the Governor of Pennsylvania (who recently endorsed her) and then jumps right in to her theme song, “We’ve got trouble right here in River City!” Obama begins by considering the argument between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over the proper nature of a free market economy. Hamilton favored government intervention from time to time, as when he nationalized the debt of the Revolutionary War.

And that is the main theme of Obama’s speech. He sees the origins of the current financial crisis in the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which deregulated the banking industry and which allowed untrammeled greed to get us to where we are today. He comes within a hair’s breadth of accusing the government of abject corruption in repealing that act (and other similar actions, such as the deregulation of the telecommunications and energy industries that led to the Worldcom and Enron fiascos). I think he is absolutely right to focus on the root cause the those crises, and of this current credit crisis: rampant government corruption.

“…we've lost that sense of shared prosperity. … It's because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.”

“… instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one - aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so, we encouraged a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy.”

This kind of talk may not resonate with mythical Joe Sixpack, who probably would not understand a word of it, but the bottom line is that Joe Sixpack does not vote. Polls show that only 50% of Americans are paying any attention at all to the primary race. Government data show that only 50% of eligible voters even bother to vote in a presidential election. That means every educated vote counts double what it should, so it makes sense for Obama to speak to the people who are actually listening.

But what about a specific fix for the problem of Joe Sixpack losing his house? Obama, like Clinton, endorses the Dodd-Frank proposal to have the government guarantee the subprime mortgages that are the proximal stimulus for the credit crunch. As I noted above, it is not a bad idea in principle, but I am quite skeptical that it would actually solve the problem. Clinton’s ideas are more concrete, such as indemnification of mortgage originators who choose to renegotiate their loans. But I have to say, Obama understands the root causes, whereas Clinton gives no indication that she does.

Obama has some concrete, targeted proposals of his own though, and they tend to focus on causes. He looks upstream of the crisis. He is not about throwing money for the sake of throwing money.

For example, he would impose penalties on fraudulent lenders. He would allow a 10% tax credit on mortgage interest, which would proportionately reduce the mortgage burden more for those facing huge interest balloon payments. That’s minimally intrusive, yet elegantly precise. But first and foremost, he would revamp the regulatory framework dealing with financial markets. He gives five specific proposals for that revamp, all of them imminently sensible anti-corruption measures.

Obama ends by reminding listeners that he is still connected to the average person. He would “provide an income tax cut of up to $1000 for a working family, and eliminate income taxes altogether for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year. To make health care affordable for all Americans, we'll cut costs and provide coverage to all who need it. To put more Americans to work, we'll create millions of new Green Jobs and invest in rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. To extend opportunity, we'll invest in our schools and our teachers, and make college affordable for every American.”

The weak spot in this generally fabulous speech is that it is not at all clear how the President of the United States could clean up corruption in congress, which is where all this crooked legislation is made. The bully pulpit is a useful device, but I am doubtful that it is stronger than the lure of money and power. Still, we are voting for president here, not congress, so at least having a president who knows what he’s talking about would seem to be a plus.

McCain’s View:

McCain’s admirably short speech is simple, and simple-minded. There was a housing bubble, it burst. Tough luck, take your lumps.

Why was there a bubble? “A bubble occurs when prices are driven up too quickly, speculators move into markets, and these players begin to suspend the normal rules of risk and assume that prices can only move up.”

That’s not wrong, but it overlooks the original question: Why was there a bubble?In my opinion, there was a bubble because of unregulated, greedy, socially irresponsible financial practices, from the predatory mortgage originators right up through the highly leveraged traders in mortgaged backed derivatives. But McCain is blind to all that. In fact, he suggests that the root cause was greedy individuals trying to buy homes they could not really afford.

“Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?... Homeowners should be able to understand easily the terms and obligations of a mortgage. In return, they have an obligation to provide truthful financial information and should be subject to penalty if they do not.”

That analysis is stunning in its naivety. Of course there is some truth to it, yet financial education is virtually non-existent in America. People do not know what they can and cannot afford, and lenders are in the financial, not the education business. Blaming the victim is not a very edifying way to understand the problem.

In any case, what would McCain do about the current financial crisis? Basically nothing! He says,

I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now. …I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.

He will “consider and evaluate” any proposals that come his way. That is hardly reassuring.

McCain offers a few concrete proposals of his own. One is to require an increase in the minimum down payment for getting a mortgage. That certainly would eliminate the “interest-only” loans that cause a lot of trouble, but it would do nothing about people currently facing foreclosure, and it would limit access to housing by those in the lower economic strata.

Anyway, I don’t think there is anything wrong with interest-only loans, as long as the costs and payment schedules are clear and the borrower is qualified to make the payments. The whole idea of housing equity as an off-the-books savings account is a concept that needs to be questioned. The problem with subprime mortgages is not the concept of interest only loans, but fraudulent lending practices. McCain has misidentified even the most obvious source of the problem.

More promisingly, McCain would increase capitalization requirements for financial institutions, but predictably, he would accomplish that not with actual regulation, but by “removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.” Of course! More tax breaks for the wealthy! McCain would also eliminate “the Alternative Minimum Tax that the middle class was never intended to pay; [and] improve the ability of our companies to compete by reducing our corporate tax rate” No election year politics here!

How would McCain proceed with his suggested reform? Well first, he would do the obvious thing, call in the accountants! He would “convene a meeting of the nation's accounting professionals to discuss the current mark to market accounting systems.”

Then he would “convene a meeting of the nation's top mortgage lenders. Working together, they should pledge to provide maximum support and help to their cash-strapped, but credit worthy customers.”

Ah yes, a “pledge” from the predatory lenders to do better next time. That should do it!

McCain proposes no legislation and, heaven forbid, not even any new regulation on the financial systems.

McCain has said that the economy is not his strong suit, and this speech gives ample evidence of that.

Obama on Race

2008-03-20T11:47:00.000-07:00

Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a speech on race in America, on March 18, 2008, in Philadelphia. The speech has been analyzed extensively in the media. It is widely available online, but in case you can’t find it, I have saved a copy at the URL at the end of this article.

News commentators predictably, witlessly, and cynically ask their pundits, “Has he put this issue behind him now?” As if the most divisive social issue in our nation’s history could be “put behind” anyone who lives here. The writers of the U.S. constitution could not “put it behind them” and had to finesse the issue of slavery, granting the states twenty years to come up with a solution. They didn't and the civil war broke out. Slavery was finally outlawed but not racism, which continued. The civil rights act of 1964 outlawed overt manifestations of racism, but of course, not racist attitudes, which persist to this day.

The analysts and pundits are ostensibly talking about Obama’s minister, Jeremiah Wright, who has a history of making flamboyant remarks from the pulpit, critical of American government and American white society for (in his view) deliberately and systematically oppressing the black populace, historically and even now. Many of his assertions are plainly demagogic and deliberately hyperbolic, and some are just ignorant, such as his claim that AIDS is promulgated by the government to decimate the black population.

What are the implications?
• Are we supposed to think that Obama believes the government is deliberately spreading AIDS?
• Are we to understand that Obama believes all white people are racist?
• Are we to suppose that Obama believes the 9-11 attacks were self-inflicted?
• Does Obama’s membership in the church imply that he is a racist?
• Does Obama’s friendship with the reverend prove that Obama hates America?

These are ludicrous suggestions, so ludicrous that no one would dare speak them. Instead they remain unspoken innuendo. Ridiculous though they are, they persist for two reasons:

1. The news media are racist and love racism. They highlight it as luridly as possible whenever they can. Why? Because we live in a capitalist society. The job of the news media is primarily to sell advertising and only incidentally to be informative. Since separating people from their money is best done with emotion, not rationality, and since racism incites emotion, it follows as night follows day that the media prefer to display, not analyze racism.

2. Racism is endemic in the society. Not overt KKK terrorism, but the subtle fears and doubts we all have about anyone who is different. Alas, skin color is the scarlet letter of ethnicity. You see it coming and you react before you have a chance to discover the person. Not everyone has the mental skill to analyze that reaction, to break through the egocentric bubble that insulates us from anything that is not a mirror-image.

Obama, more than most people, certainly more than Hilary Clinton, has shown himself in public. He is giving us the opportunity to look behind the outer shell. But many people only see shells. So despite one of the most eloquent speeches ever given about race in America, many people still react only, or mainly, to skin color.

