November 2007

“Brad DeLong”:http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/11/the-republican-.html on What to Do With the Republican Party.

I find myself much less optimistic about the future of the Republican Party than Mark Schmitt. … There are, in general, three ways to compete for the majority of the vote … 3. To convince a majority that they are threatened by vicious and deadly enemies–and that the other party is, at some level, in league with those enemies … Starting early in the twentieth century, however the Republican Party has been increasingly pursuing the third: excoriating immigrants, Catholics,” that communist Roosevelt,” Russian spies in the State Department, appeasers and other advocates of “better red than dead,” rootless cosmopolitans, advocates of “peaceful coexistence” and other graduates of Dean Acheson’s Cowardly College of Containment, uppity Negroes, Hollywood, liberal socialists who want to control your life, the nattering nabobs of negativism in the press, Mexicans, muslims, homosexuals, China, atheists. … Four generations of Republican political activists have now been trained in the art of busying giddy minds with foreign (and domestic) enemies. … It’s time to do to the Republican Party what the Republicans did to the whigs: raze the structure and start over.

There are two questions here. First, the pragmatic – might the US be ready in the near future (by which I mean the next 10-15 years or so) for another major realignment in its party system, that might replace a Republican party that is increasingly dominated by torture-porn-loving all-war-all-the-time lunatics with a new (and hopefully sane) right-of-center political party? Second, the speculative – if there were such a realignment, what would the new party look like? A party dominated by moderate north-easterners (perhaps drawing in some conservative Democrats)? Some American variant of Christian Democracy, mixing social conservatism with a commitment to some kind of welfare state (“Michael Gerson”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103001822.html has been touting internal reforms of the Republican coalition along these lines, but _contra_ “Ross Douthat”:http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/what_compassionate_conservatis.php there are “stark differences”:http://web.archive.org/web/20050413014234/http://bostonreview.net/BR30.2/daly.html between European Christian Democracy and the Republican notion of faith based politics)? A party based on some kind of soft libertarianism? Or some (to me hard to imagine) synthesis between some of these strains? The floor is open (I’ll ask our lefty commenters in particular to try to refrain as much as they can from rude criticisms of the current crew, which we can take as stipulated, and to try to stick to the above questions as much as possible).

I was going to respond at length to commenter sg in the thread to John Quiggin’s post, but decided I would just bump it up to a post. I think I may fairly summarize sg as saying that some drugs are so intrinsically harmful that they must be illegal. Further, that the US wouldn’t be awash in guns and drugs “if the US would actually try and police the drug trade.” This last is just madness, on my view, and anyone who thinks different should just go peruse Radley Balko’s archives. [In fairness, it seems sg is referring to more competent policing rather than more overwhelming force and aggressive raids, but I’m unclear on how this is meant to work.]

I wanted to talk about something that would-be legalizers often hear, namely, “you’re not willing to admit that under your system there would be lots more drug addicts, and being addicted to drugs is, in itself, a bad thing.” In my experience this isn’t right at all, and everyone who advocates decriminalization will admit that more people will use drugs if they are more widely available and there are no legal penalties. This means more people would become addicted to drugs. How could it be otherwise? This doesn’t mean that I think it’s good thing for people to abuse IV drugs–it’s obviously a bad thing. But the costs our own nation incurs in the War on (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs are crushing: citizens jailed for drug possession and minor sales; the wholesale violation of civil rights that attends aggressive enforcement of anti-drug laws; the fundamental unfairness of denying sick people access to drugs give them relief. With decriminalization we would need fewer police officers, and those we had could focus on violent crimes. We could reverse pernicious trends in which more and more African-American men are shoveled into the maw of the prison system. That’s not even considering the violence and misery spawned around the world by our insatiable appetite for drugs. You’ll pretty much have to convince me that decriminalization will mean free samples of heroin-enriched enfamil before I even bother to reconsider my cost-benefit analysis. [click to continue…]

Commentary hosts a symposium on Podhoretz’ World War IV. Their question: “What Kind of War Are We Fighting, And Can We Win It?” I like this bit from Max Boot:

By publishing World War IV, Norman Podhoretz has performed yet another important public service, showing once again why he was such a worthy recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. At a time when our political leaders are split over whether we are actually at war with terrorists, when opposition to the war effort in Iraq is growing, and when apathy and complacency appear to be settling in among the public, he lucidly and compellingly explains why we are fighting, how we can prevail, and why we must do so.

My major disagreement with him is pretty minor. It concerns what to call this conflict. Labeling it World War IV assumes that the cold war was World War III, but almost nobody calls it that. Maybe they should, but they don’t. As a matter of purely historical accuracy, moreover, the cold war should be called World War V, since the first world war was really the Seven Years’ War, known in North America as the French and Indian War, while the second was the Napoleonic War. If we follow this logic, we would relabel the 1914-18 conflict World War III and the 1939-45 conflict World War IV, in the same way that George Lucas relabeled his first Star Wars film “Episode IV” after producing three “prequels.”

But merely to advance this argument is to reveal its impracticality.

I think the way to deal with this is to renumber W.W. I as 10 and W.W. II as 20. This will allow for the retroactive insertion of new World Wars, before and between the old ones, if necessary.

Please feel free to discuss the various contributions by the participants.