Will Obama’s speech change any minds about him? Not among those who lack the capacity for self-reflection. Racism (as with any form of xenophobia) is irrational, so by definition, no rational argument exists that can change it. But I personally have talked to two people who have changed their affiliation from Clinton to Obama because of that speech. Both individuals were impressed by its honesty and thoughtfulness. “Nobody could make that stuff up,” said one. “Even if you wanted to BS about race, you couldn’t think of those things to say.”

With this speech, Obama has revealed himself more than he ever has. I admire him for it. But to be honest myself, I wonder if it was politic. Up to now he had been pretending that he had no color and that we were color blind. Of course that couldn’t last. But he has such charm, intelligence, self-confidence, and oratorical gifts, I wonder if he couldn’t have bluffed his way past the color question. Because now that it has been articulated, we confront naked racism, not the malicious “I’m gonna git you” kind, but the instinctive fear of an image that takes a moment to recognize as oneself.

Obama's speech:
http://members.bainbridge.net/~bill.adams/Race%20in%20America.htm.

Nader a Pusher, not a Spoiler This Time

2008-02-24T13:09:00.000-08:00

Perennial third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the ring again. Running on the Green Party ticket, he will try to establish or re-ignite campaign organizations in all 50 states by the November elections. I think there is doubt whether he can actually make the ballot in all states. It is also doubtful that he will be admitted to any presidential debates. But he gives the punditocracy something else to talk about so he might find a national voice.

In 2004 Nader won about 3% of the popular vote, more than the margin by which Gore lost to Bush. Without his candidacy, we would probably not be in Iraq today. Many Democrats understandably resent Nader’s participation and accuse him of indulging a monumental ego at the expense of the country’s well-being.

Nader disputes that, and after watching the biographical documentary on him, “An Unreasonable Man,” I can see why. He says, first, it is his absolute right to run for president. No one can disparage his candidacy without being anti-democratic themselves. True enough.

Then he asks, why was the vote so close anyway in 2004? If the Democrats are so superior to the Republicans, why didn’t they win by a landslide? The answer he implies, is that there is not much difference between the two parties because they are both ideologically bankrupt.

Of course it is his right to run for president, but if he was not aware of his spoiler role in 2004, it demonstrates incredible political naivety. If he was aware of being a spoiler but didn’t care, then his selfishness is unbounded. It is impossible that a person as thoughtful and well-educated as Nader could not discriminate between the ideologies of Democrats and Republicans, and unbelievable, given his biography, that he would have no preference if he did.

So his rebuttals of the standard arguments against him are unconvincing. The idea that he was innocently exercising his democratic freedom in 2004, with no responsibility for the outcome, is disingenuous, if not overtly dishonest. If you take Nader's rebuttal at face value, you are forced to conclude he is either incredibly stupid or blinded by his own reflection in the mirror. And he is not stupid.

In 2004, where he inspired some young people to get involved in politics to support Green issues and to express disgust at political sleaze, the zeitgeist has changed. Young people are already engaged this time, and the stench of sleaze emanates almost exclusively from one side of the aisle. So Nader’s opportunity to be a spoiler is not manifest.

Still, Democrats might welcome his participation for two reasons. First, his candidacy might provoke Michael Bloomberg to enter the race as an indie, as Huckabee’s survival proves that McCain is not a unanimous choice. And if Bloomberg gets in, that surely would split the Republicans and guarantee a Democratic victory. I think Bloomberg is too smart to do it, but if McCain stumbles, Huckabee will not be able to hold the party together and Bloomberg might jump. So Nader might act as a stimulus to a Republican party implosion.

More likely, Nader’s presence might push the Democratic candidate, whether Obama or Clinton, to actually say something substantive, about taxation, energy policy, farm subsidies, trade tariffs, social security, military readiness, insurance laws, tort reform, deficit spending, nuclear proliferation, carbon containment, and so many other issues that need to be discussed. If he can be an intellectual pusher, provoking the Democratic candidate to address some substantive issues, we’d all be better off. Nader would not be much of a spoiler, and Democrats would win on a stronger platform.

I know perfectly well that candidates don’t talk about the issues because the issues put the voters to sleep. Slogans and sentiment, the big “Double-S” is what wins elections. It’s too bad, but that’s the price of maintaining the mythos of government by the people. I don’t think Nader understands that. He seems to believe in a rational world, failing to realize that his own reputation is founded as much as anyone’s on the big Double-S. He is not likely to get over himself so maybe Democrats can show some courage by engaging him rather than just dismissing him as a nut case.

Do Conservatives Have a Conscience?

2008-02-21T11:54:00.000-08:00

New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman apparently intended to write a counterpoint to Barry Goldwater’s influential 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative. Krugman's retort, The Conscience of a Liberal, was loaned to me, with endorsement, by a colleague. I generally find such political essays not worth the time, and this one is no exception.

Krugman only mentions Goldwater tangentially, and while he does address some of the same topics Goldwater did, such as taxation, labor unions, and international trade, he does not go head to head with the fundamental principles of conservatism espoused by the Arizona Senator and does not deal at all with non-economic issues such as nuclear testing. So this is not, as the title implies, an answer to Goldwater-inspired conservative principles. Pity that.

What is this book about then? Krugman states that his intention is to demonstrate that conservative ideology inherently makes for bad economics. But he does not make that case, nor even seriously address it. Instead, he is concerned to set forth some values of political and economic liberalism, hoping perhaps that these will stand in contrast to implied but unstated complementary conservative principles. Even if he had done that well, the book would provide useful service. But there is nothing so systematic presented here.

Instead, we are treated to a superficial survey of the last 100 years of political and economic history, the Krugman’s-eye-view, which gives him opportunity to opinionate on selected features of that terrain.

Many of his descriptions seem accurate and germane, such as the great Southern shift from Democratic to Republican persuasion in the 1960’s. That shift has been an important fact of political life ever since. Why did it happen? Racism, says Krugman. When Kennedy sent the national guard to integrate the schools and Johnson championed the Civil Rights Act, the south was aggressively humiliated by the north for the second time in a hundred years. The Democrats made their point, but it sealed their political fate in the south. Only recently, with the relative success of Barack Obama’s campaign in southern states, is the petulant southern rejection of the Democratic party of a half-century ago showing signs of softening.

Krugman tells a good story. It might even be true. One suspects other factors, such as superior economic growth in the north might have played an equally important role in the Southern shift.

Krugman writes at length about taxation, as you would expect of an economist. His main thesis is that the anti-tax obsession of the conservatives is actually nothing but greed dressed up as compassion. He documents pretty well that it has always been the rich who have pushed for lower taxes, not the working and middle classes. He shows that conservatives favor regressive taxation, such as flat taxes and sales taxes and special tax reductions that benefit only the rich, such as for the estate tax and capital gains tax. Liberals, on the other hand, favor progressive taxation, like the income tax, which redistributes wealth from the high end to the low. This is an important difference in ideology, and Krugman documents it adequately.

However, he is less clear in explaining why this difference in attitude has persisted from the time of the great railroad and steel barons, right up to today. He does note that taxation rates during and after the New Deal were 75% to 95% in the highest brackets, and that these punitive rates essentially wiped out the fortunes of many old wealthy families and transferred much of that wealth to the working and middle classes, erasing the extremes of economic inequality that had developed in the Gilded Age. But he passes no value judgment on that move. Was that a good thing to do? Liberals (speaking for myself) see wealth redistribution as a moral principle, and this book has “conscience” in its title. But Krugman seems loathe to make a moral point here. In fact he seems to uncritically admire the Roosevelt administration’s policies (as many Democrats do), not commenting on the real human meaning of a 95% tax bracket.

Today, he avers, conservatives are still trying to roll back the New Deal, not realizing apparently that the battle has been won. Today’s top tax rates are among the lowest in the world. But any tax is too much tax for the rich, explaining conservatives’ obsession with lowering taxes and their neverending attempts to undo other aspects the New Deal, such as social security, medicare, and labor unionization. Why do rich conservatives hate these policies so much? Greed, pure and simple, says Krugman. Worse, they have been relatively successful in their efforts, so today we have dimensions of economic inequality not been seen since before the New Deal.

How have the conservatives managed to pull this off? By duping the ignorant electorate, he says. You can’t just come out and say, “We rich people want even more of your money, less taxation, and we don’t care about the rest of you.” That would never sell. Instead, they trick voters with clever language, making it seem like conservatives stand for some high-minded principles, not selfish greed. They use “dog-whistle” messages, he says, which are like sounds that only dogs can hear. Conservatives use special code phrases that only other conservatives understand, bypassing most of the electorate.

It’s a cute idea but he doesn’t give concrete examples. I can think of some. “The American people know better how to spend their own paycheck than the federal government does!” That is a common conservative reason for cutting taxes. It sounds good to the uninformed, but of course doesn’t address the consequences of cutting taxes, such as overcrowded schools, disintegrating roads and bridges, reduced police funding, closed libraries, restricted hospitals, poor veterans’ services. It’s an example of a dog-whistle communication that goes right past the ordinary voter but is heard by other conservatives.

So it turns out that conservatives are basically selfish, greedy, racists. That explains a lot! Who knew?

But wait, there’s more. Conservatives are also unenlightened about morals. They resent the sexual revolution brought on by the invention of the oral contraceptive in the 1960’s. That gave women control over their own reproductive destiny, a fact deeply resented by misogynist male conservatives. The conservative “family values” emphasis is designed to stop social erosion of male hegemony and turn back the clock to the absolutist middle ages. Just as I always thought!

All this is fun for a liberal reader, but who is it going to convince? I am only slightly exaggerating Krugman’s arguments here, putting a few words in his mouth. He himself is skilled and circumspect in his writing and this book is not a sophomoric flame. Nevertheless, his subterranean messages are clear and they are primitive and not very convincing. I think he is not wrong, but since he does not make his case with evidence and reason, I do not accept his arguments.

Personally, I think the rise in conservative politics in recent years has been a good thing for the country, painful though it has been for me and many others to endure. It represents the genuine democratization of politics, the enfranchisement of those people whose voices were squelched in the New Deal and during the Democratic Reign after World War II. If it is going to be a two-party system, we need to have two parties. Even the most naïve, uneducated, misinformed citizen has a right to vote their small-minded, mean-spirited, greedy, repressed, misogynous, racist biases into political and economic policy. That is the beauty of our system. One person, one vote.

If the educated elites suppress the voices of the ignorant, that makes life easier for a while, but eventually the mobs will come for you in the night with pitchforks and torches. It is infinitely better to let them speak, win when they can, and just absorb the pain. In the long run, assuming you believe in basic human rationality, good sense will prevail. I think that’s what’s happening in the current political cycle. As the Hegelian geist moves forward, circumstances change, people realize what is really in their own best interests, and they abandon conservatism.

Unfortunately, new, tabula-rasa babies are born at a far greater rate than the educational system can handle, so there is never going to be a shortage of conservatives. We must try to stay ahead of the educational curve, and there, I think communication technology is on our side, although this particular book helps only slightly.

References:
Goldwater, B. (1960/2007). The Conscience of a Conservative. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Krugman, P. (2007). The Conscience of a Liberal. New York: W.W. Norton.

Two Horse Democratic Race

2008-01-30T11:52:00.000-08:00

It’s down to Clinton and Obama now and consensus thinking is that whichever does well on Super Tuesday will coast to the Democratic nomination.

I was sorry to see Edwards drop out today. I thought his drawing attention to government corruption was a worthy addition to the dialog. Every time I open my car door to exit and hear the obnoxious ding-ding-ding-ding “reminding” me to take my keys, I am infuriated again at the insurance lobby. What, exactly, is the government’s interest in keeping insurance company losses low? It’s manifest corruption. But I rant.

My main problem with Hillary is Bill. He is a clinically disturbed personality and I don’t want him anywhere near the Oval office. As recent events on the campaign trail have demonstrated, he cannot be controlled. He is a huge liability.

My second problem with Hillary is honesty, or lack of same. All politicians lie, as it is part of their job. The American people are not critical thinkers so empty slogans and feel-good sentiments are more effective than reasons and evidence. This has been well documented in the political science literature (e.g., Lau & Redlawsk: How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. Cambridge University Press, 2006). In a perverse way then, Hillary’s prevarication is a strength, not a weakness.

Obama does not seem as overtly dishonest as Clinton, but he misleads by not saying anything. He gives good speech but since he has not been in the public eye long, we don’t know what he would say or do in a difficult situation. Of the ethnic violence in Kenya, his father’s birthplace, he calls for “reason and calm.” There isn’t really anything practical he can do about the situation but he also does not reflect on its meaning. He reveals nothing about himself whenever possible. His two best-selling books read like a series of Hallmark cards.

Obama has charisma, and according to Lau and Redlawsk, that matters a lot in people’s voting decisions. But how will he react when the Republicans roll out the siege engines in the fall? Can Obama be Swift-boated the way Kerry was? Everybody has skeletons. Can he talk about the meaning of race in America? We haven’t heard him do so yet. Can I visualize him confronting Putin, Kim Jong Il, or Ahmadinejad? Would he urge Olmert and the head of Hamas to have a cup of tea? Would he advocate cutting oil and corn subsidies to develop a rational energy policy (Illinois is one of the nation’s top corn producers)?

I haven’t seen enough of Obama to predict how he would react. This weakness leads Hillary to claim “35 years of experience” to her advantage, but that’s just hogwash. She has been an ordinary attorney most of her life. Her experience as First Lady counts for zilch. My wife is in the financial services industry but that doesn’t make me a stock broker. Clinton's recent record in the Senate is unremarkable but respectable, as is Obama’s.

When America is attacked again, who will respond better? Hillary will react much as George W. Bush reacted, with bellicose slogans and radical though ineffective actions designed mainly to “reassure” the public of her competence. Unlike Bush though, I believe her actions would be designed to affect ordinary citizens. She is not so hollow and confused as to invade some arbitrarily chosen country just to flex muscles.

Obama, I don’t know how he will react. He will give a stunning speech, of course. But then what? I believe he is thoughtful and intelligent enough not to act stupidly, and to listen to his advisors, something I am less sure about with Hillary. With Obama, his unknowns are the unknown unknowns, the worst kind. The bet is on his present persona as an index to future behavior.

That’s a bet I am willing to make, but I am a psychologist. I don’t think most people will make that bet. The average American, in the fog of Oedipal fantasy, wants God-like omniscience and omnipotence in the White House. That’s why they will vote for Hillary, then finally for McCain. I hope I’m wrong.

Premodernism Wins in Iowa

2008-01-04T08:16:00.000-08:00

I was surprised that Mike Huckabee won in Iowa. After reading his Foreign Affairs essay (reviewed in this blog), I concluded that he was dishonest, not in a malicious way, but in a traditionally political, media-manipulative way. I said I did not believe voters would fall for Huckabee hucksterism. I was wrong, for Iowa, at least.

Apparently what vaulted Huckabee ahead was a huge turnout among evangelical Christian caucus goers. The New York Times reports that they constitute 60% of caucus goers in Iowa and traditionally 40% of them turn out for Republicans. In this case, evangelical turnout may have been over 50%, and most of it went to Huckabee, perhaps reflecting some disdain for Romney’s Mormonism.
(Picture: ABC News)

Iowa is not representative of the nation; at least I hope it is not. It is a frightening prospect that a born-again Christian evangelical minister, who doesn’t even believe in evolution, but who does believe in regressive taxation, could possibly win the Republican nomination. I should welcome that, since it would make an easy opponent for a Democrat to beat. But I have subterranean fear. It is not easy to turn back a tide, especially a tide of premodern values.

Evangelicals in America adhere to four core beliefs:

1. Belief in the Bible as the sole valid scripture and the inerrant word of God.

2. Belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as the path to salvation.

3. Emotional and personal faith in Jesus; of being “born-again” into the faith.

4. Active proselytizing of the Christian religion after being baptized.

Reference: Ray C. Bliss Institute for Applied Politics, as reported on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#_note-rel-am-landscape-2004 )

The Statistical Abstract of the United States for 2007 says just over 28% of Americans identify themselves as evangelicals (many of them living in Iowa, apparently).

A survey of Christians in the United States in 2004 asked nine questions to determine whether the respondent was an evangelical Christian. Seven of the questions asked were:

1. Are you a born again Christian?
2. Is your faith very important in your life today?
3. Do you believe you have a personal responsibility to share your religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians?
4. Do you believe that Satan exists?
5. Do you believe that eternal salvation is possible only through faith, not works?
6. Do you believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth?
7. Do you believe that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today?

(Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#_note-rel-am-landscape-2004 )

These kinds of beliefs are traditional, deferring to history, mythology, and authority, and that kind of thinking characterizes the premodern mind, the mentality that prevailed in Europe from the fall of Rome and throughout the medieval period and middle ages.

The big breakthrough of the Enlightenment, beginning in the 1600’s, was the transition to a modern mentality valuing individualism, humanism, reason, and empiricism as the criteria of truth. Not everybody made that transition. There are apparently a lot people in America still living in the middle ages.