As Andrew Sullivan notes, Glenn Reynolds no longer even claims to be a libertarian[1] and his repudiation of this former position is shared by a number of leading shmibertarians, who are now happy enough to identify as orthodox Republicans. I haven’t yet seen anything similar from some others, such as the Volokhs, but the idea that a relaxed attitude to sex and drugs, and support for economic policies that favour your own social class (note that shmibertarians happily square their anti-tax line with support for higher taxes on the poor), can trump the authoritarian implications of militarism, from Gitmo to collusion in government lies, is now pretty much dead. Insofar as an idea can be tested by experiment, prowar libertarianism has been tried and failed (a bit more on this from Jim Henley).

The implications go further I think. Given that the Republicans are now definitively the war party (not that the Democrats have yet become the peace party, but that’s another story), it’s hard to see how libertarian Republicans can survive, any more than Dixiecrats survived Nixon’s Southern strategy. The recent decision by RedState to ban Ron Paul supporters is a pretty clear indication of how real Republicans think about this. This has big implications for a thinktank like Cato, which has opposed the war (but very sotto voce – a visitor to their website would be hard pressed to tell that there even was a war) while remaining within the Republican tent. They had a good discussion of the issues a while back, but it doesn’t seem to have had any effect.

This process cuts both ways. It’s hard to witness the catastrophic government failure that has characterized every aspect of this war without becoming more sympathetic to certain kinds of libertarian (and also classically conservative) arguments, particularly those focusing on the fallibility of planning. As our recent discussions about freedom of speech have shown, there are still plenty of disagreements between libertarians and the kinds of views represented at CT (what kinds of speech need protection, and from whom), though I suspect some of these differences are sharper in theory than in practice.

fn1. Apparently my ignorance of the further reaches of US party politics may have led me to overstate Reynolds’ candor. What’s being announced is, apparently, a break with the Libertarian Party, leaving him free to label himself a (small-l) libertarian. Thanks to Kevin Drum for pointing this out. Jim Henley, linked above, also commented on this distinction, concluding “I doubt it matters. In a corrupt political discourse, no label is much use.” and that’s about where I stand.

We’ll be doing a seminar on Dani Rodrik’s new book _One Economics, Many Recipes_ in the nearish future. Originally, the seminar was going to go upshortly after the book’s launch, but the book got out into the stores earlier than originally planned. Those who have an interest in buying the book so as better to follow the discussion can do so at “Powells”:http://www.powells.com/partner/29956/s?kw=dani%20rodrik%20one%20economics%20many%20recipes or “Amazon”:http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FOne-Economics-Many-Recipes-Globalization%2Fdp%2F0691129517%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1193945280%26sr%3D8-1&tag=henryfarrell-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325.

“This FT article”:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3cb466a0-87de-11dc-9464-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 from Eoin Callan on private equity and hedge fund managers’ efforts to fight off taxes on deferred interests has a weird undertone to it. First of all, this:

House Democrats are determined to move ahead with new taxes, so the industry has concentrated its efforts on blocking threatened legislation in the Senate, courting influential figures such as Harry Reid, majority leader. Mr Reid was toasted by industry lobbyists recently at a party held at the luxurious Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas. The event was billed as a moneyraiser for his special fund to get more Democrats elected – with generous donations suggested – and ended with a serenade by singer Barry Manilow. After the event, Mr Reid’s office indicated that the Senate leader continued to think it unlikely a bill to increase tax on carried interest would be passed before the end of this session. Lobbyists were anxious not to appear too gleeful.

So far, so run of the mill Democrats-showing-that-they-too-can-ramp-up-the-sleaze-to-11. But this is where it gets strange:

But while winning new friends, the industry is also gaining a reputation for making enemies that might haunt them as the political fight drags on. “These guys are not playing it well. They have hired too many people too quickly,” a senior Democratic tax staffer said. An industry lobbyist said: “A lot of good people are being hired, but some bozos too. They are trying to throw too much weight around but it is going to backfire.

“It is getting nasty: below the belt stuff; delving into people’s personal lives; crossing lines,” added the lobbyist, who was critical of colleagues but reluctant to repeat publicly allegations being made privately about lawmakers and congressional staff. People close to industry lobby groups such as the Private Equity Council and the Managed Funds Association are adamant they are not to blame for any sharp elbows thrown on Capitol Hill. Privately they tend to blame each other for black eyes to the industry’s reputation.

I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that Callan (who is an excellent and careful journalist, as best as I can tell from his previous articles) is suggesting that hedge fund lobbyists are blackmailing politicians and their aides over their personal lives, or doing the next best thing to it. Is there another plausible explanation that I’m missing here?

I’m writing a piece (in the form of a debate with Jason Potts) on the Internet and non-market innovation (open source, blogs, wikis and Web 2.0 more generally) and the editors asked us to say something about digital literacy. I’ve never paid much attention to this metaphor, maybe because of excessive exposure to its predecessor, computer literacy.

It strikes me though, that discussion of digital literacy focuses almost entirely on reading (how to navigate the Web, find reliable information and so on). The things I’m talking about are forms of writing.

Thinking about the rise of text literacy, the distinction tends to be blurred a bit, because most (not all) people who learn to read also learn to write. Still, there’s plenty of discussion of the importance of writing to groups (women, working people) traditionally excluded from written culture.

So, I’m surprised at the neglect of this point in relation to digital literacy, especially because the Internet has done so much to break down the asymmetry between a small group of writers and a large group of readers that characterises most communications media. Having said this, I’m sure this point has been made many times before, and I invite readers to write in with good references.

As an aside, “computer literacy” programs in the late 70s and early 80s had, if anything, the opposite problem. Lots of emphasis on how to code in BASIC and very little appreciation of the potential for computers as tools for general use.