Premodern does not mean driving a horse-drawn buggy instead of a Toyota Prius. In this context it refers to those fundamental attitudes mentioned above about how the world is constituted and how it is known.

Islamic terrorists are explicitly and articulately premodern in their mentality. They reject the modern mind, as Islamic societies did not undergo a cultural change comparable to The Enlightenment in the West. Islamicists specifically reject the modern values of individualism, humanism, empiricism, and reason, endorsing instead the values of tribalism, traditionalism, mythology and authority. Being premodern in your thinking does not automatically make you a terrorist of course, but there is an easy connection between premodernism and intolerance.

Could America become a theocracy under a premodern, evangelical president? We have already moved in that direction under the current president and the result has been tragic. Yet amazingly to me, there are still many Americans who would continue to pursue that premodern course. That’s why I am not willing to dismiss Huckabee as an oddball. A rising tide can swamp all boats. That tide must be turned back, for the sake of the future.

Mike Huckabee

2007-12-25T16:21:00.000-08:00

In the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Mike Huckabee presents an essay about what he would do as president, with respect to foreign affairs (Huckabee, M.D. (2008). America's Priorities in the War on Terror: Islamists, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. Foreign Affairs, 87 (1), Jan/Feb. www.foreignaffairs.org). The essay is one of a series by 2008 presidential hopefuls. I have previously reviewed essays by Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Rudolph Guliani, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Bill Richardson.

I was surprised by Mike Huckabee’s robust, pugnacious, almost bellicose approach to international affairs. The main purpose of the essay seems to have been to project an image of strong Commander in Chief, and to that extent, the essay is successful. One would not expect a country preacher from Arkansas to suggest invasion of Pakistan, cutting off aid to Egypt, using “swift and surgical air strikes and commando raids” (mainly by the CIA) to eliminate terrorist cells, dramatically increasing the military budget to support the use of overwhelming military force. The trouble is, I didn’t find much of it convincing. It seemed to be an image-building piece, not a serious set of proposals.

Why do I feel that way? Because the essay is just too single-mindedly narrow and bellicose, naïve in its presumptions, and self-contradictory in its assertions. Huckabee has clearly done some reading up on international affairs, but instead of presenting any thoughtful and nuanced analysis, decides to show only how ready he is to push the button. It’s just not credible. On the other hand, if it really is exactly Mike Huckabee’s actual views on international affairs, then the essay is frightening.

The essay starts out with a wonderful homily in the form of an analogy about America. “Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.” But quickly that sentiment is contradicted as the tough-guy doublespeak comes out: “At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests.”

So there you have it: Speak softly but carry a big stick.

Huckabee emphasizes that we need to understand our enemy, the Islamic terrorists and their ruthless “theology and ideology.” He displays his knowledge of several noted Islamic terrorist writers to emphasize that the terrorists aim to establish a worldwide theocratic caliphate. While he conveys the point that the terrorists do not discriminate moral and political considerations, Huckabee leaves us wondering if he does, either. Some of his statements are not even comprehensible: “al Qaeda is seeking to replace modern evil with medieval evil.”

To his credit, Huckabee realizes that it is no good to export American values as if they were Coca-Cola. He acknowledges that moderate Islamic states may look more like benevolent oligarchies or tribal coalitions rather than constitutional democracies. That is a big contrast with other Republicans, such as McCain, Romney, and Guliani, and some Democrats, like Edwards and Clinton, who do not seem to understand that important subtlety.

On the down side, Huckabee’s understanding of what has happened recently in Iraq seems pretty naïve to me. He thinks that “Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq have turned against al Qaeda to work with us; they could not stand the thought of living under such fundamentalism and brutality.” An alternative explanation is that we bought temporary Sunni loyalty by supplying guns and money. Who those guns will be pointed at in the future is unknown.

Huckabee’s “Arab and Muslim policy” will be to find a course “between maintaining stability and promoting democracy,” and this is despite what he earlier cautioned about trying to export democracy. What would that middle course look like? “first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts.” It is not clear why he believes that a well-functioning civil society would trump the vision of a seventh century caliphate. Does he think that terrorists are people frustrated at not having running hot water in their houses? He says “If we do not do the right thing to improve life in the Muslim world, the terrorists will step in and do the wrong thing,” a snappy sentence, but not one that connects with the theology and ideology of terrorism he emphasized earlier.

I commend Huckabee for declaring the need for “immediate” US independence from foreign oil. That dependence, in my opinion, is behind the whole invasion of Iraq and the “War on Terror.” He promises energy independence within ten years, by applying the usually mentioned solutions: nuclear, wind, solar, ethanol, etc. What he does not say is how this massive conversion will be financed or sustained. None of it will be cheap. Oil, even at $100 is very cheap by comparison. For a man who wants to abolish the income tax, he is remarkably tight-lipped about financing his initiatives. In connection with his energy policy, I can’t even guess at the meaning of this cryptic remark, “I want to treat Saudi Arabia the way we treat Sweden…”

Again without saying where he would find the money, Huckabee asserts that he will increase our military budget by 50% and stop using troops for nation building, instead using other (unspecified) government agencies to build schools, hospitals, and sewage treatment plants. He suggests that we should have sent 450,000 troops into Iraq, rather than the “light” army we did send.

He will not withdraw troops from Iraq, but rather stay the course until General Patraeus tells him what to do. That sounds pretty naïve to me. What about the political point of the whole invasion? Are the generals suddenly in charge of foreign policy too? Huckabee’s statement sounds like he sees the situation in Iraq in purely military terms, another very naïve point of view.

Huckabee quotes the administration’s standard slippery slope argument against withdrawal from Iraq. “Today, we face the dramatic downside: Iraq's centrality makes the country the perfect place for terrorists to create anarchy and have it spread. Those who say that we do not owe the Iraqis anything more are ignoring what we owe our own children and grandchildren in terms of security.” The same thing was said about Vietnam, but the sky did not fall then.

He supports the recent Turkish invasions into northern Iraq and chastises the Bush administration for not having encouraged them earlier. Again, this presents a gun-toting commander in chief without a wisp of nuance. Havent' we already endured one of those?

What if the Kurds start attacking American troops in retaliation now? That seems like a very high risk situation Wouldn’t it have been better for the US to route the PKK from Iraq itself? Or arm the Kurds to do it themselves, which they would, if, as Huckabee says, the PKK has little support among Kurds.

Huckabee rattles his saber at Iran, accusing them, without evidence, of being in cahoots with al Qaeda. He wisely cautions against war with Iran however, arguing instead that they should be “contained” with economic sanctions supported by Europe. He welcomes the administration's declaration of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as proliferators of WMDs and their armed forces as supporters of terrorism. He does not say how this bellicosity is helpful in any way, but claims that Democrats who object to it are deluded because “these moves are an attempt to use economic power instead of, not as a prelude to, using military power.” I’m afraid the logic there escapes me.

Huckabee would enthusiastically go forward with putting missile interceptor cites in Poland and the Czech Republic, as a defense against Iranian aggression. With stunning self-blindness, he blows off “Putin’s” objections as mere jingoism. Again I am left with a chilling question of whether this essay is theatrical posturing or genuine naivety.

Huckabee would reestablish diplomatic ties with Iran, but only if they make “concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship.” Does that sound like the top high school student who is generous to others?

In Pakistan, “tough love” is called for. What is that? It seems to mean that we should just go ahead and invade the Northwest territories where al Qaeda is hiding. The next terrorist attack on the US will come out of Pakistan, Huckabee asserts.

Wouldn’t it be rather foolish to invade Pakistan, one wonders? Have we learned nothing? Not to worry, Huckabee assures us, “The threat of an attack on us is far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan.” That must have been an echo; I couldn’t have really heard that.

His more sensible Pakistan policy is to put some accounting controls on the billions of dollars of untracked foreign aid that we give Pakistan in an attempt to buy its loyalty, if not its acquiescence.

In a patriotic and theological flourish, Huckabee ends with this: “Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever.”

Staring down evil (should you be able to truly identify it) is no doubt an admirable passtime, but I would be horrified by Huckabee’s over the top bellicosity if I believed a word of it.

On the other hand, there is little or no mention of many of the other grave international threats facing our country, such as pandemics, nuclear proliferation, economic globalization, climate change, and many, many others., nor consideration of the roles of NATO and the UN, or the strategic use of foreign aid. The goal here was to rattle the saber and the saber has been duly rattled. I simply do not believe the American people are stupid enough to go take this message seriously.

Bill Richardson

2007-12-17T17:57:00.000-08:00

In the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Bill Richardson presents an essay about what he would do as president, with respect to foreign affairs (Richardson, B. (2008). A New Realism: A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs, 87 (1), Jan/Feb. www.foreignaffairs.org). The essay is one of a series by 2008 presidential hopefuls. I have previously reviewed essays by Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Rudolph Guliani, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain.

Richardson’s essay is an eye-opener. I knew the man had an impressive resume. Besides being Governor of New Mexico, he has also been a US representative, Ambassador to the UN, US Secretary of Energy, and has been nominated five times for the Nobel peace prize for negotiating release of political prisoners and hostages around the world. Even so, I was unaware of his ability to articulate such a clear, rational, and appealing vision of a national future. His essay is remarkable for its directness and lack of political posturing, waffling and pandering. He does not come across on the televised debates as a deep thinker, and since he is not one of the top tier candidates right now, he is easy to overlook. This essay might give him a breath of fresh air.

His primary message is that “ The United States needs once again to construct a foreign policy that is based on reality and loyal to American values.” Unlike most other candidates, he does not claim American moral superiority nor a God-given or historically destined mission to recreate the world in our own image. Instead, he suggests simply that we have the courage to live up to our own stated values. To do that we need to be willing “to seek and find common ground, to blend our interests with the interests of others… [and] rebuild our overextended military, revive our alliances, and restore our reputation as a nation that respects international law, human rights, and civil liberties.”

Richardson defines his foreign policy strategy as “a New Realism -- one driven by an understanding that to defend our national interests, ... we must, more than ever, find common ground with others, so that we can lead them toward our common purposes.”

He is scathing in his criticism of the Bush administration’s hypocrisy and incompetence in foreign affairs. He would send a clear signal to the world that “America has turned the corner,” by withdrawing all troops from Iraq (he doesn’t suggest a timetable) and re-engaging all nations in the region. There is no mention of how he would address the inevitable regional turmoil that would result. He treats withdrawal from Iraq as a foregone conclusion, something we simply must do before we can face the real threats to our well-being. (He mentions not a word about the Afghanistan war).

Six Threats to Our Well-Being
Richardson sees six global trends that are transforming the world, which will become severe threats to us if we do not address them head on. They are
1. Fanatical jihadism
2. Trafficking in WMD (especially nuclear proliferation)
3. Rise of Asian economic and military power
4. Reemergence of Russia as a nuclear player with large energy resources
5. Economic globalization
6. Global environment and health problems

These trends will present problems to us, Richardson says, and will require international and societal solutions, with the US, as the sole superpower, forced to provide leadership.

What would Richardson do about these problematic threats? Unlike other candidates, he does not attempt to provide micro-solutions by quoting dollar amounts, percentages of GDP, or numbers of soldiers. He is a big picture man, as the captain of a great ship should be.

Richardson’s big picture solutions include rebuilding alliances and commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation, which would involve joining and enthusiastically supporting the International Criminal Court. That would not only make the US accountable to others in the world, he says, but also would change the equation for perpetrators of crimes against humanity who now have nothing to fear. I am in need of a lot more persuading on this point. It is a noble sounding idea, but it is likely that within six months of joining, most US top officials would be in that court defending themselves against a worldwide chorus of allegations of international criminality. International law is a lot more fluid and open to widely variant interpretation than national law. Accountability is good, but this approach doesn’t sound practical.

With similar noble but impractical motivation, Richardson would expand the UN Security council’s permanent membership to include Germany, India, Japan, a Latin American country, and an African country. How he would do that, given the present security council’s absolute control of its own membership, is unstated. Nevertheless, I am pleased with his attention to reforming the UN rather than trying to sidestep it entirely to avoid accountability, as McCain, Romney, and Guilani suggested.

The US should always take the lead in ending genocide, Richardson says, because history shows that if we don’t, nobody will. Once again, his recommendation lacks specifics. He says only that the US should “do something” in Darfur.

The US should embrace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, he says, but again, I would need more convincing. While it was scandalous for the US to reject it, in retrospect, it does not look like its goals and methods would have been practical after all. Still, there is probably some action the US could have taken, and still could take, other than just turning its back. A good faith effort would go a long way in the international arena.

“The United States needs to stop considering diplomatic engagement with others to be a reward for good behavior,” Richardson says, and start talking to people, echoing Obama’s diplomatic strategy.

Richardson strongly emphasizes the threat of nuclear terrorism, and I think he is right to be proactive about that. It is “the most serious security threat we face,” he says. He proposes that we build international cooperation to secure nuclear material worldwide, an idea also offered by Clinton. Richardson offers several other specific proposals for dealing with the threat of nuclear terrorism, including reducing our own nuclear arsenal. He has clearly given this topic a great deal of thought. He writes, “We are spending more than $2 billion per week on Iraq, but we are not doing nearly enough to protect our cities, nuclear power plants, shipping lanes, and ports from a terrorist attack.” Hear-hear!

“The top priority of the U.S. president must be preventing a nuclear 9/11,” he says. That is an unambiguous statement of priorities, and interesting in the way it goes beyond the fear of terrorism for its own sake, to the root of why we fear terrorism: it will only get more intense. There will not be another airliner flying into a tall building. Next time it will be nukes, Richardson is sure, and I suspect he is right. Put yourself into the mind of the enemy and that is the logical next step, either nukes or a biological weapon. Richardson demonstrates clear foresight in this analysis. I like the way he thinks here. Unlike Huckabee and most other candidates, Richardson’s goal is not simply to kill as many terrorists as possible, which is a knee-jerk reaction. Richardson thinks like a chess player, a move deeper than the obvious.

He would work with “difficult” nations like North Korea and Iran to deter nuclear ambition with alternative incentives. He cites the Libyan case as an example of how that can work. That effort would be combined with an ideological offensive against jihadism, not to promote the culture of Mickey Mouse and Starbucks, which is not appreciated everywhere in the world, but to communicate that ours is a struggle of civilization against barbarity, not a clash of civilizations. As McCain and Guiliani also emphasized, we need to present a vision of peace, respect, and prosperity as a viable alternative to terrorism. Among these, I would say respect is by far the most important. It is most lacking and most intensely desired by North Korea, Iran, Russia, and many other cultures. Compared to the cost of fighting wars, a little genuine respect is an inexpensive commodity for us to distribute.

In the Middle East, Richardson would work toward a two-state solution and ask Bill Clinton to serve as a full-time broker there.

Unlike any other candidate so far, Richardson sees US immigration reform as a vital foreign affairs policy, which it is by definition. Without touching on any of the hot button details, he says only that we need better border security and to work with reform-minded governments to alleviate the poverty that drives illegal immigration into the US. It is a grand vision, perhaps not practical, but again, at least he is facing reality. He does state that he would end the Cuban embargo.

Finally, like Clinton, Edwards, McCain, and many others, Richardson sees the necessity to fight against poverty worldwide as a matter of US national security. He would double our foreign aid, expand the use of generic drugs, and work to align the World Bank and IMF. “For a small fraction of the cost of the Iraq war, which has made us so many enemies, we could make many friends,” he says.

I thought this was a terrific essay, even if a bit lacking in details, because that is appropriate for delivering a big picture vision of the future and the intentionality behind it. Richardson doesn’t have the magical rhetorical skill of Obama, but he knows exactly what he stands for and what he wants to do, and he is capable of conveying that vision to an audience. It’s impressive. He is a long shot for the presidential nomination only because he doesn’t get the media coverage and he is not as photogenic as some other candidates, but on foreign affairs, he is electable.

Political Legitimacy

2007-12-05T11:19:00.000-08:00

Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party won 64% of the vote in recent Russian elections, assuring that his loyalists control the rubber-stamp Russian parliament. International election observers (most of whom were barred by Putin from the country), including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe, condemned the conduct of the election, calling it unfair and undemocratic (Telegraph.co.uk 12/3/07). The Economist called it a “sham election” (Economist 12/1/07).

Actually, Mr. Putin himself was not up for reelection, but only lent his name to the United Russia party packed with his people. Putin is actually not even a member of that party, but by associating himself with it and ensuring its victory, he can interpret the result as a referendum on his leadership and as a mandate to continue running the country even after his term as president expires next year.

How was it done? Small parties were banned from fielding candidates and also banned from forming coalitions. The minimum turnout rule was abolished so the vote would be valid even if hardly anybody voted. Opposition leaders were harassed, arrested, and had their bank accounts frozen. State-run television covered only Putin’s party. Opposition party rallies were violently broken up by police. Opposition leader and former chess champion Gary Kasparov, was jailed for five days and denied a lawyer, one week before the election. Charges of polling place obstruction and ballot box stuffing were widespread.

But the puzzling question is, why bother? What is the point of having a mock election? Why doesn’t Putin just consolidate his power and either continue to run the country from the sidelines, as Chairman Deng did in China in the ‘80s, or invalidate the constitution and continue as president. Nothing could stop him from either path. Or, most simply, he could have a free and fair election and win it using the state controlled media and its power of censorship. Why didn't he do any of those things?

Ostensibly, Putin wants to have the “legitimacy” of a popular mandate. But that raises two questions. 1. Why should he care about legitimacy? Lots of other dictators don’t have democratic legitimacy and they get along just fine. What does the mantle of legitimacy do for him? 2. Who is fooled into thinking he has achieved political legitimacy with a fraudulent election? The election observers were not fooled. Foreign governments are not fooled. The opposition parties are not fooled. Possibly the majority of Russian people will be fooled. But even if they are, the question cycles back to the first one: why does that matter?

I have the same question about governments that invent “pretexts” to invade other countries, as Germany did when invading Poland in 1939, Iraq into Kuwait, the U.S. into Iraq, or the Soviet Union on many occasions, or countless other examples. What is the purpose of a pretext? Why not just invade “Because we want to and we can.”

Are the perpetrators genuinely ashamed of their actions and thus need a cover story to save face? But the cover story is patently transparent, so what can it possibly hide or save? And if the perp knows the action is wrong, why do it in the first place? Or, if it is wrong and done without shame, why isn’t the reason simply “We want to invade for selfish gain, and we can, so we will.”

When the US invaded Iraq, the pretext of WMD’s was to deceive the American people and many foreign leaders too, presumably giving political legitimacy to the move. What would have happened if the US had dispensed with all that theater and just announced, “We’re invading Iraq now. Join in or stand aside.” Why did the government need “political legitimacy” to act?

In the US, to take such an action without the cover of political legitimacy would be at least immoral, definitely illegal, and would certainly result in the impeachment of the president. Since the pretext was effective, congress and the news media were duped, a veneer of legitimacy was achieved, and the president kept his job.

But that would not be the case in Putin’s Russia, which is only a pretend democracy and has no real need for political legitimacy. Putin faces no political risk from acting by fiat. So why did he spend so much effort constructing a see-through fig leaf?

The answer has got to be that most people are stupid. If that is right, then in the future, Putin will be able to act offended if his supposed “legitimacy” is questioned, and some crowd of stupid people will believe him, allowing him to negotiate with more strength than he otherwise would have standing alone. Is that the game?

Is the White House Serious About Mideast Peace?

2007-11-29T12:21:00.000-08:00

The Bush administration seems quite proud of the recent peace talks in Annapolis MD, between Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, with Syrian and Saudi delegates also in attendance. While this meeting was mostly a publicity stunt by a lame duck desperate for an honorable mention in the history books, I grudgingly admit that it may actually have rekindled a process that could lead to peace.

Even so, I am not seeing the intellectual engagement by the White House that is necessary to make this process succeed.

For example, I noticed a well-written letter to the editor in the Financial Times online (www.ft.com/home/uk, “Let's start talking about a single-state solution,” November 28 2007 02:00), that argued against a two-state solution in the middle east.

Martyn Turner pointed out that “The starting point for all previous talks has been the partition of the land into two states. This immediately creates problems, Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees being the two most obvious. It would create a Palestinian state comprised of two disconnected pieces of land, which would never be a viable state, especially since the connection would be controlled by Israel.” Turner therefore recommends a one-state solution, although he does not say what that means.

I think the geographic argument is valid. Like East Pakistan and West Pakistan, two disconnected terrains can probably not survive as a single political entity. We are already seeing the beginnings of a spinoff of Gaza into a state separate from the West Bank. So maybe a three-state solution will unfold from a two-state solution. That would not be so bad.

Turner implies that the problems of a two state solution (such as Jerusalem and refugees) are intractable and therefore not worth considering. I suspect Mr. Turner is not in the foreign service. Surely the status quo is intolerable, making any alternative worthy of consideration.

There are several ways Jerusalem could be divided or shared, none of them perfect, but none impossible. There have been divided cities before, such as Berlin.

Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is correct to foresee that if refugees flooded Israel, they would soon outnumber Jews and a political rights situation would develop similar to that in apartheid South Africa, and eventually, Palestinians would control Israel. That logic seems impeccable to me, so there is no way Israel is going to open the door to Palestinian refugees, ever.

But other solutions may be possible: Reparations, relocations, compensation, etc. Israel is sitting on a lot of Arab land it acquired in 1967. A tradeoff is not inconceivable. There have been parallel refugee situations in history, not the least of which involved Jews returning to Europe after WWII.

I think the greatest barriers to peace are not these obvious issues. A more serious one is, do the Israelis have the political will to withdraw from the West Bank and abandon all those illegal settlements? That’s like asking Americans to agree on abortion or prayer in schools. I can’t see it happening. Can the Arab states restrain the fanatics who would continue to lob rockets into Israel? I don’t see such restraint happening either.

The big problems arise from ideological zeal, not the practicality of partitioning the geography. I am therefore not optimistic about this new impetus to peace. Nevertheless, no problem is utterly hopeless. Does the Bush administration have the motivation or even the intellectual capacity to address such problems creatively? There is no evidence of it.

Smart Power

2007-11-08T14:23:00.000-08:00

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a Washington, D.C. think tank founded in 1962, “dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people.”

They have just released a report: A smarter, more secure America (online at www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf ), nominally authored by commission co-chairs Richard Armitage and Joseph Nye, supported by 10 conservative and 10 liberal eminent committee members.

Even to a political cynic like me, this is a powerful, optimistic, hopeful report, very well written with intelligence and fairness. I hope every ’08 presidential candidate reads it closely. I urge readers to ignore news media summaries and just read the report itself.

The report begins by distinguishing hard and soft power: “To maintain a leading role in global affairs, the United States must move from eliciting fear and anger to inspiring optimism and hope.” That’s so-called “soft power.”

Hard power is guns and money.

By complementing U.S. military and economic might with greater investments in soft power, America can build the framework it needs to tackle tough global challenges. That’s “smart power.”

I hate the report’s slogan, “smart power” because it sounds so much like the recommendation your boss gives you when your department is oversubscribed and underfunded. “You don’t need to work harder. Just work smarter!” Not once has my reaction been to slap my palm to my forehead and exclaim, “If only I had thought of that!” Nevertheless, as political slogans go, “smart power” should go down easily.

The report starts with the observation that, “Americans are unified in wanting to improve their country’s image in the world.” That’s true (there are data to prove it), and it is also a good thing, for national pride indexes the cohesion of the polity. And yet I would say it is not important; mere egocentricism.

Noam Chomsky described a youthful epiphany in some interview I saw long ago, “It suddenly occurred to me, why do I care if my team wins?” Like sports fans’ affiliations, national pride is a feel-good, but not a consequential consideration for protecting America’s peace and prosperity. At least that’s what I would have said prior to reading this report.

The report makes the case that hard power, military and economic, is inadequate in the long run to sustain America’s influence in the world. We need also to invest in soft power, for our own benefit.

“The goal of U.S. foreign policy should be to prolong and preserve American preeminence as an agent for good. Achieving this goal is impossible without strong and willing allies and partners who can help the United States to determine and act on priorities.”

There is doublespeak in this assertion. We want to assure American preeminence in the world but we want to do it with allies who help us determine our priorities? How can you be preeminent if your priorities are set by a committee? That is exactly the criticism the Bush campaign leveled against Kerry’s internationalist views in the 2004 election.

Another problem is that foreign policy should assure that America is an agent for good. Who decides what is “good?” Why we do, of course! In other words, the goal of our foreign policy should be to trample all who do not agree with our values. Naturally we like to assume that our way is the best way. But that’s flawed, sociocentric thinking.

Surely we are more good than the Axis of Evil, or any number of other “evildoers,” but is America inherently more “good” than France? Turkey? Russia? Pakistan? Who says so? If we wish to dominate the world just because we want to, then let’s say so squarely and not hide behind some self-ascribed moral superiority. Sadly, the report starts out with a flawed foreign policy goal.

Even “preeminence” is doubtful as a goal. Where does it say that America should be preeminent in the world? Other countries might prefer other systems of government reflecting other sets of values. Why should the whole world look like us? Should we be preeminent in war, culture, the arts, finance, everything? That is megalomaniac vision to be feared, not embraced.

But eventually, the CSIS report gets beyond that naïve silliness (or political pandering) and lays out the real issue:

“Soft power is the ability to attract people to our side without coercion. Legitimacy is central to soft power. If a people or nation believes American objectives to be legitimate, we are more likely to persuade them to follow our lead without using threats and bribes. Legitimacy can also reduce opposition—and the costs—of using hard power when the situation demands.”

America happens to be top dog in the world at this moment in history. We are the Roman empire of our times. It won’t last; it never does. Civilizations rise and fall. But we should not waste our moment in the sun.

It makes sense to leverage our hard power with so-called soft power to be a model of the values we espouse. We can be forthright about our intentions to promote peace, prosperity, freedom, and human dignity in the world, but we can’t promote those values through hard power alone. We must do it by example, by living up to our own values, and by facilitative leadership, resulting in what the CSIS calls smart power.

The report says, this is “ an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions at all levels to expand American influence and establish the legitimacy of American action.”

The key word is “legitimacy.” In order to be influential in setting policy, we have to have moral and intellectual legitimacy. If you bully someone into agreeing with you, you get compliance, not consensus, and not legitimacy. We get legitimacy by listening respectfully and genuinely to others, compromising, and above all, by walking the walk. This is far beyond “carrot and stick” diplomacy. This is leading by example.

“We must strike a balance between the use of force against irreconcilable extremists committed to violent struggle and other means of countering terrorism if we want to maintain our legitimacy.”

The report acknowledges that “wielding soft power is especially difficult, however, because many of America’s soft power resources lie outside of government in the private sector and civil society, in its bilateral alliances, or through its participation in multilateral institutions.”

The last part of the report give numerous examples of what America should do to re-establish its moral and intellectual legitimacy in the world, for the purpose of developing the smart power we need to get others to work with us instead of against us. Some recommendations are starkly simple, like close the Guantanamo Bay detention center right now.

Others are much more sophisticated, long term, and farther reaching, such as placing extraordinary emphasis on global education, public health, fair trade, sustainable energy, and institutional transparency. The report admits that the U.S. would end up paying a disproportionate share for such initiatives, but argues that we would be the largest beneficiary of their outcomes.

Many of the presidential candidates have developed similar recommendations for their campaigns but without the convincing strategic rationale that the CSIS report provides. The result is a hodge-podge of candidate recommendations that are not well justified in US foreign policy.

Clinton and Edwards, for example, are keen on global education and health, but are not convincing in saying how those initiatives would serve US long term interests. McCain emphasizes free trade as a way to promote economic prosperity throughout the world, without linking that to an integrated foreign policy. He is much more interested in hard power.

McCain, Guliani, and Clinton all want to promote “democracy” throughout the world, without a clear vision of why that is a good thing to do. Obama is fully aware of the need to engage multilaterally to assure that US interests are well-served, but does not connect that to other elements of soft and hard power. All candidates will benefit from reading this report.

There are many interesting recommendations in the report, several that no candidate has addressed at all. They fall into five categories:

Alliances, partnerships, and institutions: Rebuilding the foundation to deal with global challenges;
Global development: Developing a unified approach,starting with public health;
Public diplomacy: Improving access to international knowledge and learning;
Economic integration: Increasing the benefits of trade for all people;
Technology and innovation: Addressing climate change and energy insecurity.

The weaknesses of the report are two. First, it does not give a clear explanation of the equation, hard power + soft power = smart power. It’s pretty obvious that if you provide people with humanitarian goods, they will like you and you will buy some soft power. But how does that integrate exactly with hard power? How would we improve “access to international knowledge and learning” in Iran, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe? That’s where the politicians need to flesh out the ideas in pragmatic ways.

Another weakness of the report is in the vagueness of many of its recommendations for developing smart power. For example,

“The United States should take a leadership role within international institutions to create a common principles charter outlining the principles of sound energy policies and practices that serve as the foundation for global energy security.”

That sounds nice on the ears, but if I try to understand what it actually says, I come up with nothing. Again, this is where the politicians need to step in.

The report was released almost one year to the day before the next presidential election, plenty of time for all aspirants to absorb it into their pores. We can only hope.

McCain on Foreign Affairs

2007-11-02T08:46:00.000-07:00

In the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, John McCain presents an essay about what he would do as president, with respect to foreign affairs (McCain, J. (2007). An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom: Securing America's Future. Foreign Affairs, 86 (6), Nov/Dec. www.foreignaffairs.org). The essay is one of a series by 2008 presidential hopefuls. I have previously reviewed essays by Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Rudolph Guliani, and Hillary Clinton.

Unlike many of the other candidates’ essays, McCain’s is remarkably free of equivocation and vague hedging. He does sometimes use terms loaded with undocumented, implied meaning, which is a way to avoid saying directly what one means, but aside from those flaws, his message is simple: The U.S. should lead a consortium of democratic countries to isolate and bully those who do not see the need for democratic government and free market capitalism. In this regard, McCain’s message is similar to Guliani’s.

Like Clinton and Edwards, McCain is convinced of American exceptionalism. He quotes Alexander Hamilton: “We are a people of great destinies.” McCain states without qualification that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are “eternal and universal.” He quotes Truman: “God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose.” (I wonder how Truman would know that.) McCain swears that “We are a special nation, the closest thing to a ‘shining city on a hill’ ever to have existed.” He quotes Thomas Jefferson, saying that America is “the sole depository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government, from hence it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth…”

Some flag waving is to be expected from any presidential candidate, but I get the impression that McCain is not just gesturing here. He seems to believe deeply and without question that America is God’s chosen country; that it is our duty to proliferate the American Way across the world. That kind of talk gives me the creeps.

I have heard almost identical statements from Islamist extremists about their ideals. They also believe they are God’s chosen people. They also believe it is their duty to convert the world to their way of thinking and living. What is the difference, except we were born here and they were born there? McCain’s approach seems to be, “Well, it’s us or them, so let’s just make sure we prevail.”

This is such a primitive, absolutist world view that I think it qualifies McCain as “extremely dangerous.” I thought maybe Clinton’s flag waving could have been standard political gesturing to express sincere patriotism. Edwards’ flag waving was more disturbing because of its religious undertones. Romney’s was imbued with blind absolutism. In this respect, Guliani and Obama seem more rational to me than other candidates considered so far. Clinton, Edwards, and Romney worry me. McCain frightens me.

Basically, McCain would gather all the world’s democracies into a vast club to present a united front of values and economic and military force against terrorism. He is not perfectly clear who would be in this club, which he calls the League of Democracies. Members would have to be democracies, but he would exclude Venezuela because it does not embrace a free-market economy, and Russia because it isn’t “highly industrialized. ” In fact, McCain would kick Russia out of the G-8, but he would include relatively unindustrialized India. He would exclude the democratically elected Palestinian Hamas.

Like Guliani’s similar “International System,” membership in McCain’s club would be capricious, depending on who we like. It would include “all democratic allies or close partners of the United States,” he hopes. No consideration is given to whether others would care to join this exclusive Club of America. We found in the run up to the Iraq invasion that there were not as many volunteers as we had hoped.

The League of Democracies would, says McCain, be more flexible and ready to act “when the UN fails,” to fashion better policies and “take other measures unattainable by existing regional or universal-membership systems.” There is really no reason to believe that such a League would not bog down as the UN has. There is nothing special about the democratic form of government that assures peace and cooperation. Hitler was democratically elected, as was Salvador Allende, Hugo Chavez, Hamas, and nominally, even Putin. There is simply no evidence in history that democratic government is any more “peaceful” than any other form.

I think McCain’s proposal is a reaction of frustration to the UN’s impotence. Because of the UN’s structure, it is not easy to project American intentions through that body. Whether that is a defect or a virtue depends on your point of view. But if your goal is to have a united ideological, economic and military front against terrorists and political adversaries, it makes practical sense to do an end-run around the UN. Romney suggested NATO as the natural vehicle for that but McCain, like Guliani, would start fresh with a new organization.

McCain’s proposal for a League of Democracies sounds a little like a return to the ideological bloc structure of the Cold War. If you only talk to your friends and shut out your adversaries, you risk groupthink, and you lack the legitimacy and legality of a genuinely inclusive body like the UN. I’m not against a consortium of like-minded states to show solidarity against terrorist extremists, but it is dangerous to think it would be an alternative to the frustrating but legitimate machinations of the UN.

The War on Terror
McCain uses the administration’s militaristic slogan. Iraq is the war’s central front in the War on Terror, he says, neglecting to recall that there was not a single terrorist in Iraq before we invaded. Now that we have sufficient troop levels there, he says, we have “a realistic chance of success.” He does not define success, or “sufficient troop levels,” nor does he note that a troop draw-down is imminent. He also does not say that he would do anything different than “stay the course” to succeed in Iraq, not a promising strategy.

He does however explicitly list the horrors that would ensue if we pulled out of Iraq “preemptively.” (I puzzled over “preemptive withdrawal.” Does it mean that early withdrawal would preempt later success?) The horrors include, above all, allowing the Islamist extremists to believe they have been successful. Republican candidates in particular seem obsessed with what other people will think of them, more even than pragmatic results.

A “failed state” will provide “sanctuary” for terrorists, a civil war could develop (presumably worse than the one already ongoing), regional conflict could develop, and possibly genocide. Finally, withdrawal would mean an end to the prospect of democracy in Iraq. Some of these predicted consequences of imminent withdrawal are more plausible than others.

McCain complains that Democratic candidates who would withdraw troops right away are “courting disaster” by exploiting “the political winds at home, rather than the realities in the theater.” He overlooks the fact that the “political winds” represent the will of the people, a democratic principle he apparently disdains when convenient.

I agree with McCain though, that the Democrats have not revealed any “Plan B” for dealing with any post-withdrawal fallout, such as genocide. That is a serious criticism.

McCain claims there has been “progress” in Afghanistan although he doesn’t describe it, and says we need to significantly beef up the NATO forces and the Afghan National Army with more troops and weapons.

He would continue to work with Musharraf to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan, even though that effort has not yielded much success to date, and Musharraf is on the ropes anyway. McCain’s proposal is to make a “long-term commitment to the country” to enhance its “ability to act against insurgent safe havens.” That sounds like code for arms sales. Given the current political instability in Pakistan, adding more weapons to it might not be smart in the long run.

On Iran:
With nuclear weapons, says McCain, Iran would be “even more” willing and able to sponsor terrorism, which is to all but declare that they now do sponsor terrorism an alleged fact that has not been publicly documented. He suggests that Iran might even pass nuclear weapons to “one of its allied terrorist networks.” This is a pretty far-fetched, unsubstantiated suggestion. To me it sounds like gratuitous saber-rattling and fear mongering.

While military action against Iran remains “on the table,” McCain would implement unspecified tougher political and economic sanctions against the country in conjunction with unspecified allies, outside any UN framework. That does not sound like a well thought-out plan. What if, outside the aegis of the UN, we embargo Iran and then the Russians want to build a nuclear reactor there? Will we threaten them at gunpoint? Would that really work? The reason we work through the UN is to avoid that kind of eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation.

Maybe a better plan would be to make it very expensive for the Russians to do that, and then just plan now for dealing with a nuclear Iran in the future. At this point, I’d be more worried about Pakistani and North Korean nukes than non-existent Iranian ones. But McCain seems more concerned with “face” than pragmatics. “Tehran must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world.”

Palestine
Hamas must be isolated, McCain says as part of finding an enduring peace settlement. How would that happen? More arms sales! We must continue provide “needed military equipment and technology” so that Israel can maintain its “qualitative military edge.” That does not sound like a recipe for peace to me.

Cultural Conflict
One good idea is to put significant effort into building up moderate, rational Muslim populations. McCain would “employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal to aid moderate Muslims – women’s rights campaigners, labor leaders, lawyers, journalists, teachers, tolerant imams, and many others…” That’s a smart strategy that could actually be useful, as Clinton and Edwards have also pointed out less emphatically. I would worry that such an effort would become merely an exercise in propaganda, because it is not clear how, exactly, one would “aid” moderate Muslims other than try to convert them to the American Way. At least Clinton and Edwards had specific proposals about education and public health. McCain suggests his strategy would to “nurture a culture of hope and economic opportunity by establishing a free-trade area from Morocco to Afghanistan.” Is free-trade actually the issue here? Would it include opium?

As would all other candidates, McCain would upgrade the size and equipment of the military, but he would also create whole new branches, such as an Army Advisory Corps and a sinister-sounding “new OSS” that would “deploy infiltrating agents without diplomatic cover in terrorist states and organizations.” He would increase the scope of Special Forces operations, language experts, interrogation experts, and set up a vague, post-conflict reconstruction ‘civilian surge’, and restore the defunct US Information Agency.” McCain claims that “we can afford to spend more on national defense” than we do. Maybe so, but every dollar must come from somewhere. Is he hinting at higher taxes? That seems unlikely, but he says no more.

I like some of these ideas, although I would be wary. My concern is that if you give a man a hammer, everything looks like a nail. A vast expansion of DoD can only lead to trouble. Obviously, the military is understaffed and equipment and ordnance must be replaced and maintained. But adding whole new DoD agencies and functions sounds pretty scary.

McCain may be on the right track in trying to describe how DoD needs to re-orient itself for the challenges of fighting terrorism. We do need explicit post-conflict capacity. We do need more, and different kinds of intelligence. But the old OSS eventually morphed into the virtually uncontrollable, hydra-headed intelligence behemoth we have today. We should learn from that.

McCain’s proposals here are attention-getting but he should have talked about what specific needs would be addressed instead of jumping right in with a new org chart. Notably lacking in the proposed re-vamp is any attention to law enforcement and judicial roles.

Nuclear Proliferation
McCain says that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is based on a mistaken assumption, that nuclear technology can spread without nuclear weapons eventually following. That needs to be “revisited,” he says. Non-nuclear weapons states do not have a “right” to nuclear technology. Clearly he has Iran on his mind, but it is a startling proposal. Who has the authority to grant or withhold such rights? It’s “close the door behind me” thinking. McCain also says that the IAEA should automatically suspend nuclear assistance to states that cannot guarantee they are in compliance with NPT agreements. There is a move worldwide to nuclear power and there would probably be few countries to sign up for such restrictions. I think Clinton’s proposal of building a monitored international fuel bank is a more practical idea.

Energy Policy
Slipping into his domestic agenda for a moment, McCain says he will unveil a “declaration of independence” from our reliance on foreign oil. To that I say, “hallelujah!” It could never happen with an oil president in office. The next president simply must show some awareness of the death grip around the country’s throat. McCain would promote conservation, new technology, alternative fuels, renewables, and so on. Nothing is mentioned about changing the very concept of the user-owned automobile, mass transit, or putting pressure on the auto industry. Clean coal is not mentioned specifically even though the US is rich in coal.

McCain would “greatly increase the use of nuclear power, a zero-emission energy source.” Nuclear has zero carbon emissions, but most people would also consider radioactivity a type of emission. Until there is a safe, economically viable technology for dealing with nuclear waste, the nuclear solution flawed and short-sighted. It is worth noting that the price of uranium has tripled in the last few years, foreshadowing a boom in uranium mining in Arizona, McCain’s home state (Arizona Republic, Jan. 2, 2006 ). Would we want to trade an oil president for a uranium president?

Democracy on the March
McCain waxes rhapsodic about democracy around the world, in Latin America and especially in Asia. And as emphasized by his proposed League of Democracies, democracy seems to be, for him, the key to a prosperous and peaceful world. But it is a mistake to equate “democracy” with economic freedom and prosperity, as a brief survey of world economies will reveal. If McCain’s main issue were that people must have the right to choose their own leaders, then his emphasis on democracy around the world would be appropriate. But I think his main concern is not a point about governance, but rather, to defeat terrorism and promote peace and prosperity.

Prosperity comes from capitalism, as China, India, and Russia have amply demonstrated. What about peace? That does not arise naturally from either democracy or capitalism, as Islamic extremists have repeatedly declared. Peace comes from a multitude of factors that McCain has not addressed, such as according people the dignity and recognition they crave; from an agreed-upon definition of justice; from freedom of expression; from ongoing dialog, and from other sources. I think McCain’s, and Guliani’s (and the present administration’s) emphasis on promulgating “democracy” arises more from self-aggrandizement than from an analysis of what it actually takes to find and maintain peace and prosperity.

Conclusion
McCain has ideas and a clear vision, and I appreciate that. Other candidates would do well to observe his ethic of calling it as he sees it, and should also sniff around his ideas. On the down side, McCain strikes me as a Cold Warrior, with a new uniform perhaps, but still ready to divide the world into us and them, and beat the other side down. That could be life-threatening for all of us. Maybe his “carry a big stick” philosophy is practical, but I would rather try for a more nuanced approach to international issues.